January—Febraury 2017 MMWD Sea level rise reviews water BayWAVE study completed supply options A flooding by Ann Thomas event in Marin Municipal Water District Janu- (MMWD) is currently preparing a ary 1973 long-term supply plan to help ensure inundated adequate water for district customers the Lucky in the event of prolonged drought or Drive area other emergency. Work on the Water in Corte Resources Plan (WRP) 2040 began in Madera, a 2015 with preparation of the Urban spot that Water Management Plan (Plan), a plan continues that is required by the state for all wa- to be of ter suppliers that serve 3,000 or more concern today. connections. In September, the board Photo courtesy Marin County Dept. of Public Works determined that an “Epic Drought” by Nona Dennis could compromise the reliability of the District’s water system and proceeded t comes as no surprise that Marin San Francisco and San Pablo Bay shoreline, to expand the WRP 2040 by identify- County is vulnerable to sea level from north of Novato to the Golden Gate ing almost 40 water supply options for rise. Sea level at the Golden Gate Bridge. (See also MCL Newsletter May-June further study. tide gauge has risen 8 inches over 2016). It should also prompt the next level I of planning —that is, developing coordinat- the past century and is projected to rise Long-term planning urgency 66 inches by 2100, and in a worst case, 70 ed strategies to avoid, design for, and adapt A new urgency about the need for inches. Maps show projected San Francisco to the emerging reality. long-term water supply planning that Bay levels extending well into Marin Coun- In October, Chris Choo, Principal Plan- is resilient to extreme conditions has ty. This is not news! What is news is the ex- ner in the County Department of Public developed statewide following the dra- tent and asset value of county areas and Continued on page 9 matic reduction in rainfall in 2013-2014 activities that may be affected—thousands and ominous awareness that this could of acres of developed land; thousands of IN THIS ISSUE— residents, commuters, and major land own- be prelude to a megadrought for which President’s message—page 2 California is woefully unprepared. Most ers; miles of roadways, utilities and other concern centers on the reduced Sierra infrastructure; and billions of dollars. Editorial: Vegetation Plan—page 2 snowpack, largely affecting Central and The Marin BayWAVE (Bay Waterfront Status updates— pages 3, 5 Southern California, but alarm bells Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation) Mt. Tam Science Summit—page 6 have also been rung in the North Bay. report will provide local governments, New Marin Supervisor —page 8 At the end of 2012, MMWD’s res- property owners, and public with the data Events—page 10 ervoirs were full, but in the following they need to better understand just how calendar year (2013) they received less widespread and disruptive the impacts of Board member profile—page 11 sea level rise are likely to be along Marin’s Continued on page 8 Business Member profile—page 11 PAGE 1 January—February 2017 A Message from the President—Our work in 2017 As we begin a new destructive. We will continue to support in June for the successful passage of Mea- year, we face a shifting water conservation and efficiency strate- sure AA, the “Clean and Healthy Bay” parcel political landscape and gies as the preferred, low-impact tools for tax measure. challenges to environ- long term local water supply planning in Perhaps the largest current threat to mental protections on a changing climate. In keeping with our the protection of the environment is the a national scale. Here support for local, sustainable agriculture, potential unraveling of hard won na- in Marin, the Marin MCL will continue to support conservation tional and international climate policies Conservation League, practices and the future of ranching within and agreements. Although this is of global with the support of our Point Reyes National Seashore. scale, MCL’s Climate Action Working Group, members, will concen- While our work as an independent orga- is working locally, regularly meeting with trate on fulfilling our mission to protect, nization is strong, we believe that engag- local climate leaders to support regional preserve, and restore the natural assets of ing with a sound network of organized courses of action, including implemen- Marin County. environmental and conservation efforts tation of local climate action plans and One of MCL’s guiding principles is to provides a broader impact. For this rea- multi-jurisdictional adaptation planning give environmental concerns first prior- son, MCL will continue to build relation- for sea level rise. ity. Accordingly, we will continue in 2017 ships and collaborate with others who have In 2017 MCL will continue to carry for- to closely track the County’s Road and Trail common goals. MCL is currently partnering ward its legacy of advocating for environ- Management Plan process, preserve by with MCE in promoting Deep Green, 100% mental interests with both tenacity and preserve, advocating for the protection of electricity generation from renewable en- passion. We appreciate your support. sensitive habitats and for limiting the ef- ergy sources, as a preferred power source. fects of recreational uses where they are And, MCL actively campaigned with others Editorial —County Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan When is a Plan not a Plan? On November 8 the Marin County Open any herbicide use, no matter what justifica- away from its original purpose as a high- Space District Board of Directors (Board tion might be offered or cautions assured. level decision framework for managing di- of Supervisors) voted not to certify an Rather than take action, the Board request- verse vegetation conditions with an array EIR and to “accept” but not “approve” the ed staff to return with several options to of approaches and tools, toward becoming Vegetation and Biodiversity Management consider. a single-purpose document focused on Plan (VBMP) as a “background document.” herbicide use. Additionally, it would require This was the ambiguous outcome of an Options before the Board developing hypothetical projects for which eight-year planning and environmental On November 8, Open Space District impacts of “with herbicides” and “without process that was intended to comprehen- staff, supported by County Counsel, of- herbicides” alternatives could be compared, sively guide management of 16,000 acres fered three options: 1) Approve the VBMP contrary to the broad purposes and non- of open space on 34 preserves and 3,000 and certify the EIR as is; 2) “Accept” the prescriptive nature of the Plan. acres of private lands on which the County VBMP as an information document and not The second option, recommended by Open Space District holds conservation certify the EIR; and 3) Develop and analyze staff and adopted by the Board, seemed easements. How can this ambiguity be ex- a new “Without Herbicide Alternative” and like a way out­­—that is, continue current plained and, more to the point, be trans- recirculate the EIR, at an additional expense practice, using the VBMP as an informa- lated into a robust program for protecting of about $200,000 and considerable delay. tion resource. This is roughly equivalent all these acres under county stewardship? Approving the first option raised the to adopting the “No Project Alternative,” In earlier hearings in October, MCL and threat of a legal challenge to the adequa- even though the EIR concluded that the No other conservation organizations testi- cy of the EIR by the small but determined Project Alternative would have “greater im- fied that the management of diverse open group of opponents. The third option might pacts” than the preferred Plan. By failing to space lands requires that all professional have resolved the “adequacy” question by certify the EIR, however, the Board would approaches, strategies, and tools of Inte- analyzing a “without herbicides” alterna- throw away more than $400,000 dollars grated Pest Management (IPM) be avail- tive, but that would require considerable of work on the EIR, in effect rendering the able. Other speakers focused on just one of expense and time without resolving the EIR unnecessary and further, relegating the those tools and called for a total ban on opposition. It would also skew the VBMP Continued on page 7 PAGE 2 January—February 2017 Status Updates— Revisiting Old Projects in the New Year Tracking pending projects and de- Plan and EIR in 2009, would be occupied doing what cows do—peacefully graze the velopment applications requires a long by 2016 and would then have a chance to morning grass. memory, patience, and persistence. For- prove whether it would function as com- ty years between inception of a project pact, transit-oriented development within Easton Pt., Tiburon and its implementation— or failure to be walking and biking distance of shops, ser- Easton Pt. on the Martha Property on implemented— may be a record, but it is vices, and schools. Instead, the buildings Tiburon Ridge is 40-year project-in-wait- not unusual for planning matters such as are vacant and continue to be plagued by ing. The spectacular, environmentally con- updating general plans to remain active for technical and financial woes: leaks result- strained 110-acre site has been the subject years, if not decades. Each New Year merely ing from insufficient or absent flashing of a land use debate since 1976, when a opens a new calendar; as we begin 2017 are being temporarily remedied with plas- federal judge signed a stipulated judgment the processing of pending projects and tic around doors and windows and bright that would allow the property owners to programs will continue through the year factory-colored panels are being painted develop 43 residences.