Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08171999 - C207 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • � % Contra. FROM- FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE Costa ty DATE: August 17, 1999 } un SUBJECT: LETTER CONVEYING COMMENTS ON THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICTS DRAFT LAND USE PLAN FOR WATERBIRD REGIONAL PRESERVE AT THE MCNABNEY MARSH SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND ANIS JUSTIFICATION BECOMMENDATMUS ACCEPT report from the Fish and Wildlife Committee; and AUTHORIZE the Chair to send a letter to East Bay Regional Park District conveying comments on the Waterbird Regional Preserve Draft Land Use Plan. Fl VNLIAl_ IMRACT None. FOR REC'OMMEUQATlQN18ACKGR The McNabney Marsh is a wetland located in the Martinez area just east of Interstate SBC) near the Marina Vista exit. It was formerly known as the Shell Marsh. tech of the marsh and the uplands which surround it were purchased with settlement funds from Shell Oil following a spill in the marsh. Primary landowners include the East Bay Regional Park, the Mountain View Sanitary District, and Caltrans. The East Bay Regional Park District ("EBRPD") recently released a Draft Land Use Plan ("Draft LUP")for the area which outlines management actions and assigns their holdings the name "Waterbird Regional Preserve." The comment deadline for the Draft LUP is August 20. The Fish and Wildlife Committee ("FWC") discussed the ®raft LUP at its July 21, 1999 meeting. A member of EBRPD staff was present to answer questions. At that time, the Fish and Wildlife unanimously determined to recommend the following comments to Board of Supervisors for conveyance to the East Bay Regional Park District: 1) The EBRPD should be thanked for their response to the Board's May 25 letter on McNabney Marsh and for preparing the Draft LUP. 4.0 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. �_ YES SIGNATURE: lit tt Morris Chair, Fish &Wildlife Committee RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ell, ACTION OF BOARD ON A Zas J 17. a 9 9 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX -OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ASSENT - - - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ANIS AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERER ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE SATE SHOWN. Contact: Jahn Kopchik (925) 335-1227 ATTESTED �:s t 7 . - 13 3.9 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC OF THE County Administrator's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ANIS Clerk of the Board, Maddy Book CCUN A MINISTRAT R Auditor-Controller BY , DEPUTY A:T&WSOESP€.ET Letter can Waterbird Regional Preserve Draft Lard Use Plan August 17, 1999 Page 2 of 2 2) The EBRPD intentions to open the park to public access as soon as possible should be supported. 3) The designation of the site as a "preserve", the EBRPD`s most protective parkland category, is quite appropriate considering the significant resource value of the area. Prohibition of dogs may be inconvenient to some park visitors but is necessary. 4) Crazing of the uplands should be performed via a carefully-managed, targeted, short duration-high intensity strategy rather through continuous grazing from October to ,dune. This alternative approach is recommended for this particular grassland because it has unique qualities and values due to its proximity to the large marsh complex. This approach can maintain greater (on average) vegetative cover, reduce soil compaction and erosion, and better protect wetland water quality (from elevated nutrient loading and other problems) while still providing reasonable fire protection and controlling weeds. Likewise, greater vegetative cover and careful timing of grazing activities may favor waterfowl nesting in the uplands. The recommended grazing strategy can also be refined to address any outstanding fire concerns by focusing the most intensive grazing on those areas where fire is of greatest concern, such as near homes on Arnold Drive and near Waterbird flay. The Fish and Wildlife Committee recognizes that the type of periodic grazing it recommends presents challenges for grazing managers, including the need for an off-site location to shift cattle when not needed at Waterbird Preserve. b) The Draft LUP should place greater emphasis on the use of prescribed fire for grassland management. 6) The Draft LDP includes too many trails for a park of this size and sensitivity. One primary loop trail is suggested as an alternative to reduce fragmentation and disturbance. 7) The proposed hog fence is a good idea that will help to keep dogs out of the marsh. However, it is unlikely to deter foxes, as predicted in the Draft LUP. 3) The Fish and Wildlife Committee supports elements of the Draft LISP which call for protecting the small swales at the foot of the hill, as these areas tend to be quite wet for an extended period of time and may be damaged by general grazing practices and the resulting "potholed" soil. However, use of fences around the edges of these swales is recommended to accomplish this objective, rather than placing racks in the swales to deter cattle, as is proposed in the Draft LUP. Fences seem a more practical, less disruptive approach. The Fish and Wildlife Committee does not share the concern apparently expressed by some that moving the existing fence to include swales in the transition zone would be aesthetically undesirable. This alternative placement of the fence seems no less attractive than the current fence configuration. 9) Plans to remove unnecessary fencing are a good idea. The Fish and Wildlife Committee is open to discussing how it might assist in this manner and recommends that rel-roved materials be used to provide the extra fence length needed to include swales in the transition zone. 1 D) Vegetation management practices in the transition zone need to be more explicitly defined. The Draft LUP list a host of techniques which may be used, including grazing, herbicide application, prescribed fire, but doesn't provide enough detail or assurance that these techniques will be used cautiously in this sensitive area. 1 1 ) As a process concern, the Fish and Wildlife Committee would have preferred that a longer comment period be provided for the LUP or that the comment period spare a period other than August to provide the Committee and others with a greater opportunity to assess and comment on the document. ATTACHMENTS' recommended text of letter or Draft LUP A:\r&WBoEBP.L T phi� sat--'he�or The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the Board an d Couinty Admirlistration Sulidling County Acm;mstrator Cosia 651 Pine Street, Roorr 106 1- Ma-mez, Ca!(fornia 94553-1293 Counly john. GWIa, 111DII�Str;cl — Gaye B. Wikarna,211 District Donna Ger:er, -TI District Mark DeSeulnier, 41' District Joe Cartciam. Hia, 5" District '15 August, 17, 1999 Mr. Pat O'Brien, General Manager East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Re: Comments on the Waterbird Regional Preserve Draft Land Use Plan Dear Nfr. O'Brien: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has authorized this letter to convey comments on the Waterbird Regional Preserve Draf Land Use Plan ("Draft LUIP"). This letter and its contents are based on advice from the Contra Costa County Fish and Wildlife Comn-dttee, a committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors to provide information and advice on issues affecting the fish and wildlife resources of Contra Costa County. The Board of Supervisors and the Fish and Wildlife Committee appreciate your agency's response to our May 25 letter concerning management planning at McNabney Marsh and welcome the development of the Draft LUP as a means of framing management issues and defining needs for continued interagency coordination. Furthermore, development of the LLT, is a key step in the process of opening the area to public access, an important milestone in the transformation of this highly visible wetland fi-tam a degraded oil spill site to valuable public resource. The Board and the Committee support opening this new preserve to pubic access as soon as possible. Concerning other aspects of the Draft LUP, the Fish and Wildlife Committee has recommended the following comments: 1) The designation of the site as a"preserve", the EBRPD's most protective parkland category, is quite appropriate considering the significant resource value of the area. Prohibition of dogs may be inconvenient to some park-visitors but is necessary. 2) Grazing of the uplands should be performed via a carefully-managed, targeted, short duration- high intensity strategy rather through continuous grazing from October to June. This alternative approach is recommended for this particular grassland because it has unique qualities and values due to its proximity to the large marsh complex. This approach can maintain greater(on average) vegetative cover, reduce soil compaction and erosion, and better protect wetland water quality (from elevated nutrient loading and other problems) while still providing reasonable fire protection and controlling weeds. Likewise, greater vegetative cover and careful timing of grazing activities may favor waterfowl nesting in the uplands. The recommended grazing strategy can also be refined to address any outstanding fire concerns by focusing the most intensive grazing on those areas where fire is of greatest concern, such as near homes on Arnold Drive and Mr. Pat O'Brien August 17, 1999 Page 2 of 2 near Waterbird Way. The Fish and Wildlife Conunittee recognizes that the type of periodic grazing it recommends presents challenges for grazing managers,including the need for an off-site location to shift cattle when not needed at Waterbird Preserve. 3) The Draft LUP should place greater emphasis on the use of prescribed fire for grassland management. 4) The Draft LUP includes too many trails for a park of this size and sensitivity. One primary loop trail is suggested as an alternative to reduce fragmentation and disturbance. 5) The proposed hog fence is a good idea that will help to keep dogs out of the marsh. However, it is unlikely to deter foxes, as predicted in the Draft LUTP.' 6) The Fish and Wildlife Committee supports elements of the Draft LUP which call for protecting the small swales at the foot of the hill, as these areas tend to be quite wet for an extended period of time and may be damaged by general grazing practices and the resulting "potholed" soil. However, use of fences around the edges of these swales is recommended to accomplish this objective, rather than placing rocks in the swales to deter cattle, as is proposed in the Draft LUP. Fences seem a more practical, less disruptive approach. The Fish and Wildlife Committee does not share the concern apparently expressed by some that moving the existing fence to include swales in the transition zone would be aesthetically undesirable. This alternative placement of the fence seems no less attractive than the current fence configuration, 7) Plans to remove unnecessary fencing are a good idea, The Fish and Wildlife Committee is open to discussing how it might assist in this manner and recommends that removed materials be used to provide the extra fence length needed to include swales in the transition zone, 84 Vegetation management practices in the transition zone need to be more explicitly defined, The Draft LLTP list a host of techniques which may be used, including grazing, herbicide application, prescribed fire,but doesn't provide enough detail or assurance that these techniques will be used cautiously in this sensitive area. 9) As a process concern, the Fish and Wildlife Committee would have preferred that a longer comment period be provided for the LUP or that the comment period span a period other than August to provide the Committee and others with a greater opportunity to assess and comment on the document. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft LUP and for your consideration of these suggestions. The Fish and Wildlife Committee also wishes to thank Karen Parsons of EBRPD staff for attending the Committee's meeting and answering their many questions. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact John Kopchik of our Community Development Department at (925) 335-1227. SinOle in oe C ciami a, Chair ru a Costa Co bounty Board of Supervisors v M 1 sh M 2 t visory cc: -Nfike Rugg, Chair, M i.'-abney Marsh Management Advisory Committee AAFAWEBRMCOM