HomeMy WebLinkAboutJUN 11 MBHCP MINUTES
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Implementation Trust Group
MINUTES
Agenda Item 2
June 11, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
County of Kern Administrative Center
Fourth Floor Hearing Room
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
IMPLEMENTATION TRUST GROUP TO RECONVENE
Implementation Trust Group: Ted James – Kern County (Chairman)
Stanley Grady – City of Bakersfield (Secretary)
Julie Vance – CDFG Advisory Member
Tim Kuhn – USFWS Advisory Member
Donna Carpenter – Public At-Large Advisory Member
ROLL CALL: Present: Ted James, Stanley Grady, Julie Vance, Tim Kuhn,
Donna Carpenter
Absent: None
STAFF: Bruce Divelbiss, Jennie Eng, Mitch Van Wyk, Pamela Elisheva, Cecelia
Griego, Melanie Dunwoody, Dana Cornelius
* CONSENT AGENDA/OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
*
1. Approve minutes for the MBHCP Implementation Trust Group meeting of March
5, 2009.
*Resolution for Jim Movius for recognition of service as an integral staff
2.
for the original 1994 wildlife agency permits, providing negotiations with
wildlife agencies throughout the permit’s life, and successfully
implementing and improving the plan.
Mr. Movius was not present.
* Purchase of Habitat Mitigation Land:
3. For each property listed below, staff
recommendation is as follows, with the specific purchase price recommendation
listed with the property below:
(1) MAKE FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO §15313 OF CEQA: (2) UPON (A) SELLER’S SIGNING OF A
MEMORANDUM OF SALE AND ESCROW; AND (B) STAFF’S RECEIPT OF
DOCUMENTATION FROM CDFG INDICATING CDFG’S INTENT TO ACCEPT
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AT THE CLOSE OF ESCROW, AUTHORIZE CITY
OF BAKERSFILED FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE WARRANT IN AMOUNT
SUFFICIENT TO COVER PURCHASE PRICE; ESCROW COSTS; INCENTIVE
INTEREST OF .583% OF SALE PRICE PER MONTH UNTIL THE
RECORDIATION OF A MEMORANDYM OF SALE AND ESCROW; REAL
ESTATE TAXES FOR PERIOD WHICH THE MBHCG IS RESPONSIBLE; AND
PRO RATA LIABILITY INSURANCE UNTIL THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. IF
APPLICABLE, TO TICOR TITLE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PAYINGN THE SELLER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED MEMORANDM
OF SALE AND ESCROW; (3) WITHIN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF
ESCROW, TRANSFER THE APPROPRIATE AMOUN TO CDFG FOR
ENHANCEMENT; AND WITHIN 6 MONTHS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF ESROW,
TRANSFER THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO CDFG FOR ENDOWMENT,
and:
a) APN 058-250-08 (15 acres) – being a portion of the N ½ of Section 13,
T26S, R22E, MDM, County of Kern, State of California; located 3.5 miles
north of McCombs Road approximately 1.5 miles east of Corcoran Road,
John Underhill
in western Kern County. The property is owned by and
the proposed purchase price is $15,000.
b) APN 058-010-27 (81.38 acres) – being the S ½ of SE ¼ of Section 12,
T26S, R21E, MDM, County of Kern, State of California; located 4 miles
north of McCombs Road approximately 1.5 miles east of Lost Hills Road,
Mildred
in western Kern County. The property is owned by the
Herboldsheimer Estate
and the proposed purchase price is $93,587.
c) APN 058-101-13 (40 acres) – being a portion of the SE ¼ of Section 24,
T26S, R21E, MDM, County of Kern, State of California; located 2 miles
north of McCombs Road (Hwy 46) approximately one mile east of I-5, in
Kent Bowerbank
western Kern County. The property is owned by and the
proposed purchase price is $40,000.
d) APN 058-200-16 (2.52 acres) – being apportion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼
of Section 3, T26S, R22E, MDM, County of Kern, State of California;
located one mile south of the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, approximately
one mile west of Corcoran Road, in western Kern County. The property is
Peter Bailey
owned by and the proposed purchase price is $3,276.
e) APN 058-230-20 (20 acres) – being a portion of the SE ¼ of Section 4,
T26S, R22E, MDM, County of Kern, State of California; located two miles
south of the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, approximately 1 ½ miles west
Noe
of Corcoran Road, in western Kern County. The property is owned by
Martinez
and the proposed purchase price is $26,000.
*
4. Request for authorization to reserve a tax defaulted parcel (APN 044-190-07) of
Kern County Assessor Parcels, leading to the acquisition by the MGHCP as
habitat mitigation land. APN 044-190-07 is 41.91 acres located in Section 36,
George Scofield et al.
Township 25 S, Range 21 E, owned by
This was withdrawn from the agenda. No action needed.
* Update on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (PSA) prepared by
8.
Krazan & Associates on properties acquired by the MBHCP Implementation
Trust Group.
No Member commented on the Consent Agenda Items. No one in the audience
commented on the Consent Agenda Items.
Member Grady moved, seconded by Member James, to approve Consent
Agenda Items as read.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Purchase of Habitat Mitigation Land – Change In Circumstances Report:
5.
a) APN 069-192-07; 069-230-09; 069-230-34; 069-230-35; 069-230-37; 069-
350-31; 087-130-25; 087-140-16; 087-140-18; 087-160-24 (1,695.16
acres) – generally located east and west of Interstate 5, generally between
the intersections of State Route 46 and Interstate 5 and Seventh Standard
Chang et al
Road in north-central Kern County. The property is owned by
and the approved purchase price is $5,085,480. Discuss the possibility to
pursue an agreement with the property owner that the MBHCP
Implementation Trust Group will pay for up-front, the costs of the Phase II
Site Assessment recommendation on four of the ten parcels approved for
acquisition and clean-up of the ten parcels with the understanding these
costs will be deducted from the sale price during escrow. The agreed upon
purchase price has been amended down to $5,062,170 due to the loss of
7.77 acres of disturbed potential habitat mitigation land.
Staff presentation given stating that they have determined that a Phase II
Site Assessment is required on four of the parcels at a cost of $21,100,
and that the clean up for illegal dumping on all of the parcels would cost
between $75,000 to $125,000. Staff further provided that the sellers have
indicated that they are not willing to cover these costs up front, and would
be willing to have these costs deducted at the close of escrow from the
sales price. Staff indicated that they would like to enter into this type of
agreement with the sellers to obligate them to release those funds when
escrow closes, and visa versa if the Trust Group decides not to proceed
with the purchase, the Trust Group would be responsible for those costs.
Staff further provided that 7.77 acres has been determined to be disturbed
and they will not be given habitat credit. Therefore, the purchase price
has been amended to reflect that.
This was the end of Staff’s presentation.
Member Grady inquired if the new purchase price was $5 million, to which
Staff responded in the affirmative. He further inquired as to the status of
the escrow, and specifically if there were things beyond the assessment
that are keeping them from closing the escrow in a timely manner. Staff
responded that they are waiting for authorization for Phase II and the
clean up. Staff clarified that once the Phase Il clean up is done they will
package it and send it to the State for review.
Member James inquired when this item was first considered to which Staff
responded it was approximately one year ago. Member Vance stated that
a good portion of the part that was disturbed was done after the initial site
inspection. Member Kuhn added that the disturbance had to due with a
pipeline that was installed without authorization.
Member Grady inquired if they are buying the 7.7 acres at a reduced cost
or if it is excluded from the total number of acres being acquired. Ms.
Griego responded that the amended price is a reduced cost that Mitch
Van Wyk negotiated because of the disturbed land. Mr. Van Wyk clarified
that the 7.7 acres will be included in the total, and there will be an
easement, and deducting the normal price that would be attributed to that
7.7 acres from the total price. It was further clarified that would still be
acquiring 7.7 acres without credit and turning it over to the wildlife agency.
Member James inquired if some other party is going to remediate it why
they would not get the credit.
Mr. Divelbiss inquired when the package is sent to the state if there is any
indication as to the acceptability of an easement for a pipeline across this
property. Ms. Griego stated she understood they received
correspondence from Ellen Cypher indicating that they wanted to get
credit for that 7 acres and that is why they got the new price. Mr. Divelbiss
pointed out that it is not a credit question, but rather if they will take title to
a fee with an easement for a pipeline. Ms. Cypher, Department of Fish
and Game indicated that their legal staff is reviewing the wording of the
easement to make sure it is acceptable.
Mr. Divelbiss also asked that if they get their approval back if
memorandum of sale and escrow would be the technique proposed to
use. Mr. Van Wyk responded that it is going to be a 1031 exchange and
will not be any memorandum of sale and escrow. It was also questioned if
a separate agreement with the sellers would be indicated for the clean up
costs.
Mr. Divelbiss pointed out that if there are escrow instructions with the
seller that indicate they will assign some of those proceeds it will be
sufficient, however if there are no escrow instructions a separate
agreement would be needed. Mr. Van Wyk stated they will need a
separate agreement because they will not have escrow instructions. Mr.
Divelbiss stated it will require approval from the Trust Group, unless the
agreement is authorized to be signed today.
Mr. Grady stated that he would prefer to authorize an agreement today.
Ms. Elisheva asked if they are not only talking about taking the cost of the
remediation and the Phase II out of the escrow, but also what happens if
the deal falls apart, because then the Trust Group has a lot of expenses
that have put out. Mr. Van Wyk clarified that the seller is willing to pay for
the clean up costs if the deal goes through, but if the deal does not go
through he does not want to have anything to do with it.
Mr. Divelbiss clarified that they will authorize Phase II and clean up of the
properties up to $125,000 and that agreement will be that they will
compensate the Trust Group and allow those clean up costs to be
deducted from the sales price at the time of close. It was further clarified
that if the deal falls through after clean up then the seller is still
responsible for the clean up costs.
The hearing was opened up for public comment. There was no public
comment.
Member Carpenter inquired if there was a way to do a pass by the State to
see if they would accept it with the easement. Annee Ferranti, with the
Department of Fish & Game indicated that the easement language is with
their legal department and they are waiting for them to finish their review
and provide them with an opinion. They expect to have that feedback
from legal before the clean up occurs.
Member Grady moved, seconded by Member James, to approve Staff’s
recommendation and authorize the real property negotiator to prepare an
agreement and have it executed by the Chairman, subject to Counsel’s
review, to provide for the property owners signing an agreement to have
the costs of remediating the site deducted from the escrow proceeds.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
Discussion on possibility of Proposition 8 temporary reduction in assessed
6.
value by the Kern County Assessors Office for those properties on which
the MBHCPITG pays taxes.
Staff presentation was made stating that in March 2009 the Trust Group received
a letter related to Proposition 8, and at that the Trust Group directed staff to do
more research on Proposition 8 and whether to pursue it for properties that the
Trust Group is pursuing for habitant mitigation. Staff explained that the assessor
has a base value for property, and it is established by several criteria. If a
Proposition 8 reassessment is done and the market value was found to be below
the base value, the assessment could be lowered to the market value, therefore
paying less tax on the property. However, the assessment would only be
effective for the tax year evaluated, and a reassessment would occur annually
until it evened out in value. Staff indicated that this would be a very time
consuming project to track all of the properties in motion and that the potential
savings would be negligible. Therefore, Staff requested that no action be taken.
Member James commented that it was his understanding that the assessor will
be doing the re-evaluations anyway. Staff responded in the affirmative, adding
that the assessor is on a budget and there is no timeline on when it would be
done.
This item was opened for public comment. No public comment was received.
There was no member/group comment on this item.
Member Grady moved to receive and file this item.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
Continued discussion on processing backlog issues involving the State’s
7.
receipt of properties that remain in escrow and the possibility of the
MBHCP Implementation Trust Group hiring contract staff at the Wildlife
Conservation Board for processing the closing of escrows of MBHCP
habitat mitigation properties.
Member Vance reported on this item stating that they’ve had several discussions
with Wildlife Conservation Board Staff on potential mechanisms to fund staff to
work on the backlog. The initial request from the Trust Group was to get an idea
if they could do this and what the cost would be. Member Vance indicated that
after several discussions with Wildlife Conservation Board, Wildlife Conservation
Board said there is really no good way of funding a position at the level which
would be needed for this because it would either have to be a contract position,
which would take quite some time to get in place. She indicated that they
discussed temporary or student help, however there was a question about how
effective that would be to moving things along. Wildlife Conservation Board’s
final answer was that temporarily funding something could help move things
along, and that they are committed to moving these things through as fast as
possible because it is a priority. Member Vance also stated that Wildlife
Conservation Board has agreed to process these things differently from this point
forward for all of the new ones received. They also agreed that the land agent in
the Habitant Conservation Planning Branch could process these things alone and
that it would be a sign off on their part rather than dual review that had been
going on thus far. Member Vance concluded by reiterating that Wildlife
Conservation Board promised to make the backlogs a priority and that the new
things would be moving faster.
Member James inquired about issues with Fish & Game up in Sacramento, and
inquired if the 79 are being held up by Wildlife Conservation Board, to which
Member Vance responded in the affirmative. He further inquired what Member
Vance’s observations are. Member Vance responded that she could talk to the
Habitant Conservation Planning Branch about funding.
The discussion was opened for public comment. Annee Ferranti, Department of
Fish and Game commented that there were 165 total in the backlog, and they
completed 65, which meant that there were still 82 open, and 18 were near
completion. In the last two weeks they have received several that had been
completed. She confirmed that her sense is that they are working on them.
Scott Frazer, Fish and Wildlife Service inquired what the average time to process
an acquisition. Member Vance responded that it depends if you’re talking
average in the last six months, or over the last 10 years. Mr. James commented
that it is around two years, and Ms. Griego responded that some take five years.
Member James commented that the time it takes is not very appropriate for them
which has been a frustration.
Mr. Divelbiss pointed out that is why they have the Memorandum of Sale and
Escrow process, which is completely dependent on an unconditional acceptance
by the Department.
Mary Griffin commented that there is a 20 year permit that will come to an end,
and inquired if there’s any way to get over this hump that could be anticipated or
built into the next HCP if another agreement comes about that would be more
efficient. Member Vance responded that this could/should be done. Member
James commented that this program saves Staff time for the wildlife agencies
because they don’t have to comment on individual programs, and the hope has
always been that they were devoting sufficient staff to help move these forward
as they help them with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Divelbiss commented that it is a joint power agency, and it might be possible
that someone could either be detailed from the State to work either here or
somewhere else for them, or someone who is working here already for one of the
two agencies could be authorized to do some of the processing for the State so
instead of sending the package to the State most of the review could be done
locally.
No further public comment provided. No further group comment made.
9. Change in the Department of Fish and Game Acceptance Letter.
Staff commented that they received a letter from Department of Fish and Game
which revised some wording on their acceptance letter involving the third
paragraph under the Analysis section where, “The department agrees to accept
title to the property described above contingent upon no additional easements,
access issues, or any other restrictions disclosed prior to the closure of escrow,
which may preclude or hinder the department from managing the property in
perpetuity.” Staff stated that they have concerns related to this language
because it could be interpreted ambiguously and they would like more
clarification from the Department of Fish and Game as to what their definitions of
“preclude” or “hinder” mean to them so there is a better understanding of what
they are looking for.
Member James inquired if that dialogue has taken place prior to this meeting, to
which Staff responded in the negative.
Member James inquired if Member Vance is prepared to comment on this
language, to which she responded that she is not prepared. Member James
inquired where the language came from and what the background of it is.
This item was opened for public comment. Annee Ferranti, with the Department
of Fish & Game commented that this came about because they had some issues
with a piece of property that was in escrow where clean up had been done, and
then it was discovered through a piece of correspondence from an adjacent
neighbor that they had issues with access, and the adjacent neighbor was in a
position where they were unhappy with the ways they could potentially manage
the property. She indicated that the Trust Group had already spent funds to do
clean up and this all came to light during the escrow process, which precluded
them from being able to manage the property.
Member James commented that this came up on one item, and they’ve been
operating this program for a number of years, and he questioned why they think
they had such a problem because ordinarily access and other issues are
resolved to the satisfaction of the Department of Fish & Game a lot earlier in the
process.
Ms. Ferranti responded that the adjacent landowners sent a letter and when they
tried to work with the adjacent landowner they were unable to do that. She
indicated that there were multiple discussions through that process with Mitch
and others trying to work those issues out and they were very uncooperative.
Then during that process they discovered that the adjacent landowner was
literally attempting to dictate to the department how they would manage a large
chunk of that property for tumbleweeds, which is contrary to how they manage it.
Ms. Ferranti stated that it was clear that they were being placed in a position
where they were going to be unable to manage and access the property.
Member James stated that his concern is that they have tried to structure this
process over the years so they can give the property owner selling the property
his money because they were concerned about how long it was taking to process
the conveying of the property through the State, and now it seems like this would
be putting up another roadblock of concerns in the process of transferring the
property and would put the Trust Group in a position of questioning whether or
not they should pay the property owner if there is some other outstanding issue.
Ms. Ferranti responded that it was not their intention to put up any roadblocks.
Ms. Elisheva provided that the acceptance letter that this showed up on was not
the property that they’ve had problems with concerning access, but rather a
response to the problem that they had with access. Ms. Elisheva commented that
the process was working, because where the easement issue came up was
when the transfer documents was at California Department of Fish & Game in
Fresno, and the access issues came to light before this letter was ever sent out
to them for them to accept it. She reiterated that the process does work to
uncover these things before they accept the transfer. Ms. Elisheva stated that if
the letter goes out it would signal that they could pay the owner, that the State
has agreed to accept the property, and from that point on those transfer
documents get sent to the Wildlife Conservation Board and there may not be as
much of a chance to discover access concerns, or that would preclude this
language, after that point in the process, because this is the State telling them
that it is okay to have Memorandum of Understanding recorded and the owner
could be paid. She further commented that she is not sure what the extra
language provides because she is not sure that there is an opportunity to
uncover issues from this point on until the close of the escrow.
Mr. Divelbiss commented that they have gone to a Memorandum of Sale and
Escrow, paid the seller, and then have some dumping issues arise, or discovery
of something that made the property less suitable, and it was cleaned up. He
pointed out that they have taken on the responsibility to get the property in a
condition to close the escrow for the State. Ms. Griego commented that this has
been done in the past, but it is something that is easily fixable.
Mr. Divelbiss inquired if it was unusual to have to cross somebody’s property for
access to the acquired property, to which Member Vance responded it depends
where the property is. However, with the smaller parcels sometimes there is not
a public road. He commented that it is unusual and rare and when it pops up they
are changing the rules. Member Vance responded that the changed language is
not intended to change the rules.
Mr. Divelbiss stated with this language he could not recommend moving forward
with any further Memorandum of Sale and Escrow because there’s too much risk
for the Trust Group. Member Vance stated they should go back and look at the
language and have some discussion. Member James stated that this would be a
definite shift from the letters of approval that they have received in the past, and
that this program needs some certainty when they pay the seller of the property.
Ms. Ferranti stated they don’t have a problem once the escrow is closed. She
suggested that perhaps there could be a second letter from they saying that
when all of the documents are in place and everything has come to light they can
come back with another correspondence that states they accept it. Member
James responded that this is what has been occurring. He stated that this due
diligence that they need is being provided up front, but it needs to be done in a
timely way otherwise they are going to have a seller who says they can’t wait.
Mr. Divelbiss commented that they do not like the use of the Memorandum of
Sale and Escrow, and would prefer to have everything taken care of at the close
of escrow like all other real estate transactions. He stated the Memorandum was
only used because it was taking five years to get things done. Mr. Divelbiss
further stated that the Trust Group cannot put the money out and then have
Department of Fish and Game say they don’t want the property because it will be
too hard to manage. Member Vance stated that they need to go back and have
further discussions internally to figure out if the language is something they want
to retain, or if they need to send the letter as formally drafted at a later stage in
the process. She stated there may be a way to satisfy their concerns as well as
the Trust Group.
Member James commented that they need to look for as much certainty in this
process. Member Vance will have further discussion with Department of Fish
and Game and no letters with regard to this issue will be sent. Ms. Eng will
check with Member Vance to see if there will be further comments for the
meeting. Mr. Divelbiss stated that if Member Vance has information for the Trust
Group she can transmit it in advance.
No further comments. No action taken.
10. Request by Scott Frazer, Private Lands Biologist, Kern National Wildlife
Refuge Complex, Delano, CA to make presentation and discuss wetland
and upland habitats purchased by the Trust Group for mitigation credits.
Mr. Frazer stated when he had discussion over a year ago he did not follow up to
see if there was a need for a mechanism to avoid seeing additional losses of
wetlands when properties are purchased for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat
Conservation Plan. He stated he spoke with a lender who was asking about
values and the process for acquisition of conservation easements prior to them
making a final decision on whether they would accept, what they felt was an offer
from Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Mr. Frazer stated that
it is important that they find a way not to see the wetlands resource diminished in
the process of doing the important work that the Trust Group is doing to protect
the listed species and habitats within the Trust Group’s project area. He showed
the geographic area of the 22,000 acre boundary within which they have both
first and second priorities identified.
Mr. Frazer pointed out the priority one purple lands are actively managed duck
clubs, however he did not differentiate between those acres that are flooded or
inundated on an annual basis from the uplands that those same landowners own.
He explained that in some cases, and in particular in the gooselake bottom some
of the wetlands are relatively small on a percentage basis of the total ownership.
Mr. Frazer stated that the purpose of their project is to protect these habitats
because they have very significant migratory bird resources in use. He stated
that locally they have active involvement by a number of private land owners,
which is typically represented by the Tulare Basin Wetland Association. He
stated that they feel that their interest, as well as the Central Valley Joint Venture
Office in Sacramento, have become aware of this activity being pursued by
multiple organizations.
Member James inquired if properties the Trust Group is acquiring are working at
cross purposes with the wetland activities. Mr. Frazer explained that in a case
about a year ago there was a wetland, land that was inundated with water,
approximately ½ mile south of Garces Highway, and four-five miles east of
Corcoran Road was purchased, and as soon as it is purchased and given to the
State, their intention is to manage it as a dry site, and therefore all the wetland
values go away when the ownership changes, because essentially, including the
refuge, all of these wetlands receive active management and application of water
to be a managed wetland habitat. He indicated that without that management,
because of the diversion of the Kern River at Lake Isabella there is no natural
flow, and the rainfalls insufficient to manage wetlands in the southern part of the
San Joaquin Valley.
Member James inquired if Mr. Frazer’s activities were different then those of the
properties the Trust Group is acquiring because they are dry land species and
there is not an intention to continue to put water on these properties. Mr. Frazer
responded in the affirmative explaining that it would be a low level of concern in
as much as they did not see that there would be a focused effort or approach to
landowners that had wetlands to acquire them, and they weren’t even sure if they
would qualify or be eligible for the mitigation credits that the Trust Group is
earning for the MBHCP. He further pointed out that this did occur in this one
case last year, and based on an activity that’s an ongoing negotiation, it appears
that this could occur again this calendar year. Mr. Frazer stated that the would
like to see the Trust Group’s support and involvement in either developing some
mechanism to avoid the loss or diminished wetland habitat base as the Trust
Group works on its projects.
Member James commented he is concerned with Mr. Frazer’s group asking the
Trust Group to limit their ability for looking for lands. Member Vance commented
that the potential for actual conflict is pretty limited because generally the
definition of active wetland is flooded sometimes in the last three years. She
indicated that there are instances in this area where there are old clubs that have
not been flooded recently, and the areas once flooded which reverted back to the
upland species which have recolonized, and the WFG has taken some of those
lands, and they don’t see that as a conflict because they were no longer being
actively managed as wetlands. She pointed out that for purposes of this Trust
Group program they do need upland habitat. Member Vance further provided
that the WFG is a participant in Mr. Frazer’s efforts, and they do see the value in
wetland habitat. Member Vance also clarified that she shares Member James
concerns, and does not want to categorically limit the opportunity to acquire land
in the vicinity because that would constrain the options for acquisition in that
area.
Member Vance suggested having a more focused discussion between the
Department and the Refuge about what specific parcels are of interest and a way
to identify those which the Refuse is interested in when going through the
process.
Member James further commented that he does not want to run up the cost of
land because both agencies are bidding on a piece of land. He stated that there
could be some coordination, but he is concerned about limiting the Trust Group
too much given the extent of the priority one and priority two lands.
Member Grady inquired as to “actively managed” and if that means that there is
no natural rain fall, and it has to be artificial wetting. Mr. Frazer responded in the
affirmative, adding that typically the most reliable source of water is ground
water, and most of the private clubs have their own well. Mr. Frazer further
explained that there has been a creation of an improvement district within the
Semi Tropic Water Storage District that has delivered service water, if and when
available, and in the last five years it has been available two years on a fairly
substantial basis, and on less full yield in a third year. He pointed out that this
year and last year there has been no surface water available to these properties.
Member Grady inquired if there is consideration given to the fact that it might
have been flooded at one time. Member Vance responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Cypher, Department of Fish and Game stated that when it was offered for
acquisition it had been flooded within the last three years. She indicated that the
seller was planning to flood it that winter and so they asked him not to flood it
past January because they wanted it to start reverting to upland habitat. She
further explained that when they went and looked at the site it was not wet, and
had species such as Iodine bush, and things that they find in the habitat for the
upland species, and it did not have cat tails or the sort of thing wetland that you
normally envision. She stated that there were berms used to make basins which
were flooded. She stated that it was definitely what they would consider a
wetland, and commented that they have turned down other areas that obviously
remained too much of the year and had a high water table which did not look like
suitable habitat for the species. Ms. Cypher indicated that once they take the
land they don’t want to keep putting water on it because then it’s not suitable for
the species that it covers and there is not full mitigation for any disturbances.
Ms. Tenant, Department of Fish and Game, commented that when she went out
to inspect the subject property she can’t say whether it had water on it in the
previous three years, but there were burrowing owl on the property using the
berms, there were small mammal burrows throughout the area, and therefore it
felt like it was an upland habitat.
Mr. Frazer stated that he looks forward to working with the Trust Group to find a
way to avoid having this ongoing issue. He reiterated that the Refuge has been
in contact by a property owner that intends to sell their property to MBHCP, and
that would be a direct loss of over 100 acres of habitat, and would be a
significant loss to the wetlands on the private sector in the Tulare Basin.
Mr. Divelbiss inquired if they end up with an intermittently flooded area that has
not been flooded recently and is beginning to revert, and is subsequently
acquired, how does the Refuge get around the problem of taking those species
as it is reflooded. Mr. Frazer responded that the environmental document
specifically addresses that because they are not going after those reverted
areas. He reiterated that they kind of have a matter of impression more than a
matter of a conflict or what are uplands and what are wetlands. He reiterated
that they are not concerned with the old duck clubs that haven’t been flooded in
more than three years, because it is not their intent to work with them initially. He
pointed out that some new clubs have been created since the document was
written.
Mr. Van Wyk inquired what funding is available to acquire the wetlands so they
can proceed with the uplands given there is a participation agreement. Mr.
Frazer responded that their funding source is the receipts of duck stamp sales
and the Migratory Bird Commission annually allocates those receipts to projects
nation wide. He further indicated that they have completed their first three
appraisals and will take those to the Migratory Bird Commission in September
and that will be the last major hurdle for them to obtain funding. He explained
that they first have to do an appraisal and then they take the appraisal and a
signed Option for the transaction to the Commission for funding.
Member James commented that there may be some opportunities to coordinate,
however he has an obligation to the development community in coming up with
appropriate habitat lands.
Mr. Divelbiss inquired if the appraisals are contract appraisals or in-house, to
which Mr. Frazer responded that they have to use a quasi-government agency,
and so they are contract appraisals.
Ms. Cypher, Department of Fish and Game inquired if there is a way that the
Trust Group could buy for example the 500 acres and then subdivide it and sell
the 100 acres of wetlands, and only transfer only the 400 acres of upland to Fish
& Game and still get credit. Member James responded that they prompt offers
and do not take title to the property.
Ms. Elisheva inquired about the creation of an easement on the property that
they purchase for wetlands that they would pay for. Member James responded
that they would have to discuss this with staff, but the concern still is in working
with another entity is it holding the Trust Group up in moving their properties
forward.
There were no further public or committee comments.
No action taken.
Public Presentations
11.
None.
Trust Group Member Announcements or Reports
12.
None.
CLOSED SESSION.
13.
None.
ADJOURN
The next meeting was scheduled to September 17, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:31 a.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
Jennie Eng, Trust Group Administrator
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan