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