On July 23rd, the Delta Conservancy held a board meeting. Agenda items included an overview and discussion of the Delta Land Management Workgroup Report and related activities, a brief discussion on Conservancy funding issues, an update on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an update on the Delta Stewardship Council’s activities, an overview of the proposed Delta economic indicators report, an update on Delta branding and marketing efforts, and a report from the Holland Union Gakuen Charette.
Delta Land Management Workgroup Report
The Delta is home to a multitude of restoration efforts, such as the 8,000-acreage requirement under the biological opinions, the implementation of the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Ecosystem Restoration Program, the implementation of the recently completed Suisun Marsh Restoration Plan, and other restoration efforts associated with levee maintenance and flood control projects. In addition to that, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, if approved, envisions 100,000 acres of more of habitat restoration. With so many restoration projects planned or underway, there are many questions related to the best mechanisms for acquiring and managing lands for restoration, as well as the long-term management and ownership of lands that have been restored.
Conservancy staff is recommending that the Conservancy begin to prepare itself to be a primary landowner and easement holder of restored lands in the Delta by identifying required policies and procedures as well as the relevant regulations that pertain to the state ownership of land, and identifying the staff and funding needed to support these activities.
Executive Officer Campbell Ingram began his presentation to the Board by saying they started a Delta Land and Acquisition Management Workgroup to bring together the agencies who are actively engaged in buying land in the Delta – the Department of Water Resources, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, Metropolitan Water District – to discuss issues surrounding land ownership and management in the Delta. “We understood that each group individually is running into challenges and there might be an opportunity for a better collective understanding of what those challenges are, and maybe be able to solve those problems collectively rather than individually,” he said.
For the first meeting, each agency was asked to articulate what their role for land acquisition in the Delta was, as well as what their biggest challenges were. “Their biggest challenges were consistently land valuation, the inability to value land high enough above agricultural land so that it entices willing sellers, and the second biggest challenge was long term operations and management funding for lands that have been acquired,” he said.
The agencies were then asked what they saw as their expected future roles were in the Delta for land acquisition and long term management. Mr. Ingram briefly summarized the responses, noting that a more detailed response from each agency is included in the report. “As for the state agencies, the Department of Water Resources currently owns quite a bit of land, but they are not at the point that they are ready to really articulate what they see as their future role,” he said, noting that the discussion actually helps identify the need to further vet that issue. “The Department of Fish and Wildlife owns quite a bit of land in the Delta, and they anticipate owning more if its roughly contiguous to the current acres that they own and it meets a certain suite of objectives. We, as the Conservancy, have the ability to own land in fee title but with a preference to hold easements as a priority.”
“For the public agencies, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency and Metropolitan Water District expressed that their role currently is to try and facilitate restoration, and make restoration projects happen, but they are not particularly interested in owning land in the Delta,” he said.
They also talked with the NGO communities, Mr. Ingram said, noting that there is the Nature Conservancy model, which currently owns McCormack Williamson and Staten Island. “Their expectation was to buy that land because they were effective and nimble at acquiring land, maintain it in the interim, maintain it until it’s been restored, and then turn it over to another entity.”
“There is a potential role for the Conservancy to play with regard to land ownership,” said Mr. Ingram. “There is a role that some of these agencies are hoping and expecting us to play with regard to land ownership.”
There also seems to be a collective understanding that, given the level of change that is expected in the Delta, the ultimate liability and the ultimate ownership probably needs to be the state, Mr. Ingram said. “We’re probably not going to see NGOs willing to buy land and hold land, given the level of liability in the Delta for a variety of reasons.”
Mr. Ingram said that the report discusses some of the potential mechanisms for land ownership and management. “One of the ways that the smaller land trusts and even the RCDs are interested in being engaged is through management groups, so maybe you would have a state entity that holds the title to the land and ultimately holds the responsibility for the land, but then would contract out with the land trust or an RCD to do the actual on-the-ground management of that land,” he said. “Other models are that the state owns the land and manages land, so there are several potential ways that we can look at land management in the future.”
The group also discussed decision criteria, he said. “Just some basic questions we could answer that get to clearly defining the purpose of the acquisition, thinking through what’s the best entity to be able to manage the land and what’s the best entity to own the land, and trying to present a fairly consistent set of questions that might become criteria for how we have a more collective vision of managing land in the Delta in the future.” The group also discussed challenges, such as long term operations and maintenance, liability, valuation, and coordination amongst the state and federal agencies, he added.
Campbell Ingram acknowledged that they were heavily criticized by people in the Delta for meeting with the contractors and agencies. “You can imagine the concern,” he said. “So justifiably, it would be good to bring that voice into this discussion as we had intended to. We wanted a couple of meetings to think through ideas, but in light of where we are in the Delta today, we need to err more on the consistently on the side of being more inclusive from the beginning.”
Mr. Ingram said that Tom Zuckerman was most vocal about his concern. “He suggested that the Delta community’s interest is really looking at how much land do we currently own in public ownership in the Delta, how much has been funded with public funds, and how does that fit with overall objectives in the Delta for restoration,” Mr. Ingram said. They ultimately decided that the best forum to discuss these issues with the Delta residents was through the Delta Dialogs, because the Delta Dialogs has representation from all Delta interests in that discussion.
A special session was held on June 27th in addition to the meeting of the Delta Dialogs, which included many people from the Delta. “It was really a good session,” said Mr. Ingram. “The invite list was actually provided by Tom Zuckerman and others in the Delta, so it was some of the most recognized and more vocal people on these issues.”
The group included both participant agencies as well as the Delta voices, and ultimately three areas were identified for further work and discussion:
- An inventory of what is currently in state and federal ownership, and what of that has been purchased with public funds. “We have maps of different data sets and there are some discrepancies,” he acknowledged.
- A better inventory of overlapping restoration objectives in the Delta, he said. “The Delta community, in particular, hears the expectation for the BDCP and that’s alarming, but then they also envision adding on the surrounding HCP/NCCPs, the mitigation for levee work, the Suisun Marsh Restoration Plan, and even the 8000 acres [for the biological opinions]. Although there’s a better understanding that that’s not really additive, but they see an ever expanding list of objectives that likely could take land out of primary ag production, so the group agreed that it would be good to have a continued conversation on trying to identify what those objectives are and what the fuller picture looks like.”
- The need for long term operations & maintenance funding as well as defining a good neighbor policy for restoration projects. “How does a restoration project be a good neighbor and vice-versa with the surrounding ag operation where you’re clearly identifying the potential overlaps and conflicts between the two, and how you’re going to manage those two into the future,” said Mr. Ingram.
“It was a good conversation,” said Mr. Ingram. “Probably the best thing about the conversation is that the final question was around the room was what did you find valuable, do you think this is a good conversation to continue, and are you then the right person to continue that conversation, and around the table everyone agreed that it would be good work to continue. So we have a call this Friday with a subset of that group to get a design for how to continue that discussion – whether it stays in the Delta Dialog or whether it goes back to a land acquisition focused workgroup or how we move forward.”
“What we are hearing from the agencies that there is an expectation of our role to be a landowner in the Delta, and there is a need for further work to clearly articulate a broader strategy for how we do acquire land in the Delta, but I would appreciate hearing your feedback on your expectation of our role as a landowner in the Delta, and concerns and things that we might start to really explore to understand how we fill that role,” Mr. Ingram said to his board.
Supervisor Ken Vogel said that he’d heard concerns from Delta residents about land valuations. “Right now we are talking about willing sellers; we’re talking about agricultural and developmental value, and we’ve talked about restoration value,” he said. “There’s some concern out there that someday, if the willing sellers turn to eminent domain type thing, if the restoration value is a lower value it might be used against them … So I don’t know if that’s come up at all in the discussions … ?”
“It has not,” Campbell Ingram said. “I know it’s come up as an issue … although there’s some resistance to that group looking at valuation at all. … Clearly we need to be able to value land that entices willing sellers, but be able to prevent it from being runaway, so I think really what it is is working with people that are actively doing the valuation, doing the appraisals, to better articulate what the problems are and what the potential futures are, and then trying to identify a suite of potential alternatives to address those concerns.”
“The state buys land all over the place throughout the state and there’s a process for appraisals,” said Karen Finn. “The state can only pay fair market value, so even if somebody thinks their land is worth more, we can’t say, ‘we agree with you, here’s more funds,’ so we have to be careful how we go down that road. I’m curious, what are talking about in terms of the different types of valuations? There’s only one way to value property, for the highest and best use.”
“I’m not the best person to answer that question, but my understanding is that currently, an appraiser will look at potential land values, and right now, restoration is not viewed as a potential land value,” Mr. Ingam said. “ So there needs to be some way of recognizing that additional value to the land to be able to entice willing sellers, but I do want to qualify that I’m not the expert on this at all, but my understanding is that right now, it’s fundamentally challenging to the agencies that are trying to buy land.”
“Restoration doesn’t really have a value,” said Darla Guenzler. “You appraise land based on what are the restrictions on that land, and generally what is the highest and best development.” She noted that different things will limit the value, such as a Williamson Act contract that limits the value when in agricultural use or the soil and subsidence potential which can limit the ability to develop for residential. “Many folks that are interested in conservation as well as landowners who want to try and maximize that value and think that this has such restoration potential and folks will pay premium dollar … but valuation is an economic analysis, and it is not an emotional analysis. I think it would be worthwhile in the conversations to think about having someone who has understanding of the process and talk about it because we don’t want the Conservancy or the state generally to get in the position where it’s suggesting that we’re going to back or endorse restoration kinds of valuations and so forth because that’s not how valuations work.”
“The role of the conservancy as future landowner was an important part of the debate in 2009,” said Dan Taylor. “It was a very attractive element in the bill in the creation of our Conservancy that I think generated positive interest and support for it, so I think it’s an important step to begin identifying what those issues are, bringing these stakeholders together. To clarify, as I remember the legislation prohibited the Conservancy from any eminent domain action, we cannot do that, so I really commend you and look forward to future progress that the group makes.”
Chair Jim Provenza asked how this effort related to the hub in terms of finding the best possible location for restoration while hopefully balancing habitat versus impact on agriculture. “There seems to be a preference for projects on existing land that’s owned by the state, although that might not be, given all the other considerations, the best place to put a project. How do you reconcile those two?”
“It will certainly be challenging, and where that conflict is most obvious is with tidal habitat as there’s actually very little publicly owned land or publicly funded land at the appropriate elevations,” Mr. Ingram said. “And what type of habitat. The nexus with the hub is through the landscape visioning and really understanding what the objectives are relative to different habitats and what is suitable land within that realm that would ultimately help guide acquisition decisions. But we also can’t not do the work that we need to do now until those visions are done, so we’re in a bit of a Catch-22. We’re trying to pull together the resources to be able to have that vision that guides acquisition and restoration, but also work in the world that we’re in now and at greatest value to the restoration and acquisitions that are happening now.”
“It’s a big responsibility,” said Mr. Provenza.
“Yes, and I want to say that it’s not our responsibility, and certainly not our role to address the valuation process, and again there’s resistance in that group to having that group actually work on the valuation problem, so we’ll further vet that,” said Mr. Ingram. “I think our role here, and one we play very effectively, is starting to bring people together to say, we’re all working on these issues, and it’s better if we all come together and try to work on them together with collective understanding and collective problem solving.”
Darla Guenzler asked if there had been any discussion of any of the models that are out there, such as The Nature Conservancy’s Cosumnes River Preserve, a project that consolidated organized management of properties that are owned by multiple landowners, include federal, state, county, and NGOs … ?
“Just very cursory,” said Mr. Ingram. “Everyone recognizes that that’s probably a direction that we need to go … I think this group is focusing on some of the more immediate issues which is a challenge throughout the system. Sometimes the immediate issues prevent the ability to do some of the necessary planning.”
Mr. Ingram said that an interesting thing that came up in the discussions is that the Department of Fish and Wildlife has an agreement with DWR for Prospect Island where there is just have one person who is out there fairly regularly, making sure signage is up, and just watching the condition of that land. “We thought about all the publicly owned land right now, and how many people from Fish & Wildlife it might take, and how we might expand and fund that group, because I think that’s a really important part of being a good neighbor in the Delta that we’re not meeting right now. It might be a way to have some real early value that shouldn’t be that expensive or that onerous to have those agreements and have those people out there.”
“The liability issue is a big issue for non-state private entities, particularly,” said Darla Guenzler. “We could look at the possibility of some non-state ownership and there may be some ways to address that liability. They may still not want to do it, but I know liability is an issue.”
“In terms of conservation easements, a lot of groups and agencies think conservation easements are so great because it’s less cost than owning the land and in some ways it is,” Ms. Guenzler continued. “On an annual basis, easements become more and more of a cost issue over time. … Inevitably there are costs associated with easements and having to enforce easement rights, so just as the discussions go on, do not think about easements as free or cheap.”
“Just to make the point on the acquisition of land,” said Mary Piepho. “There does exist a legal standard and framework under which government does need to function when it is looking to secure land, either through a process of eminent domain or otherwise. It protects both the public and the landowner. Fair market value, there’s always a little bit of negotiation in there, but fair market value is the driving force. I think those at the table already know that, and I think Campbell, you may need to reemphasize that … there are processes we’re supposed to follow, and it’s to protect both sides.”
Karen Finn said she was concerned about some of the statements about liability. “I’m hoping you’re telling me this is not the Conservancy’s recommendation but the workgroups that the state may therefore be the appropriate entity to assume liability for lands. We’re not advocating that right now. We’re taking that information in from the workgroup … ?”
“I don’t think its necessarily advocacy as this is more of a discussion, but from what we are hearing, the NGOs are probably not going to be willing to assume that liability, so I’m not sure who else that leaves when we’re talking about converting up to a 100,000 acres of habitat in the Delta,” said Mr. Ingram. “If we’re not ready to make that statement, I think that’s an issue point we need to really start to vet to be able to say collectively to the Delta community, here’s how we think this works.”
“Again, I’m just sensitive to a statement from the Conservancy that we think that the state should take on liability for all restoration,” said Karen Finn. “I don’t know if I’d put out the statement right now that the state may be appropriate to take on that liability.”
“So if not the state, then who?” asked Mary Piepho.
“How do we highlight that issue or where do we highlight that issue?,” said Mr. Ingram.
“Or raise it to the folks to discuss and start talking about it,” said Karen Finn.
“It’s becoming real,” said Mr. Ingram. “We have 8000 acres for the biological opinions … “
“With various landowners going to be doing restoration, I just think it’s not a blanket decision right now,” said Karen Finn.
“In my view, the issue is we need to make sure there is sustainable funding ongoing guaranteed that that easement continues and that everything that needs to be done is done in the future,” said Chair Jim Provenza.
“The Delta lands present a particular additional issue because of the water, the levees, and so forth, which is any time you own land, someone can fall, you can have an insurance liability issue, but with all the water and the levees and everything,” said Darla Guenzler. “Nonprofits hold a lot of land, but with the Delta, because of these particular structures and so much water involved, it presents huge legal liability and insurance costs, etc, because of the potential for failure of levees or state restoration projects or so forth, so just its huge, insurance liability issue for non-state actors. “
Board members discuss Delta Conservancy funding
During the Executive Officer’s report, Assistant Executive Officer Shakoora Azimi-Gaylon gave a brief budget report.
In response, Mary Peipho said, “In the discussion with the water bond and how to appropriately fund Delta restoration efforts, the local communities and Delta counties have suggested that the Conservancy be the body for funds to pass through for mitigation and environmental restoration of the Delta. Some have criticized the Delta Conservancy for its lack of success for projects that have been restored, and I, speaking for myself, have referenced the fact that we’ve not been properly funded by the state.” Ms. Piepho asks if there’s a way in the budget to define program costs, as well as the source of the funding for that program, be it federal, state, or foundation/private funds. “I think it might help without getting into the politics to share the information of how we’ve been funded – insufficiently funded, I’d say – but how we have been funded and the lack of resources which therefore creates a lack of restoration.”
Campbell Ingram agrees. “Just listing all the projects that we have and the commitments of funding that aren’t even reflected in this current year budget would show a very clear breakdown between ecosystem restoration and economic development, and how that is skewed towards restoration heavily,” he said. “ It would show a clear picture of where our focus has been.”
“We haven’t really been funded to do a restoration project, so the criticism, I think, was disingenuous,” responded Chair Jim Provenza. “The Conservancy has taken the position we’d like to do restoration projects as was suggested in the legislation that established it as one of our purposes. We’ve never been funded for that, and then, part of the opposition to funding us for that is well, you haven’t done any restoration projects. That’s part of the politics that goes on in Sacramento.”
Bay Delta Conservation Plan update
Karla Nemeth, Deputy Secretary for Water Policy, updated board members on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. With respect to the timeline for finalizing the documents, she said that after the comment period closes, it will take the state and federal agencies up to six weeks to coarsely review the comments and set a schedule. “At this point, we really do need to take a look at the comments and understand in more detail how long it’s going to take to respond to them,” she said. “I think everyone’s aware there’s going to be a lot more detailed work needed, particularly around areas of mitigation; it’s an ongoing discussion, and I think folks at DWR and the federal agencies are having more localized level with individual counties and local governments in the Delta. There will be a need for a lot more of that between any public review draft and final document.”
Ms. Nemeth said that ICF, the lead consultant on the conservation plan, has been work with the San Joaquin COG on overlap issues with that plan. “Particularly since that’s a federal HCP that’s already permitted, already underway, they’ve had a lot of concerns about overlapping, mostly cultivated lands habitat, they’ve expressed an interest in being a lead agency on land acquisitions,” she said. “They’ve been doing it for a very long time and they have a particular expertise. Our goal is that we would have some sort of MOU for consideration between the governing body of that HCP and DWR and its partner agencies in the conservation plan.” She noted they are also having similar conversations to work through issues with the South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan, and they expect to have a similar MOU to enter into with that conservation plan as well.
They are continuing to work through issues with Yolo County in the Bypass, Ms. Nemeth said. She noted that Yolo County did a localized drainage study in the Bypass, and DWR is looking at the list of projects that came out of that. In the Yolo Bypass, there are a lot of different needs, such as flood bypass, aquatic and terrestrial habitat restoration, and local ag land uses, so DWR is taking a look at some of these drainage projects for their potential dual benefits. “We’re looking at ways to work them into the conservation measure itself, which would be our first real tangible integration in the Bypass so I think that’s been a fairly positive development.”
Delta Stewardship Council Delta Plan Update
Delta Stewardship Council Chair Randy Fiorini updated the Conservancy board members on the activities of the Council. Council staff has been working on an issues white paper on habitat restoration; the goal of the paper is to discuss the current state of habitat restoration, to better define the role of the Delta Stewardship Council, and to highlight the activities of the Conservancy, he said. They are hoping to have the paper finalized for the Council’s meeting in August.
The Council is proceeding with the Levee Investment Prioritization Strategy, having secured consultants Arcadis and RAND to assist in the process. “The purpose of this project is to help identify where state funds should be administered in terms of levee upgrades and maintenance in the Delta. This will be an 18 month to 2 year project, and we are hopeful that this will be a valuable tool.”
He noted that the RAND Corporation was involved with Arcadis in a post-Katrina project in Louisiana. “The product that they developed has been in place now for two years, and the reports that we have received back is that it’s been a very useful tool, so we’re hoping to have something as such to help guide investments in the Delta.”
The levee investment strategy project is just getting underway. “One of the first things that will be done is public outreach,” he said. “There will be a heavy emphasis on reaching out to the Delta community and the stakeholders to get input early on in the process to help develop this plan.”
Lastly, Mr. Fiorini said that they are working on recruiting a replacement for lead scientist Dr. Peter Goodwin, as the assignment is only for 2 to 4 years. They have begun advertising for a new lead scientist and anticipate the process will take a year. “We have to line up with academic schedules and most of the internationally-known scientists are booked out well in advance of a year, so within the next year or two, we will be finding a successor to Dr. Peter Goodwin.”
Proposed Delta Economic Indicators Report
The Delta Conservancy is interested in producing a report describing economic indicators for the Delta that would track and reflect the Delta’s economic, social, and environmental health. The indicators would describe current conditions as well as evaluate and track the effectiveness of Conservancy and other programs intended to improve the economy of the Delta and Suisun Marsh region.
Conservancy staff has prepared a white paper that details the background, purpose, and the relationship to the Strategic Plan, as well as the approach, process and challenges related to compiling the data. This paper was shared with the Delta Protection Commission, and a meeting held with the Commission’s Executive Director to solicit input. The white paper was finalized and a report in the Board member packet summarizes the results.
Campbell Ingram said the goal of the economic indicators project is to identify a suite of indicators that can help measure the economic, social, and environmental health of the Delta. “We thought that given the potential influx of funding, given the programs that we’re going to be running for economic development, it would be very valuable to define a suite of indicators that we can understand the baseline for and we can then track at regular intervals, maybe every 5 years, to really be able to pinpoint whether or not the funding we’re putting into the Delta is having a positive or negative effect,” he said.
Some of the potential indicators include demographics, visitor supporting infrastructure, water quality, agriculture, and working landscapes. He said the total cost for the project is $92,500-$167,500 and would take 18 to 24 months to complete.
Kathryn Caldwell with the Delta Protection Commission said that there’s a lot of confusion in the minds of the public as to the difference between the Delta Protection Commission, the Delta Stewardship Council, and the Delta Conservancy, as well as their respective roles. Ms. Caldwell is concerned that this project would be a duplication of efforts of the Delta Protection Commission’s Economic Sustainability Plan, and that it will create further confusion, especially given the Commission will be updating the Economic Sustainability Plan in the next couple of years.
Campbell Ingram acknowledged the concern. “I’m not sure the Economic Sustainability Plan provides a set of indicators that you would define the baseline of and track over time, so I think we ought to be able to work with the DPC and others to explain how this is different and how it goes slightly beyond.”
Delta Branding and Marketing Project Overview
The Delta Branding and Marketing Project is a joint project between the Delta Conservancy and the Delta Protection Commission with the objective of improving the Delta’s visibility as a tourist destination, as well as promoting the Delta’s agricultural and recreational significance. The goal of the project is to create a marketing plan, develop an infrastructure to manage the Delta’s marketing needs long term, and then implement the plan. A marketing team consisting of representatives from Delta interests, such as boating, restaurants, wineries, chambers of commerce and others will be integral to the effort.
Kathryn Caldwell from the Delta Protection Commission discussed the recent surveys that the Commission has been conducting on the name for the Delta, as well as the logo. The results for the Delta name survey were that 73% preferred Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta over California Delta, which is what they will use for this campaign. “It doesn’t mean that anybody who already has a business name or other marketing campaign about the California Delta can’t continue to use theirs; obviously they can,” she said. “We recognize the value of using California as a marketing tool, but people felt strongly about having the rivers in the name, and they felt even more strongly about that when they were from the Delta.”
The Commission just started a survey to collect responses on which Delta artwork for the logo people think is best. The logo will be finalized after they get everyone’s feedback. The logos will have taglines, so they are asking for feedback on the taglines as well.
Ms. Caldwell clarified that the final decision on the logo and tag line will be made by the marketing team, which includes both members of the Commission and the Conservancy. She said the next steps are developing brand standard guidelines that will give direction how the art can be used and completing research to help shape marketing plan development.
Campbell Ingram acknowledged that its challenging to find anything that everybody likes. “There is vocal and strong opposition to the use of the Sacramento-San Joaquin from some corridors that I understand they may be raising to the Secretary’s level, so just so you are aware,” he said. “It will be a controversial issue. There are people who are adamantly unhappy about the choices that have been made, despite the processes we’ve been through.”
Ms. Caldwell added that they would be making the artwork available with ‘California Delta’ as well so they can use it for their own purposes.
Mr. Ingram said they have received funding for the second phase of the project from the Economic Development Agency ($197,500) and PG&E ($5000); they are currently mired in contract issues.
Holland Union Gakuen (Clarksburg Japanese School)
Program Lead Nancy Ullrey updated the board on the Holland Union Gakuen School, a project being done in partnership with Delta Protection Commission, as well as Preserving California Japan Towns, California Office of Historic Preservation, California Preservation Foundation, and a community group that’s formed to help with the preservation of the school. Ms. Ullrey said that the Holland Union Gakuen School is one of the few existing pre-WW II Japanese language schools left in the nation, and is especially unique because it also has the teacher’s residence still attached.
The Holland Union Gakuen is well-maintained, even though it’s not being used, she said. Architects involved in the charrette said it had ‘really good bones’ and wouldn’t be that expensive to restore. It’s estimated to need about $500,000 to bring it up to code.
In May, they recently held a charrette (planning meeting) with over 50 participants, some of whom had themselves attended the school. The meeting included a tour of other buildings in the area that have been restored that are managed under different scenarios. There are four ownership management scenarios to consider: a non-profit organization, public/private partnership, private business, or state and local government.
In the afternoon, breakout sessions were held to discuss the different ownership-management scenarios with participants. At the report back from the breakout sessions, there was a remarkable amount of cohesion and overlap in what all the different groups came up with, Ms. Ullrey said. “Most people thought it should have some sort of educational value to it and that the idea of Delta agriculture and the Japanese experience in Delta agriculture should be a big part of whatever reuse was involved, as well as hosting Japanese cultural events. The groups suggested that part of a sustainable funding source would be to sell local Delta products.”
The next steps are to complete the charrette report, currently under review and which should be finalized by end of August. The ad hoc committee has committed to continue meeting with locals to continue discussion, and a local architect has agreed to work with the Hiromoto family to apply for a National Historic Register designation for the site. The Conservancy may or may not continue on in a leadership role. “We’re working that out with the Delta Protection Commission,” Ms. Ullrey said.
Memories of Place: Clarksburg’s Japanese Language School from Donna Graves on Vimeo.
Other notes from the meeting ..
- Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza was elected Chair of the Delta Conservancy, replacing outgoing Chair Ken Vogel, who is terming out of office in December. Board member Dan Taylor will replace the outgoing Mike Eaton as Vice Chair.
- The Conservancy has received a $250,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to enhance the functionality of EcoAtlas, envisioned to be the tracking tool for restoration projects in the Delta.
- The board members reviewed and approved the BDCP comment letter with all board members agreeing with two abstentions: Department of Finance representative Karen Finn and Natural Resources Agency representative Bryan Cash.
- The discussion of the Delta Restoration Hub is not included here, as this topic will be covered in greater detail in an upcoming post that is taken from a recent Delta Science Program Brown Bag Seminar.
For more information …
