Gary Frugoli

President

Ted Van Midde III

Vice President

Oliver Dibble

Treasurer

Klif Knoles

Secretary

David F. Trahan

Vice President

May 1, 2001 Peter Arrigoni

General Manager

Charles Houghten

Chief, Division of Refuge Planning

U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE. 11th Ave.

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

Dear Mr. Houghten,

Tonight is the second “Open House” given in Mann County to hear about the “Proposed Marin Baylands National Wildlife Refuge”. Although it will be difficult to be present at each table to hear what is being said, we do expect to learn more of your proposed project, Nonetheless, we must further express our concerns with the process as it has proceeded so far as well as with the information which has been made available to this point.

Communication with all Mat-in County citizens regarding the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service “Marin Baylands National Wildlife Refuge” proposal has at least improved to the extent that Marin Builders Exchange this month received a copy of your “Planning Update 2”. That same bulletin listed some 31 “comments, concerns and issues raised as a result of your November 30, 2000 “Open House”. It is interesting, however, that in spite of five months passage since that exposition there are no published FSW answers to these comments, concerns and issues. Why is this?

Your “Planning Update 2”, in the last paragraph of Page 2, says the proposal”.. .does not interfere with private property rights”. It is impossible to believe that U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service staff are so naive as to believe that or that we are so gullible as to accept that. The very presence of governmental proposals impacts plans for all properties adjacent to the action proposals. Further, that the U. S. government does not own the property defined by the proposal does not in the least reduce the influence this study has on private property. The fact that the first presentation last year was made without communication to all Marin County organizations adds to our concerns because of the secretive manner in which the planning has progressed so far and in which the planning seems to continue to proceed.

We will reiterate, and expect a written response, to many of the same questions already raised but still unanswered:

1. How did FWS determine there was a need for the proposal?

2. With whom did FWS discuss the concept and parameters of the Mann Baylands project?

3. Since the FWS proposal is termed a “wildlife refuge”, is all building within the area barred?

4. Your letter of March 6, 2001 to us states, “Refuge establishment does not prevent landowners with a refuge boundary from developing their land.” Does this mean there are no constraints or some constraints on construction? How is the determination for proper land use to be established?

5. Is there any appeal process, apart from litigation, included in the proposal’s evolution?

6. Since the proposed refuge area appears to include property considered for rail/bus transit, will this proposal ban that potential?

7. Does FWS plan on at least an environmental study as to the impact of this proposal on housing and other community needs?

We are still concerned with the process under which this proposal is proceeding. At this time, there should be more FWS response and information than is currently available, or evident, to the comments, concerns and issues already expressed about this proposal. When will this information be available and under what time schedule will this proposal proceed?

Sincerely yours,

Peter R. Arrigoni

General Manager

PRA:n

cc: Mann County Board of Supervisors

Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, Portland, Oregon

Mange Kolar, Refuge Complex Manager, Newark, California