Newark, CA 94560

RE: Marin Baylands National Wildlife Refuge

Dear Ms. Kolar:

This letter is to follow up issues and questions that were raised during your presentation to members of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce on March 2, 2001. I attended as a representative of the League of Women Voters of Marin County. I also was the League’s representative on the St. Vincent’s/Silveira Task Force, whose report of May 3, 2000, you said you are currently reviewing,

In a letter to Cathy Osugi, dated February 20,2001, (please. see. attached copy) the League concentrated on two areas of concern regarding the refuge study: the process used and the boundaries chosen. The former has been well aired; the latter remains a problem.

Having read the “Refuge Planning Information Brochure 3 of 4” that you distributed on March 2, I ask for your response to the following questions, all of which are directed specifically to the St. Vincent’s/Silveira property that lies between the railroad tracks and Highway 101:

1. On what basis did you decide to evaluate that area to determine if detailed planning were appropriate? What was the public input at this point?

2. After you had gotten approval to conduct detailed planning, what was the basis for your including that area within the study boundaries? What was the public input at this point?

3. Who, besides yourself, actually made the decisions to evaluate tug area and then include it in the study area?

In its “Preliminary Project Proposal” for the Mann baylands refuge, dated March 1999, the Service stated that it. work would be consistent with the San Francisco Bay Estuary Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. On March 21 pointed out to you that the Goals Project map, contained in its 1999 final report, differed from your study area map in one crucial area: the project map boundary stopped at the railroad track; your map included the area from the tracks all the. way to Highway 101.

I was especially puzzled by this change because there were a number of Service staff people, listed in the (Goals Project’s “Resource Managers Group”. Also, the change in your map is contrary to the Estuary Project boundary information that has been provided to the groups that have studied this property throughout the years, including the most recent, the St Vincent’s/Silveira Task Force. The project map also has been relied on by the county in its planning for the San Pablo baylands.

On March 2 you explained the discrepancy in the maps by saying that the areas between the tracks and Highway 101 “used to be wetlands”. You said you used historic maps that showed this to be so

4. Please supply me with references to these maps and whatever other sources you used to support your claim. I have talked with a number of informed people since March 2 who are riot aware of the maps and sources and want to review them.

As you could tell by the tenor of the March 2 meeting, there is much controversy aver the inclusion of this particular piece of property in your study area; other interest groups and elected officials in the. community are equally upset.

The League is anxious to see that the process of defining the study area is seen as fair and open. Your cooperation in answering these questions in a timely manner would help achieve that goal. I anticipate hearing from you by the end of this month.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely.

Judy Binsacca

Cochair (land use)

Transportation/Land Use/Housing Committee

Note. Please reply to me at: 9 Tower Point Lane

Tiburon, CA 94920

415-789-9365 (phone and fax)

tiburon@slip.net

Cc: Cathy Osugi, USFWS

412 D Street. Suite B • San Rafael, California 94901 • 415-459-0292 • Fax 415-459-0297