This includes a summary of questions – and in some cases answers -- raised at the three meetings dedicated to the Fish & Wildlife Service’s proposed Baylands Refuge Process.  The meetings are listed below and questions and answers were summarized by Gayla Slikas. 

 

Summary of Questions and Concerns

Recorded from two property owner's meetings 3/26 & 4/5 (with Marge Kolar

from US Fish and Wildlife Service) and the 4/11 meeting of Fred Devine's

Community-at-Large group. Input from 100 people. (Where there is an

answer, it is from Marge Kolar)

 

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?

 

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 4,200 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 4,200 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. At a recent Marin Conservation League dinner, Chief of the National

Wildlife Refuge  System, Daniel Ashe stated that the Fish and Wildlife

service is understaffed and  underfunded. How do you propose finding the

funding to purchase and the staff to manage the properties for the

17,000 acres you are studying for inclusion in the  proposed Wildlife

Refuge?

 

13. 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  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?)

 

General Questions

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.

 

21. How will you mitigate the impact on housing and transportation plans

already in  place?.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 55. There is very strong public sentiment that this should not be

determined by the  NEPA process but by a community consensus process.

 

(If you would like your letter mailed to the addressee and at least the CCs listed here, contact the webmaster at this web site.  The mailing process can be done at a time savings to you.)

 

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

 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Mel Martinez

451 7th Street S.W.

Washington DC 20410

 

Supervisor Hal Brown

501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

 

Supervisor Steve Kinsey

3501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, Ca 94903

 

Supervisor John Kress

3501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

 

Supervisor Cynthia Murray

3501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

 

Supervisor Annette Rose

3501 Civic Center Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

 

Novato City Councilman Michael DiGiorgio, Novato City Councilwoman

Carole Dillon-Knutson, Novato City Council person 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

 

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

 

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

 

*Joe Nation is Chairman of the newly created Assembly Select Committee

on North Bay Housing and Transportation