Report on questions and concerns raised at Baylands refuge meetings

7/17/01

To: Marin County Board of Supervisors

Re: Wildlife Refuge Questions and Concerns

Dear Supervisors,

As facilitator of a number of meetings with property owners and city elected officials impacted by the potential wildlife refuge, I wanted to submit to you the summary of questions and concerns raised. This document was submitted to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on May 1, 2001.

The comments in these summaries represent input from the Cities of San Rafael, Corte Madera and Novato, property owners and concerned citizens. All together approximately 200 people. To a person, there is no one who has been part of these discussions who does not consider themselves deeply committed to the well-being of Marin County and to protection of its' most valuable resources. Not one property owner who attended these meetings had any desire for their properties to be included in a wildlife refuge.

As you read these summaries you will note that there are very real potential impacts and questions that have been raised. The general consensus is that due process was usurped by the manner in which the concept of the Marin wildlife refuge was brought to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. There has been no due diligence done by the elected officials of Marin County, the cities impacted, the property owners nor the community at large. This is not the way to make such a far reaching decision; it is not how we do business in Marin County.

Marin County has very real issues of housing and transportation that have reached critical levels for action. Some of the most significant properties designated for housing and transportation are included within the study boundary. To make any decision that might further encumber properties designated for development along the urban corridor without in-depth study of the local issues and potential impacts makes no sense.

As all of the sensitive lands that have been targeted in the study boundary are already protected and under the oversight of multiple agencies, no harm will come by suspending the USFWS study until the county has completed their due diligence and a determination as to the need of a wildlife refuge has been established. It is not the job of USFWS to study our impacts and land use policies.

We are asking that you, the Supervisors, ask USFWS to suspend their study while you, the cities, property owners and concerned citizens of Marin County complete the work that needs to be done before we move one step forward. (To read letters sent please check www.canalways.tripod.com/)

Sincerely,

Gayla Slikas

Facilitator

5/1/01

Summary of Questions and Concerns

Re: Proposed Marin Baylands Wildlife Refuge

Recorded from property owner's meetings 3/26 & 4/5 (with Marge Kolar from US Fish and Wildlife Service), 4/11 meeting of Fred Devine's Community-at-Large group and 4/23 meeting of property owners and concerned citizens. Input from 120 people. (Where there is an answer, it is from Marge Kolar)

Please address these questions and concerns, in writing, in your USFWS Management Plan for the proposed Marin Baylands Wildlife Refuge.

Concerns

a. The capital investment of the cities and property owners must be respected. It goes against the basic rights of property owners and city planning processes to allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to usurp and devalue the local planning process which has already committed significant financial resources toward solutions for long term balanced land use in Marin County. How will you mitigate these capital investments?

b. We request that the determination for a wildlife refuge be turned back to the local governing bodies of the City of Novato, San Rafael, Corte Madera and Marin County to determine need and scope. The fact that none of the elected officials nor any of the property owners were brought into the process before a study was commenced has resulted in a highly volatile situation. How will you reconcile your management plan to the local general plans?

c. The USFWS must also recognize the unfunded mandates that will fall on the backs of the local governments as a result of the refuge designation. The price tag for mitigating the adverse effects must be considered. Flood control in Novato is a prime example. A complete study to identify all unfunded mandates and a cost analysis must be a part your management plan.

d. The establishment of a wildlife refuge in an already developed urban setting poses all kinds of problems for the existing infrastructure usage. For example, the Bel Marin Keys residential area, which is built on a series of canalways, will become refuge locked. This will not only have a significant impact on the property values, but the quality of life already established. Residents fear they will loose access to the Bay, will have to give up the right to hike the existing pathways and relinquish their right to have pets. Boundary issues must be worked out with these property owners and addressed in your management plan. Other inconsistencies of urban living and wildlife refuge restrictions must be identified and addressed.

e. Ripple effects outside of Marin will also need to be identified and addressed. For example, the Port of Oakland, to accommodate their shipping goals will be dredging a deeper channel. The current agreement allows placement of these dredged materials in the Hamilton wetlands restoration site. How will this be impacted by the refuge designation? All other projects already in the works which might be impacted by this designation need to be identified and addressed in your management plan.

f. There is great concern regarding the USFWS cavalier attitude toward the concerns that have been raised and the level of study they will conduct through their NEPA study. It will be unacceptable if there is a declaration of FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impacts). We insist that an EIS/EIR equivalent to the standards mandated by the State of California be conducted and all issues raised be studied. The social and economic issues must be studied and addressed in your management plan as well.

g. The economic impacts must be considered as well as the ability of USFWS to purchase lands. This must be evaluated on the real property values in Marin County. The 17,600 acres being considered represent trillions of dollars. The financial impact of loosing the tax revenues forever must also be calculated and mitigated.

Questions

1. Is USFWS aware that Marin County has already preserved and protected close to 85% of Marin County, including a Bay Front Conservation Zone to protect valuable wetlands. These protections are included in the Marin County General Plan and in the City of San Rafael General Plan. That much of the land that has been included in the refuge boundary is the last 2% of property left to meet the housing crisis facing Marin County. Why do we need this?

2. What is the scientific basis for the refuge?

3. How is it you could move forward and draw study boundaries and begin a study process before the community had an opportunity to determine whether the refuge was needed or desired? No elected officials, property owners or interested community groups (except the environmental interests) were notified ahead of time.

There is a very strong feeling that we need to go back to ground zero and determine whether we even want the refuge before discussion of where the boundaries should go. Who decided Marin County needed a wildlife refuge and when was it voted on?

4. Are you aware your process is already dividing our community?

5. Are you aware that as a result of a no growth environmentalist attitude that Marin County has been unable to take action on critical infra-structure upgrades for the past 20 years and that Marin County, right now, is facing a housing crisis, a transportation crisis, a power crisis, a water crisis and as a result has a looming education crisis and healthcare crisis? How will you balance these community needs in your management plan?

6. How does USFWS incorporate local general plans into their study process?

A: It is not clear what criteria USFWS uses in determining if there should be a refuge and if there is, what the boundaries will be.

7. Did Marin groups call you?

A: The Hamilton wetlands restoration project triggered inviting USFWS into the picture to manage the project once completed. Marin environmental groups had been trying for years to get them involved in Marin County. Barbara Saltzman and other environmentalists drew the boundaries and USFWS expanded them to include all undeveloped properties.

8. It is our understanding from the conversation with Marge Kolar that the Fish and Wildlife Service was asked into Marin County by the Coastal Conservancy who needed to have some over-arching agency, either the federal Fish and Wildlife Service or the State Fish and Game take over the management of the 2,600 acre Hamilton and Bel Marin Keys restoration project after the restoration is completed.

This is the largest wetland restoration project ever attempted on the west coast and must forge new grounds as a result. This is a project that is going to need an exorbitant amount of moneys not yet raised and the full attention of all agencies and community leaders to ensure that all impacts are addressed and that the best technology is used to successfully recreate these wetlands. There needs to be extensive community education throughout this process which will probably take at least 10 years.

Rather than sweep into the County and create a community war that we can ill afford, why not consider the 2,600 restoration project as a demonstration project?

Let the community determine the agency of choice and then have the experience of being successful on this huge project.

Do you understand that the properties that you want to study are, for the most part, already protected? In the ten years it will take for the Bel Marin Keys and Hamilton restoration project to be completed, Marin can take the urgent actions it needs to take to solve the transportation, housing, water, power, education and healthcare issues facing the county. We cannot afford to lock out the last remaining properties for development until these issues are locally addressed.

9. Is the designation as a wildlife refuge mandatory in order for FWS to manage the Bel Marin Keys and Hamilton wetlands project?

10. In order to make a determination as to whether the Fish and Wildlife Service is the designated agency to manage these properties, we need to know more how you operate. Please submit a list of the Wildlife Refuges that you currently manage in the Bay Area along with key local leaders in each area, including property owners, business owners and examples of how planned development was successful after a Wildlife Refuge was established as well as the average price per acre that was paid to willing sellers in the Bay Area. We would also like a summary of any complaints you have received.

11. USFWS keeps saying that being in the refuge boundary will not impact proposed development. Are you aware that already a project was pulled from consideration in Novato because a USFWS representative stood up and said the project should not be considered at this time because it might be in the proposed wildlife refuge?

A: Marge Kolar responded that there will be no impacts. That until a willing seller steps forward, nothing changes. (Many people in the audience tried to educate Marge on the difference between the examples she was giving of her experience in East and South Bay and the politics of Marin County. Being included in the refuge boundary will be the weapon the environmental extremists will use to stop all development.)

12. Property values in Marin County are extremely high. How will the loss of property values be addressed? (Are you aware in a recent court decision regarding the Marin sanitary district's attempt to condemn 82.7 acres east of the tracks from the Silveira family that the land was valued at $72,637/acre and severance damages for devaluation of adjacent property was valued at $104,000/acre bringing the total to @$177,000/acre?)

13. At a recent Marin Conservation League dinner, Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Daniel Ashe stated that the Fish and Wildlife service is under staffed and under funded. How do you propose finding the funding to purchase and the staff to manage the properties for the 17,600 acres you are studying for inclusion in the proposed Wildlife Refuge?

14. How much acreage does USFWS have in the Bay area?

A: 37,000 acres in the Bay area. USFWS is considering 17,000 acres in Marin.

15. What will be the effect on abutting properties?

16. How does USFWS notify property owners?

A: Marge Kolar from USFWS admitted they had done a very poor job in notifying property owners and that they were trying to contact as many as possible for the May 1 & 2 meetings. They have not notified owners of adjacent properties, nor addressed impacts. They conveyed that from their perspective there should be no impact from being included in the refuge

17. How can we get written responses to questions and concerns. (Questions and concerns submitted in November have not been responded to as yet)

A: Responses are going to the USFWS Oregon office and you will not necessarily get a response, if you want one you must request it.

Addressing Impacts

18. Is this project subject to environmental and economic impact studies?

A: The federal version of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA)

19. In Marin County and California, we have a very stringent EIS/EIR process that we adhere to. We need to understand what your NEPA process includes to ensure that all impacts are considered. Please submit documentation of this process.

20. Request that an economic impact study be included in the NEPA scope and mitigations addressed in your management plan.

21. How will you mitigate the loss from putting valuable land designated for housing and transportation projects into a wildlife refuge?

22. How will USFWS mitigate the loss of tax revenues?

23. Is the USFWS aware of the impact this will have on the proposed development for the St. Vincent/Silveira properties? How will you mitigate the economic loss to St. Vincent School for Boys and the loss of one of the last properties to develop much needed affordable housing for Marin?

24. Culminating 20 years of careful planning and 5 years of intensive study, the St. Vincent/Silveira Task Force worked for 19 months on a plan for development and preservation on those properties. The final report was presented to the County of Marin and the City of San Rafael on May 2, 2000. It is the last official word on the properties recommended planning status. Yet you have admitted not seeing the report before you drew up your study area boundary.

Your process will duplicate what the Task Force accomplished, in which it already has preserved the areas you claim should be part of a refuge. How can you justify wasting time and money to repeat this process which included all Marin County stakeholders, including the environmentalists, who signed the final report?

25. What protections will there be for the Municipal Airport, Gnoss Field and Smith Ranch Airport?

26. What impact will this have on expansion of the ferry service and the proposed rail project?

27. How will you work with other public agencies who will be impacted by the refuge?

28. How will this impact the proposed bay trail and proposed bike and pedestrian pathways?

29. What will be the impact on flood control?

30. What would the impacts be on wastewater treatment and disposal?

31. There are few places to restore tidal wetlands, i.e. it must be along the bay, while endangered species can have habitat other places. In choosing between wetlands restoration and protection of endangered species, who makes the choice and how is it made?

32. What will be the impact on agricultural lands?

Bel Marin Keys

33. Need a professional geotechnical engineering impact study to assess the potential impact of wetlands restoration in Unit 5 on BMK dikes and levees and development of measures to prevent damage and assure permanent sustainability for these dikes and levees.

34. How will the levees and flood control issues at Bel Marin Keys be addressed?

35. Need levee ownership clarification for the 3.5 miles of levees along the south lagoons.

36. Assurance that any wildlife buffer must be included within the boundaries of the refuge. How will you work with the residents to determine these boundaries?

37. What will be the effect on Novato Creek?

38. What will be the effect on Bel Marin Keys access to the Bay from Novato Creek?

39. How will mercury methyliation in Novato Creek be impacted by the wetlands restoration?

40. How will this impact dredging in the Keys? BMK must be permitted to continue to dredge Novato Creek and BMK lagoons for the health and safety of the community. Flood control and water quality are specific concerns as well as navigability and access.

41. What will be the impact on access to the Petaluma River?

42. Bel Marin Keys Habitat recognition. Bel Marin Keys fresh/brackish deep water lagoons have historically provided a significant wildlife habitat in themselves; resulting in a rarer habitat locally than the saltwater tidal marshes being restored in the SF Bay Area. We are already seeking funding to improve and restore this valuable ecological resource. How will these plans be impacted?

43. Request creation of a permanent committee consisting of the Coastal Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife (or California Fish and Game), Novato council member representative, the Novato Marin County Supervisor, Bel Marin Keys and Hamilton residents to anticipate, address and troubleshoot issues of common concern to develop mutually beneficial. solutions

44. No hunting/no firearms enforced due to the close proximity to residential neighborhoods at BMK and Hamilton. Designation of Coastal Conservancy property for scientific research on the progress and methods of wetlands restoration.

45. A mosquito abatement and pesticides prohibition policy as rigorous as that of the North Marin Mosquito Abatement District. Document your program for maintenance.

46. Request effective anti-poaching enforcement now and in the future by State and Federal agencies in coordination with local law enforcement.

47. Continued ability to boat, hike and fish in Novato Creek and San Pablo Bay.

USFWS Next Steps

48. Where are you in the process right now?

A: USFWS is holding two more scoping meetings to develop the study area. they will then take that information and produce a draft document for public review, then they will determine if there will be a refuge and if so, the final boundaries. The draft document should be out by Fall 2001. Ms. Kolar indicated the boundaries do not mean anything, they have no legal authority.

49. What are the rights of property owners? Can they choose to not be included in the Refuge?

50. How much weight do the desires of the property owners have in the determination as to whether a refuge should be established?

A: Their desires will be considered, but it was not clear how much weight that would hold in the final determination. In two property owner meetings, with 71 people in attendance, not one property owner wanted to be included in the refuge.

51. If the boundary is established, what assurances do property owners have that USFWS will not condemn properties?

A: USFWS does have the power to condemn properties, though they do not do it very often. There are no guarantees.

52. Is USFWS taking minutes and notes from the various meetings? How do we get copies of notes, lists of all attendees and how do we get on your mailing list?

A: Contact Marge Kolar 510-792-0222 or email her at margaret_kolar@mail.fws.gov

53. Who do we contact to change the boundaries?

A: Mike Spear, who is the Nevada office Director, will have some input at the state level, his recommendations will then go to the Director of FWS in Washington DC.

54. Is this a done deal?

A: No. The determination as to whether there should be a wildlife refuge will be made through the NEPA process.

If you are sending the letter to USFWS send it to Marshall Jones, CC everyone else (in the CC at the end of your letter put name and title.) If you are addressing a letter to one of your elected officials, then CC everyone else.

***Add***

Marshall Jones, Acting Director Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 18th and C St. NW, Washington DC, 20240.

Marge Kolar, Project Leader, San Francisco Bay NWR Complex, P.O. Box 524, Newark, CA 94560, 510-792-0222, Fax: 510-792-5828

Cathy Osugi, Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service(NWRS/RPL)

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181, 503-231-6838, Fax: 503-231-6161

Mike Spear, Manager California and Nevada Fish and Wildlife Operations

2800 Cottage Way Rm. W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825, 916-414-6464, Fax: 916-414-6486

Dan Ashe, Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 1849 C St. NW, Washington D.C. 20240, 202-208-5333, Fax: 202-208-3082, Dan_Ashe@fws.gov

The Honorable Gale Norton, Secretary United States Department of the Interior

18th & C Street, Washington DC 20240

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, 1050 Northgate Dr. #140, San Rafael, CA 94903

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1 Post St Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 4104

Senator Barbara Boxer, 12 Hart Building, Washington DC 20510

1700 Montgomery St. Ste 2, San Francisco, CA 94111

Mel Martinez, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street S.W., Washington DC 20410

Supervisor Hal Brown, Supervisor Steve Kinsey, Supervisor John Kress, Supervisor Cynthia Murray, Supervisor Annette Rose

3501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

Novato City Councilman Michael DiGiorgio, Novato City Councilwoman Carole Dillon-Knutson, Novato City Councilperson Pat Eklund, Novato Mayor Jim Henderson, Novato City Councilman John Mani

901 Sherman Ave.

Novato, CA 94945

San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, San Rafael City Councilman Paul M. Cohen, San Rafael City Councilwoman Barbara Heller, San Rafael City Councilman Cyr Miller, San Rafael City Councilman Gary Phillips

1400 5th Ave.

San Rafael, CA 94901

Assemblyman Joe Nation, 3501 Civic Center Dr. Rm. 413, San Rafael, CA 94903

415-479-4920, Fax 415-479-2123, joenation@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblyman Joe Nation, State Capitol Rm. 3128, Sacramento, CA 95814

916-319-2006, Fax 916-319-2106

Letters to the Editor. 200 words max.

Marin Independent Journal

P.O. Box 6150

Novato, CA 94948-6150

415-883-8600, Fax 415-883-5458

Marinscope Newspapers

1050 Bridgeway/P.O. Drawer

Sausalito, CA 94965

415-332-3778, Fax 415-332-8714

Novato Advance

1068 Machin Ave

Novato, CA 94949

415-892-1516, Fax 415-897-0940

Pacific Sun

21 Corte Madera Ave. P.O.Box 553

Mill Valley, CA 94941

415-383-4500, Fax 415-383-4159

San Francisco Chronicle

901 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA 94103-2988

415-479-3377, Fax 415-543-7708

Summary of Questions and Concerns

Re: Proposed Marin Baylands Wildlife Refuge

Submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service

5/1/01

Questions and Concerns Raised by:

Marin County Property Owners, Concerned Citizens, Elected Officials from the City of Novato, City of San Rafael and Representation from the Marin County Board of Supervisors

Document Prepared by: Gayla Slikas, Strategy Consultant, 5773 Melita Road

Santa Rosa, CA 95409, 707-537-9349