Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-21; Parks & Recreation Commission; 1091-5; Mitigation banking articlePARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AB* \Q4i-5 MTG. DEPT. TITLE- MITIGATION BANKING ARTICLE (INFO) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive request of Commissioner Finnila for article distribution to Parks and Recreation Commission members regarding Mitigation Banking. ITEM EXPLANATION: Commission Finnila requested each Commissioner receive a copy of the attached article relating to Mitigation Banking. FISCAL IMPACT: None. EXHIBITS: 1. Mitigation Banking article Biological Report 88(41) July 1988 MITIGATION BANKING by Cathleen Short U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center Creekside One Building 2627 Redwing Road Fort Collins, CO 80526-2899 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Research and Development Washington, DC 20240 EXHIBIT 1 INTRODUCTION The concept of mitigating for adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources is fairly recent and is supported by legislation that requires "equal consideration" of fish and wildlife with other aspects of Federal water resources development projects. The broad definition of mitigation developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR Part 1508.20) also includes the desirable steps in a mitigation planning process: avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensa- tion for project-induced impacts. Since the early 1980's, mitigation banking has been considered as one of the tools available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to meet the last category in CEQ's mitigation definition: achieving compensation for un- avoidable project-related resource losses. Mitigation banking has been defined as "...habitat protection or improvement actions taken expressly for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable, necessary losses from specific future development actions" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981, 1983). In simpler terms (Soileau et al. 1985): "...mitigation banking 1s similar to maintaining a bank account. A developer undertakes measures to create, restore, or preserve fish and wildlife habitat in advance of an anticipated need for mitigation for project construction impacts. The benefits attributable to these measures are quantifed, and the developer receives mitigation credits from the appropriate regulatory and/or planning agencies. These credits are placed in a mitigation bank account from which withdrawals can be made. When the developer proposes a project involving unavoidable losses of fish and wildlife resources, the losses (debits) are quantified using the same method that was used to determine credits, and a withdrawal equal to that amount is deducted (debited) from the bank. This can be repeated as long as mitigation credits remain available in the bank." This report presents the results of an evaluation designed to: (1) compile a current inventory of implemented mitigation banks with FWS involvement; and (2) based on an analysis of those banks and other input, provide guidance for use in developing and implementing mitigation banking proposals. The report consists of three parts: a discussion of the concept and process of mitigation banking, a description of the legislative and policy background, and an overview of mitigation banks with FWS involvement. Mitigation banking probably should not be considered as a mitiga- tion approach. No No No No No No No Do the projects for which the mitigation bank is being established require Federal and/or State wetland permits or are they small Federal projects? fii Will there be several small projects in- volved with necessary and unavoidable losses that would be difficult or impos- sible to mitigate on an individual basis? vis Are other mitigation possibilities limited or nonexistent? Will the permit applicant(s) support offsite mitigation? Will the expected expenditure of time and money be worth it in terms of what will be gained from a mitigation perspective? Will the projects be planned and strict- ly operated in accordance with applic- able Federal and State regulations? Is there a commitment from all involved parties that the bank, once established, will not be used as a substitute for proper project planning or as assurance of blanket approval of future permit application? Mitigation banking probably should be considered as a mitigation approach. Figure 1. Determining the appropriateness of a mitigation banking effort. 21 07 f-v I LA COSTA YOUTH ORGANIZATION October 13, 1991 Ms. Kim Walshone 2121 Placido Ct. Carlsbad Ca 92009 Dear Commissioner Walshone: At the parks department meeting on October 21st. La Costa Youth Organization will be on the agenda proposing the building of a batting cage. As President of La Costa Youth Organization I am appealing to you and the parks commission to authorize the building of the batting cage to be situated near the maintenance shed by field three at Stagecoach Park. At this time parks staff and myself have exhausted all other avenues in the area with developers. There are no other alternatives available. In identifying the parks problems in the southern section of Carlsbad I have found the following: 1. Prior to the completion of Stagecoach Park, it was necessary to reduce the number of fields from the original 5, to the current 3. This was due to finding Adobe ruins on the excavation site, therefore resulting in a 40% shortfall of fields before the park was even completed. 2. As stated to the commission at the August meeting, five years ago LCYO had about 350 children and 30 teams. Today LCYO is 1150+ children and 96 teams strong. Of the 1150+ active members of LCYO, 80% or 900+ members are Carlsbad residents. Though there has been exceptional growth we have 1 more playing field than we did 5 years ago. There is no longer any room for additional children. 3. Almost all new development is south of Palomar Airport Road it was a major loss to see the reduction in number of playing fields at Stagecoach pn Rnv qnnn . rarKhari rA Park. Due to the uncontrolled growth in the southwest quadrant of Carlsbad and the budget constraints of the Parks Department there is no way for the parks department to keep up with the demand by the population for more facilities. Though the parks department may have the land, there are no funds currently in the budget for the development and maintenance of the sorely needed facilities. With the assistance of the parks department, LCYO could help reduce the pressure in the system. It would work as such: 1. LCYO would design and build the cages to coincide with the current architecture. 2. After completion, LCYO will donate the facility to the City of Carlsbad. 3. All users will need to submit a request with the City of Carlsbad. 4. Proof of insurance is necessary for permit approval. 5. All non Carlsbad leagues will be assessed a user fee. 6. User fees will be used to offset any upkeep and maintenance. (If user fees cannot cover costs, LCYO will cover any shortfall.) J 7. There will be no pitching machines available for use by other leagues. 8. Cages will not be available for use without adult supervision. (Supervision would be league approved coaches only). 9. The cages will operate only those hours in which the park is open. 10. As the location of the cages are below the street, it cannot be seen from the street and is not a noise problem as it is farther away from the apartments than are the playing fields. The benefits to the City and residents of Carlsbad are numerous: 1. By allowing LCYO to underwrite the cost of the program the City/Parks Department receives a facility debt free and at no cost to the taxpayers. 2. A partial solution to the field shortage will be addressed and partially resolved. 3. As most parks departments are having the same difficulties as Carlsbad they will by keeping a close eye on this project to see the results. Due to the ability to assemble a batting cage at a much lower cost than developing a playing field this will result in a new trend setting phase that will by followed for years to come. 4. As this is a major project for the residents of Carlsbad, the amount of positive publicity to Parks Department and City will be overwhelming. 5. It's a win win for all parties involved, no kids be turned away, the parks department will increase thsir field inventory at no cost to the taxpayers and LCYO will be able to improve the quality of play on the fields. As president of LCYO I ask for your vote of approval on Monday night. Thanking you in advance for your help, :ott Pieratt President LCYO