2004 Draft NCCP
In order to access each section of the NCCP Subarea Plan, please click on the Section Title
NATURAL COMMUNITIES
CONSERVATION PLANNING
SUBAREA PLAN
Prepared for
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
URS Project No. 27644296.08000
July 29, 2004
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108-4314
619.294.9400 Fax: 619.293.7920
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1Introduction........................................................................................................1-1
1.1Purpose and Need...........................................................................................1-4
1.2Regulatory Compliance of the Subarea Plan.....................................................1-5
1.2.1Federal...............................................................................................1-5
1.2.2State..................................................................................................1-5
1.2.3Local.................................................................................................1-6
1.3Species for which Take Authorizations are Requested......................................1-6
Section 2Description of RPV Subarea.............................................................................2-1
2.1Regional Setting.............................................................................................2-1
2.1.1City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code......................................2-1
2.1.2Other City Ordinances......................................................................2-10
2.1.3City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan.........................................2-11
2.1.4Coastal-Specific Plan........................................................................2-11
2.2Biological Resources....................................................................................2-15
2.2.1Vegetation Communities...................................................................2-15
2.2.2Sensitive Species..............................................................................2-20
2.2.3Regionally Important Habitat Areas...................................................2-27
Section 3Proposed Reserve Design................................................................................3-1
3.1Biological Reserve Design..............................................................................3-1
3.1.1Existing Public Lands (836.5 acres).....................................................3-5
3.1.2Private Lands to be Contributed (216.6 acres).......................................3-7
3.1.3Private Lands to be Purchased (684.5 acres).........................................3-8
3.1.4Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkages Conserved................3-8
3.1.5Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential..........................................3-8
3.1.6Proposed Potential Loss of Habitats.....................................................3-9
3.1.7Covered Species List........................................................................3-21
3.1.8Estimated Take of Covered Species...................................................3-22
3.2Land Uses Within and Adjacent to the Reserve..............................................3-23
Section 4Plan Implementation..........................................................................................4-1
4.1Reserve Components......................................................................................4-1
4.1.1Existing Public Lands.........................................................................4-1
4.1.2Private Lands.....................................................................................4-3
4.1.3Neutral Lands.....................................................................................4-5
4.2Conservation Actions.....................................................................................4-5
4.2.1Compensation Mitigation....................................................................4-7
4.2.2Priority Acquisition Areas to be Purchased (684.5 Acres)......................4-7
4.2.3Priority Restoration/Enhancement Areas..............................................4-7
4.3Funding and Financing of Subarea Plan...........................................................4-7
4.3.1Estimated Implementation Cost...........................................................4-7
4.3.2Funding Sources...............................................................................4-11
Section 5Local Plan Review and Approval Process......................................................5-1
i
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.1City Implementation Process...........................................................................5-1
5.2Interim Protection..........................................................................................5-1
5.2.1Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code...........................................5-1
5.3Proposed Modifications to the Municipal Code................................................5-1
5.4Permanent Habitat Protection..........................................................................5-2
5.5Mitigation Requirements................................................................................5-3
5.5.1Wetlands Protection Program..............................................................5-3
5.5.2Compliance with Existing Federal and/or State Wetlands Regulations....5-4
5.6Subarea Plan Boundary and Amendment Process.............................................5-5
5.6.1Process for Exchanges and Minor Modifications to Reserve Boundaries5-5
5.6.2Process for Major Changes to Subarea Plan..........................................5-6
5.7Implementing Agreement...............................................................................5-6
5.7.1Assurances in the Implementing Agreement.........................................5-6
5.7.2Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances........................5-7
5.8City Implementation Actions and Process........................................................5-8
5.8.1City Regulatory Actions......................................................................5-8
5.8.2City Interim Resource Protection.........................................................5-9
5.8.3Development Review and Approval Process.........................................5-9
5.9Subarea Plan Amendments............................................................................5-10
5.9.1Additions to the Reserve...................................................................5-10
5.9.2Boundary Adjustments and Equivalency............................................5-11
5.9.3Annexations.....................................................................................5-12
5.9.4Process for Adding Species to Covered Species List...........................5-13
5.10Permanent Resource Protection.....................................................................5-13
5.10.1Local Resolutions.............................................................................5-13
5.11Coordination With Other NCCP Subarea Plans..............................................5-13
Section 6Reserve Management........................................................................................6-1
6.1Habitat Manager.............................................................................................6-1
6.2Framework Management Guidelines...............................................................6-1
6.2.1Development of Public Use Master Plan..............................................6-1
6.2.2Development Adjacent to the Reserve..................................................6-2
6.2.3Fire and Brush Management................................................................6-3
6.2.4Fencing, Signs, and Lighting...............................................................6-5
6.2.5Recreational Activities........................................................................6-6
6.3Habitat Management and Monitoring...............................................................6-8
6.3.1Reserve Habitat Management Plan.......................................................6-8
6.3.2Management, Restoration and Reporting for the Reserve.......................6-9
6.4Reporting on the Status of the Reserve...........................................................6-23
6.4.1Biological Monitoring Program.........................................................6-23
6.4.2Restoration Site Monitoring Program.................................................6-25
6.4.3Covered Species Monitoring.............................................................6-26
6.4.4Habitat Tracking and Reporting.........................................................6-26
6.4.5Reporting Program...........................................................................6-27
6.5Remediation and Adaptive Management........................................................6-27
6.6Covered Species Reintroduction....................................................................6-28
6.6.1Management Recommendations........................................................6-29
6.6.2Use an Experimental Approach.........................................................6-30
ii
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.6.3Develop a Detailed Reintroduction Plan.............................................6-30
6.6.4Include Reintroduction Sites in a Population Monitoring Program.......6-32
6.6.5Establish Success Criteria.................................................................6-32
6.6.6Reporting.........................................................................................6-32
6.7Research Recommendations..........................................................................6-33
6.7.1Inventories.......................................................................................6-33
6.7.2Habitat and Life History Studies........................................................6-33
6.7.3Population Biology and Genetic Studies.............................................6-33
6.7.4Habitat Restoration and/or Population Enhancement/Reintroduction
Studies.............................................................................................6-34
6.7.5Management Studies.........................................................................6-34
Section 7Literature Cited..................................................................................................7-1
Section 8Document Preparers..........................................................................................8-1
iii
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices
Tables
Table 1-1 Proposed Covered Species List for the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan 1-7
Table 2-1 Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes 2-17
Table 3-1 Proposed Conservation Acreage by Vegetation Community 3-4
Table 3-2 Total Loss of CSS Habitat by City Projects 3-12
Table 3-3 Total Loss of CSS Habitat by Private Projects and Mitigation 3-19
Table 3-4 Estimated Take of Covered Species Point Locations 3-23
Table 4-1 Comparison of Alternative Conservation Plans 4-9
Table 4-2 Candidate Sources of Land Acquistion Funding 4-12
Table 4-3 Funding Commitments for Habitat Restoration and Reserve Management 4-12
Table 4-4 Volunteer Hours for PVPLC Project for 2003 (January to May) 4-13
Table 6-1 Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix 6-21
Table 6-2 Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Cactus Scrub Seed Mix 6-21
Table 6-3 Rancho Palos Verdes Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix 6-22
Figures
Figure 1-1 Natural Vegetation of Rancho Palos Verdes 1-2
Figure 1-2 Covered Species Distributions 1-3
Figure 2-1 Regional Vicinity Map 2-2
Figure 2-2 Planning Area Map 2-3
Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes 2-4
Figure 2-4 Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkage Planning Areas 2-28
Figure 3-1 City-owned and Private Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve 3-2
Figure 3-2 Reserve Design 3-3
Figure 3-3 Habitat Restoration Potential 3-10
Figure 3-4 Locations of City Projects Covered by the Plan 3-13
Figure 3-5 Locations of Private Projects Covered by the Plan 3-18
Figure 3-6 Covered Species Point Locations Not Being Conserved by the Plan 3-25
Figure 4-1 City-owned Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve 4-2
Figure 4-2 Private Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve 4-4
Figure 4-3 Neutral Lands 4-6
Figure 4-4 Rancho Palos Verdes Alternatives 4-8
Figure 6-1 Priority Habitat Restoration Areas within the Reserve 6-19
Appendices
Appendix A Definitions
Appendix B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses and Conditions for Coverage
Appendix C Financial Analysis Reference Information
Appendix D List of Exotic Pest Species (CEPPC 1996)
Appendix E Barkentine Property Open Space Acquisition Specified Grant No. 58H4-01-1284
Appendix F Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CaliforniaÓs Coastal Zone
iv
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CE State of California-listed endangered species
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHP Chaparral
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CR State of California-listed rare species
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub
CT State of California-listed threatened species
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FE Federally endangered species
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
RA Focused Planning Area
FT Federally listed threatened species
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
LCP Local Coastal Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan (State Initiative)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PE Proposed for Federal listing as endangered species
PT Proposed for Federal listing as threatened species
PUMP Public Use Master Plan
PVPLC Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
RTP Reserve Trail Plan
SAP Subarea Plan
SSC State of California species of special concern
SPA Specific Planning Area
SPCA Society for the Preservation of Cruelty to Animals
ssp. Subspecies
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
v
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
ONE
Introduction
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (NCCP, California Fish and Game Code
Section 2800, et seq.) provides for the preparation and implementation of large-scale natural resource
conservation plans. An NCCP plan must identify and provide for the regional or area-wide protection and
perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and
growth. An NCCP plan is intended to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple
species, including but not limited to species listed under state or Federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA).
The NCCP Act is intended to promote cooperation and coordination among public agencies, landowners,
and other interested organizations or individuals. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) has entered into
an NCCP planning agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop an NCCP Subarea Plan that will encompass the entire
City. The NCCP subregion includes the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula; however, only Rancho Palos
Verdes has currently entered into an NCCP planning agreement. The remaining Palos Verdes Peninsula
cities have been encouraged to formally participate in the Peninsula NCCP process.
As the lead agency of the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP, the City needed to develop a landscape scale
database of biological resource and land-use information in a way that would allow for the City and
Wildlife Agencies to make informed land-use and conservation decisions for future projects. The primary
goal of the Phase I program was to provide a biological analysis of the remaining naturalized open space
in and adjacent to the City. At the initiation of Phase I of the Peninsula NCCP program, questions
regarding the regional importance of parcels to a potential biological reserve system were outstanding
(Ogden 1999). Syntheses of vegetation mapping, sensitive-species distributions and their potential
habitat, and the preliminary development of alternative reserve designs were the primary focus of the
Phase I effort (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Three alternatives reserve designs were developed to span the range
of potential designs that are biologically appropriate. Alternatives A and B were rejected for a variety of
reasons and the CityÓs Alternative C was initially a compromise between the other two alternatives.
The Phase II program refined the CityÓs alternative reserve design and the development of the draft
Subarea Plan for agency and public review and comment. Based on extensive discussions with the
Wildlife Agencies and the NCCP Rancho Palos Verdes working group and evaluations of potential
development on the largest properties supporting natural vegetation, the City has decided to emphasize
acquisition of key private properties and conservation of existing habitats on City-owned lands as the
primary form of conservation.
Habitat restoration of disturbed areas in conserved areas will be a secondary form of conservation, with a
required minimum level of restoration and enhancement to be accomplished each year. Having a
restoration program in place will allow additional restoration to be accomplished as additional funding
sources are identified. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) will be the Habitat
Manager for the Rancho Palos Verdes Habitat Reserve. A significant portion of the undeveloped lands in
Rancho Palos Verdes support nonnative plant communities that, pending available funds, will be restored
to native plant communities to increase the local habitat carrying capacity of selected covered species.
The restoration potential of these degraded lands was assessed during the Phase I program to allow for
prioritization of restoration efforts within the context of the proposed reserve design.
1-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
03/26/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
1-1
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Natural Vegetation of Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Eriogonum, Salvia, Rhus, Baccharis). Source: Ogden 1999.
*Includes saltbush scrub, undifferentiated CSS and
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
6 different subtypes of CSS (Encelia, Artemisia,
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Southern Cactus Scrub
Rocky Shore/Intertidal
Disturbed Vegetation
Coastal Sage Scrub*
Exotic Woodland
Riparian Scrub
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Agriculture
Developed
Grassland
Disturbed
Cliff Face
06/24/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
1-2
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Covered Species Distributions
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Lycium brevipes var. hassei
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
Crossosoma californicum
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
Jurisdictional Boundary
Subarea Plan Boundary
litoides
Natural Vegetation
Atriplex pacifica
Dudleya virensDudleya virens
Aphanisma b
Cactus Wren
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
(historic)
SECTION
ONE
Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) NCCP Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) has been prepared to
maximize benefits to wildlife and vegetation communities while accommodating appropriate economic
development within the city and region (Figure 1-1) pursuant to the requirements of the Natural
Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (NCCP, California Fish and Game Code Section 2800,
et seq
.). This Subarea Plan provides for the comprehensive management and conservation of multiple
species, including but not limited to species protected under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
An important benefit of this Subarea Plan is that the habitat conservation and management actions will
compensate for the impacts of current and future development needs within the city. As intended by the
NCCP Act, implementation of this Subarea Plan will facilitate cooperation and coordination among
public agencies, landowners, and other interested organizations.
This Subarea Plan identifies habitat to be conserved in the CityÓs proposed Reserve, the mechanism for
this conservation (e.g., acquisition and easement), and interim protection measures for habitats not
expected to be ultimately conserved. This Subarea Plan establishes actions the City will take to obtain
ESA Section 10(a) take authorizations for covered species, including current and future management,
maintenance, and compatible uses (e.g., passive recreation) of conserved lands, as well as funding for
habitat management. The process for mitigating development on habitat not conserved, and how permits
and take authorizations for covered species will be obtained, is also identified. These considerations form
the basis for developing an Implementing Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Wildlife Agencies). In this manner, the
authority for infrastructure development and land-use decisions is to be retained by the City, and will be
enhanced by its ability to self-issue endangered species take authorizations.
Through implementation of this Subarea Plan, the City has considered regional planning before
conducting site-specific project proposals. In this manner, individual project impacts can be analyzed in a
regional context. The City will coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to maximize shared conservation
benefits. Although the NCCP subregion includes the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes is currently the only jurisdiction in the subregion to enter into an NCCP planning agreement
with the Wildlife Agencies.
The CityÓs primary conservation strategy is to acquire several key privately owned parcels, dedicate
selected City-owned lands, and have the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy manage this reserve
network with the assistance of the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The proposed Reserve is designed to
be consistent with NCCP conservation and management standards and guidelines and the issuance criteria
for ESA Section 10(a) take authorizations for species covered by the city-wide permit. The Reserve
conserves regionally important habitat areas and provides adequate habitat linkages between patches of
conserved habitat. Based on a habitat restoration plan to be approved by the Wildlife Agencies, the City
and the PVPLC will enhance/restore the most practicable amount of disturbed habitats within the
Reserve. To enhance habitat patch size and habitat linkage function (i.e., areas with moderate to high
potential for successful restoration), this plan will emphasize habitats directly adjacent to conserved
habitat.
1-4
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
ONE
Introduction
1.2 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE OF THE SUBAREA PLAN
1.2.1Federal
The USFWS has the legal authority to issue permits and enter into Subarea Plan implementing
agreements based on completion of the subregional NCCP and pursuant to the ESA, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 U.S. Code \[USC\], Sections661to 666c), and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC
Section742(f) et seq.). Section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA, 16 USC Section1539(a)(1)(B), expressly
authorizes the USFWS to issue a Section l0(a) permit to allow incidental take of species listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. The legislative history of 10(a)(l)(B) clearly indicates that
Congress also intended that the USFWS would approve Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) that protect
unlisted species as if they were listed under the ESA, and that in doing so the USFWS would provide
Section l0(a)(l)(B) assurances for protection of such unlisted species (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong.,
2d Sess. 30-31, 1982. Conference Report on 1982 Amendments to the ESA). The USFWS routinely
approves HCPs that address both listed and unlisted species.
The Secretary of the Interior set forth the ÐHabitat Conservation Plan Assurances PolicyÑ on August 11,
1994, which became a final rule on February 23, 1998 (Federal Register 63\[35\]:8859-8873). Also known
as the ÐNo SurprisesÑ policy, the policy provides regulatory assurances to holders of HCP incidental take
permits.
Approval and implementation of the Subarea Plan will facilitate compliance with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Federal ESA. Through this planning process, the City will obtain ESA Section 10(a) incidental take
authorizations. A ÐtakeÑ includes the direct killing, harming, or harassing of a species, or destruction of
habitat that may be important for the speciesÓ survival or recovery. The take permit authorizes take by the
City as long as it does not violate the terms and conditions established by the CityÓs Implementing
Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. This Subarea Plan is the basis for this agreement.
The Subarea Plan also provides the City the benefits of the Section 4(d) rule associated with the listing of
the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. This special rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA, streamlines
the Wildlife Agencies permitting for development in CSS habitat areas that does not preclude regional
conservation options. This rule allows for a limited amount of incidental loss of CSS habitat while this
Subarea Plan is being developed and processed.
Permits issued pursuant to this Subarea Plan do not include Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 404
permit, 401 water quality certification, or CDFG 1602 permits for impacts to wetlands. This Subarea
Plan, however, shall largely fulfill the requirements for endangered species consultation relative to
wetland permitting. This Subarea Plan provides the basis for ESA Section 7 consultation and issuance of
a Biological Opinion by the USFWS for ACOE 404 permits within this Subarea Plan area. Thus, approval
of this Subarea Plan should streamline the endangered species consultation process for wetland permits.
1.2.2State
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act; Section 2800 et seq. of the California
Fish and Game Code) establishes the NCCP program Ðto provide for regional protection and perpetuation
of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and
1-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
ONE
Introduction
growth.Ñ The NCCP Act calls for the preparation of subregional and Subarea Plans that address habitat
conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time. The
CDFG and California Resources Agency prepared the ÐSouthern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP
Process GuidelinesÑ (November 1993). Based on the definition established by the guidelines and the
precedent established through acceptance of subregional plans prepared by local general purpose
agencies, this Subarea Plan meets the requirements and standards of the NCCP program. Approval and
implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan will secure City compliance with and be
consistent with, Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Section 2835 of the
NCCP Act in the California Fish and Game Code.
In addition to Fish and Game regulations, this plan is also intended to be consistent with the CityÓs Local
Coastal Plan and California Coastal Act regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section
et seq
30000, .) for lands within the Coastal Zone.
1.2.3Local
Implementation of this Subarea Plan will rely on the CityÓs land-use authority provided through General
Plan policies, Local Coastal Program, zoning ordinances, community plan amendments, and
environmental land-use regulations.
1.3 SPECIES FOR WHICH TAKE AUTHORIZATIONS ARE REQUESTED
This Subarea Plan is intended to provide for the take of covered species and their habitats associated with
developments. Take authorizations are requested by the City for the following federally protected species:
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly (), endangered El
Euphilotes battoides allyniPolioptila
Segundo blue butterfly (), threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (
californica californicaPentachaeta lyonii
), and endangered LyonÓs pentachaeta (). LyonÓs pentachaeta is
the only species listed by the CDFG under the State ESA currently known to occur near this Subarea Plan
Area. Take authorization is requested for eight additional covered species not currently listed under the
State or Federal ESA that have specific known locations in the city and would have sufficient levels of
conservation under this Subarea Plan. These species include the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
Lists 1B and List 4 plants and the cactus wren (), a State Species of
Concern (SSC) that is also a NCCP focal species. Species covered by this Subarea Plan are identified in
Table 1-1.
1-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
ONE
Introduction
Table 1-1
Proposed Covered Species List for
the RPV Subarea Plan
Status Common Name Scientific Name
CNPS List 1B Aphanisma
Aphanisma blitoides
CNPS List 1B South Coast Saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
CNPS List 4 PeirsonÓs Morning-glory
Calystegia peirsonii
ssp.
Centromadia parryi australis
CNPS List 1B Southern Tarplant
CNPS List 4 Catalina Crossosoma
Crossosoma californicum
CNPS List 1B Bright Green Dudleya
Dudleya virens
CNPS List 1B Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn var.
Lycium brevipes hassei
FE, CE, LyonÓs Pentachaeta
Pentachaeta lyonii
CNPS List 1B
CNPS List 4 Woolly Seablite
Suaeda taxifolia
FE Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
FE El Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotes battoides allyni
FT Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
SSC Cactus Wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
FE Î Federally endangered
FT Î Federally threatened
CE Î State of California endangered
SSC Î State Species of Concern
CNPS List 1B Î Plants, rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
CNPS List 4 Î Plants of limited distribution -- a watch list
1-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF RPV SUBAREA
2.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The 13.6-square-mile coastal community of Rancho Palos Verdes is on the southwest side of Palos
Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula). It is bounded on the north by Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates and Palos
Verdes Estates and to the east by San Pedro with the high-density urbanized core of South Bay
communities farther to the north(Figure 2-1).
Beginning in the early 1900s, the Peninsula enjoyed prosperity as a cattle ranch and rich farming area. By
1913, the residential future of Palos Verdes was envisioned as the Ðmost fashionable and exclusive
residential colonyÑ in the nation. The 1940s saw 300 acres of the northern Peninsula used for mining of
diatomaceous earth. Municipal incorporations occurred in 1939 and 1957, with the founding of Palos
Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates.
Residents in the remaining unincorporated area soon became aware that the only way to preserve the
environment and to gain control over local zoning issues was to incorporate as a fourth city. The drive for
incorporation of the fourth city intensified in February 1970 with the election finally held on August 28,
1973. An overwhelming majority of 5 to 1 voted in favor of incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes (City).
All citizens elected to the first City Council ran on similar platforms of low-density land uses, minimum
taxes, and responsiveness to residents.
These principles still guide the City today with the resulting land uses dominated by single family
detached dwellings, scattered higher density residential, and neighborhood-oriented commercial.
Industrial activities are excluded on the Peninsula (Figure 2-2). The 40,000 people comprising the
bedroom community are predominantly employed at Los Angeles harbor and in the space and high
technology industries in nearby cities.
2.1.1City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
As a regulatory document, the Municipal Code provides another layer of environmental protection (either
directly or indirectly) to lands located in the preserve. Each cited section of the Code in effect at the time
of adoption of the Subarea Plan by the city addresses a different aspect of environmental protection.
Title 3, Chapter 20, Section 010 establishes an Environmental Excise Tax:
In that construction of new residential living units and of new commercial or industrial
structures within the city creates an immediate and present danger to the existing quality of
life and ecology of the city and threatens to contaminate and pollute the air, water and land
within and surrounding the cityÈ\[therefore\] the imposition and collection of a special,
nonrecurring tax upon the occupancy and construction of new residential dwelling units
and of new commercial and industrial buildings within the city is the most practical and
equitable method of providing revenues with which the city may meet and deal with and
solve the serious ecological and environmental problems created by the occupancy and
construction of such facilities within the city.
2-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
03/26/04
FIGURE
2-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Cypress
Whittier
South
Norwalk
Lakewood
03
MILES
Downey
Long Beach
Regional Vicinity Map
Compton
Carson
Pedro
San
Angeles
Gardena
Los
Torrance
Inglewood
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Hermosa
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/regional.aml
Manhattan
Beach
El Segundo
Beach
Angeles
Los
07/16/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
2-2
Lomita
L.A. County-
Friendship
Park
Switchbacks
RPV Estates HOA
Property
City-
Shoreline
Seacliff Hills HOA
City-
Park
City-Forrestal
Ocean Trails
Rolling Hills
Parcel
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Portuguese Bend
Planning Area Map
Portuguese
Bend Club
Cerro Park
City-Del
Pacific Ocean
Crestridge
Parcel
Upper Filiorum
04500
City-Grandview
City-Abalone
Filiorum
Lower
Sea Breeze
Cove
HOA
Park
FEET
Barkentine
Parcel
Rancho
Verdes
Peninsula
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Pointe
HOA
Palos
Lunada CanyonAmarga
Long Point
Agua
Cyn.
Ridge HOA
Sunset
Panorama
Point Vicente
Golf Course
Los VerdesEstatesCity-Upper
HOA
Point Vicente Fishing Access
Point Vicente Lighthouse
Vicente
City-Oceanfront
Lower
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Point
Park
Property Locations
Estates
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
07/16/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
2-3
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Medium to High Density Residential
Source: SCAG 1991, modified by RPV Planning Dept.
Public Facilities and Institutions
Open Space and Recreation.
Transportation and Utilities
Low Density Residential
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Water & Floodways
Under Construction
Neutral Lands
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Reserve Area
Commercial
Agriculture
Vacant
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Title 13 Chapter 10, Section 010 Î 070:
Establishes standards and procedures for reducing pollutants in storm water discharges into
preserve areas to the maximum extent practicable by; regulating illicit connections and
illicit discharges and thereby reducing the level of contamination of storm water and urban
runoff into the municipal storm water system; and regulating non-storm water discharges to
the municipal storm water system; and setting forth requirements for the construction and
operation of certain commercial development, new development and redevelopment and
other projects) that are intended to ensure compliance with the storm water mitigation
measures prescribed in the current version of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Title 15 Chapter 34, Section 010:
Establishes standards and procedures for the design, installation and management of water-
conserving landscapes thereby reducing problems of over-watering and the resultant
change in hydrologic regimes in adjacent more xeric preserve lands.
Title 17, Chapter 32, Section 010:
Establishes open-space hazards districts that provide the regulatory foundation for many
lands located in the preserve.
Title 17, Chapter 32, Section 020:
Requires that lands \[such as those found in the preserve\] be placed in the open-space hazard
district when the use of said land would endanger the public health, safety and welfare.
Open-space hazard districts shall include the following:
A. Areas where the existing natural slope exceeds 35 percent, areas experiencing
downslope movement, areas unstable for development, areas where grading or
development of the land may endanger the public health and safety because of erosion
or flooding, and the ocean bluffs; and
B. Areas subject to flooding or inundation from stormwater.
Title 17, Chapter 32, Section 030
Stipulates that land in open-space hazard districts in the preserve may be used (provided,
that the applicable natural overlay control district performance criteria is satisfied) for:
The preservation of areas of outstanding scenic, geologic, historic or cultural value; the
preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to plant and animal life; and the
conservation of water supply land, including but not limited to watershed and groundwater
recharge areas.
Title 17, Chapter 40, Section 040
Establishes the natural overlay control district to:
1. Maintain and enhance land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land
and marine-based wildlife and vegetation; and
2-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
2. Enhance watershed management, control storm drainage and erosion, and control the
water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies within the city.
This overlay district identifies the following lands and waters included in this district:
1. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-5 (Old Landslide Area) and all lands identified in the coastal-specific
plan under categories CRM-3 (Hazard), CRM-4 (Marginally Stable) and CRM-5
(Insufficient Information);
2. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-6 (Hydrologic Factors); and all lands identified in the coastal-specific
plan under categories CRM-7 (Flood/Inundation Hazard) and CRM-8 (Hydrologic
Factors), including all identified major and minor natural drainage flows, storm
channels and storm drains existing on April 25, 1975, the effective date of Ordinance
No. 78 of the city, storm channels and drains proposed after that date, and outfall areas;
3. All water areas identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-7 (Marine Resource), including all intertidal marine resources, tide pools,
and the ocean waters and bottom within the projected boundaries of the city to the
legally established, 3-mile offshore limit, and all ocean beaches, bluffs and cliffs;
4. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-8 (Wildlife Habitat) and lands identified in the coastal-specific plan under
category CRM-9 (Wildlife Habitat);
5. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-9 (Natural Vegetation) and all lands identified in the coastal-specific plan
under category CRM-10 (Natural Vegetation), also including such areas as are within
category RM-8 (Wildlife Habitat) described in this section; and
6. All such lands and water areas that may be added to any of the above categories,
pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments).
These lands are to be maintained in compliance with the following criteria:
1. Cover or alter the land surface configuration by moving earth on more than 10 percent
of the total land area of the portion of the parcel within the district, excluding the main
structure and access;
2. Alter the course, carrying capacity or gradient of any natural watercourse or drainage
course that can be calculated to carry over 100 cubic feet per second once in 10 years;
3. Fill, drain or alter the shape or quality of any water body, spring or related natural
spreading area of greater than 1.0 acre;
2-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
4. Develop otherwise permitted uses within 50 feet of the edge of a watercourse or
drainage course that can be calculated to carry more than 500 cubic feet per second
once in 10 years;
5. Clear the vegetation from more than 20 percent of the area of the portion of the parcel
within the district, or remove by thinning more than 20 percent of the vegetation on the
parcel, excluding dead material and excluding brush-clearance activities necessary for
fire protection;
6. Use herbicides to control or kill vegetation;
7. Remove vegetation within a designated wildlife habitat area;
8. Cover more than 20 percent of a parcel known to contain sand, gravel or other
materials that may aid in natural beach replenishment;
9. Alter the characteristics of the surface soils to allow surface water to stand for over 12
hours; make the soil inadequate as a bearing surface for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle
or motorized emergency vehicle access; make the soil unstable and subject to sliding,
slipping, or water or wind erosion;
10. Result in chemicals, nutrients or particulate contaminants or siltation being discharged,
by stormwater or other runoff, into a natural or manmade drainage course leading to the
ocean or any other natural or manmade body of water;
11. Propose a sewer or wastewater disposal system involving the spreading, injecting or
percolating of effluent into the ocean or into the soil of a natural or manmade drainage
course, if alternative locations are available;
12. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion or significant change of the area within 100 feet
of an ocean beach or top edge of an ocean bluff or cliff;
13. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion on the shoreline measured at mean high tide or
alter the characteristics of the intertidal marine environment;
14. Alter, dredge, fill or penetrate by drilling, the ocean floor within the jurisdiction of the
city; or
15. Alter any land area that has previously experienced massive downslope movement, to
reactivate or create conditions that could lead to the reactivation of downslope
movement.
Title 17, Chapter 40, Section 050:
Establishes the socio-cultural overlay control district to provide protection for
archaeological and paleontological sites.. Development in the socio-cultural overlay control
district shall not:
2-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
1. Result in the blockage or impeding of views and controlled physical access by
easement or passage to land and water areas, as well as improvements, covered by this
chapter when such views or access are deemed critical to the historical, archaeological,
paleontological, scientific, or educational value of the designated site, areas, or
improvement.
2. Be related to development of otherwise permitted uses in lands adjacent to and
surrounding areas in the district in such a way as to prevent proper functioning of such
permitted uses without significant exception to these performance standards, thus tying
this district to other uses in a nonseverable manner.
3. Result in modifications to terrain, vegetation, or other natural features that serve to
protect designated archaeological and paleontological sites and sensitive areas from the
effects of wind and other climatic factors, including natural or manmade water runoff,
or that would similarly alter adjacent lands within 200 feet of the boundaries of lands
covered by this district in such a way as to render lands within the district susceptible to
such impacts.
4. Result in the use or conversions of such designated historical, archaeological,
paleontological, scientific, or educational lands, water, or improvements as commercial
profit-making ventures open to the general public without application of specific
approval and control by the City over hours, types, intensities, purposes, fees, and other
operations of such areas or facilities, including organized tours by motor vehicle,
bicycle, pedestrian, or boat.
5. Result in the provision of inadequate security protection against vandalism or
uncontrolled public exposure to archaeological or paleontological sites under
excavation or study, historic structures, or areas undergoing renovation or maintenance,
or scientific or educational research being conducted on site.
Title 17, Chapter 40, Section 060
Establishes the urban appearance overlay control district (OC-3) to:
1. Preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other improvements
that are of significant value because of their recreational, aesthetic and scenic qualities,
as defined in the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors element of
the coastal-specific plan;
2. Preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view
corridors and public lands and waters within the city that characterize the cityÓs
appearance as defined in the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors
element of the coastal-specific plan;
3. Ensure that site planning, grading and landscape techniques, as well as improvement
planning, design and construction will preserve, protect and enhance the visual
2-8
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
character of the cityÓs predominant land forms, urban form, vegetation and other
distinctive features, as identified in the general plan and the coastal-specific plan; and
4. Preserve, protect and maintain significant views of and from slope areas within the
community that characterize the cityÓs dominant landform appearance.
The following lands, water and improvements shall be included in this district and shall be
maintained in compliance with the criteria of this section, unless otherwise excluded:
1. All visual accents, view corridors, adjacent lands, affecting corridors and viewing
areas, as generally defined by the general plan and the coastal-specific plan.
The following criteria shall be used in assessing any and all uses, developments and
alterations of lands included in this district, and shall provide that these actions not:
1. Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement that
would block, alter or impair major views, vistas or viewsheds in existence from
designated view corridors, view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the
general plan and the coastal-specific plan in such a way as to materially and irrevocably
alter the quality of the view as to arc (horizontal and vertical), primary orientation or
other characteristics;
2. Cause the removal or significant alteration of structural focal points and natural focal
points, as defined and designated in the general plan;
3. Cause the mass and finish grading or any topographic alteration that results in uniform,
geometrically terraced building sites that are contrary to the natural land forms, which
would substantially detract from the scenic and visual quality of the city, which would
be contrary to the grading criteria contained in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit) or
that would substantially change the natural characteristics of a drainage course,
identified natural vegetation or wildlife habitat area;
4. Create site plans, building or other improvement designs that would result in other
significant changes to the natural topography or that would prevent or hinder the use of
naturalized minimum grading techniques to restore an area to its natural contours;
5. Grade any area or remove vegetation from such an area without replacing such areas
with properly drained, impervious surfaces or suitable vegetation within six months of
the beginning of such activities;
6. Propose the use of any vegetative materials incompatible with the visual, climatic, soil
and ecological characteristics of the city or that require excessive water;
7. Create a cut or embankment with a slope greater than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical
(3:1) and more than 15 feet in total elevation that is adjacent to a publicly maintained
2-9
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
right-of-way or area unless an agreement with the city for the vegetation and perpetual
maintenance of such slope at no cost to the city is executed and bonded; and
8. Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements that would block,
alter or otherwise materially change significant views, vistas and viewshed areas
available from major private residential areas of the community that characterize the
visual appearance, urban form and economic value of these areas.
Title 17, Chapter 56, Section 010
Sets tolerance levels for adverse environmental effects created by any use or development
of land, including dust control, construction fencing, and construction site maintenance.
Title 17, Chapter 70, Section 010
Establishes the site plan review procedure enabling the director and/or planning
commission to check development proposals for conformity to the above environmental
protections.
The above Ordinances address a wide range of environmental protection. The cumulative effect of these
Ordinances is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands included in this Subarea Plan.
2.1.2Other City Ordinances
Other City of Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances, including the Grading and Subdivision Ordinance,
address protection of resources.
Grading Ordinance.
All grading exceeding 20 c.y., clearing, brushing, or grubbing of natural or
existing grade in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, including sensitive habitats (e.g., CSS) is
subject to the Grading Ordinance. Permits are reviewed for compliance with established controls.
Applications for a grading permit can be modified or denied to ensure environmental quality.
Erosion-control guidelines require protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands.
Subdivision Ordinance.
The Subdivision Ordinance complements the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. CEQA review is required for all subdivisions. A
project can be modified or denied if it is found to cause substantial damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Additionally, all subdivisions must be found
consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Stormwater Discharge Ordinance.
The intent of the Stormwater Discharge Ordinance is to
protect and enhance the quality of the watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in the city and
region. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required before major construction
activity and is used as the tool to review proposals for compliance with established guidelines to
reduce or eliminate pollution. If necessary, the City Engineer may require a SWPPP for
business-related activities not already operating under such a plan.
Fire Protection.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted the Los Angels County Fire Code
which, among other things, establishes regulations for the clearance of brush and combustible
growth.The Fire Marshall determines the required clearance width of the fuel management area
2-10
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
for existing and proposed development. The City consults with the Fire Marshall during the
environmental review of proposed projects.
2.1.3City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
The CityÓs General Plan, adopted on June 26, 1975, is organized into the following elements, all of which
are relevant to this Subarea Plan:
Natural Environment Element.
This element is a composite of areas requiring considerations of
public health and safety and preservation of natural resources.
Socio/Cultural Element.
This element identifies the CityÓs goals and policies for preservation of its
paleontological, historical, and archaeological resources and for social, service, and cultural
organizations.
Urban Environment Element.
This element addresses concerns for city areas set aside for
development, with consideration for natural environmental concerns. This element also provides
goals and policies for circulation, noise, visual aspects, public services, and infrastructure.
Land Use Plan.
According to the General Plan, the CityÓs Land Use Plan is a composite of the
other elements and focuses on the CityÓs overall development, conservation, and fiscal balance.
According to the Land Use Plan, Overlay Control Districts are incorporated into the General Plan
to further reduce impacts that could be induced by proposed and existing development in
sensitive areas. Major disruptive treatment of these land areas would alter features, including
significant natural, urban, and socio/cultural characteristics, that form the cityÓs character and
environment.
2.1.4Coastal-Specific Plan
The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the RPV City Council on December 19, 1978. The CSP
provides a series of polices to guide development, as well as protect natural features in the Coastal Zone
along the 7.5 miles of coastline within the CityÓs jurisdiction. Although this Subarea Plan contains
focused policies directed toward native lands management, the CSP clearly contains similar elements
thereby enforcing and complementing the goals of the Subarea Plan.
which is not only vital to local animal life, but is the key to the
The plan identifies natural habitat Ð
migratory speciesPeninsula has already experienced the
Ñ (Page N-1) while acknowledging that the Ð
lowest ebb in habitat qualityRecent programs are providing indicators that this habitat
Ñ and notes that Ð
is recovering
Ñ (Page N-2).
To ensure this successful Ðrecovery,Ñ the following policies address the protection of these valuable
resources while providing for the public health, safety, and welfare.
2-11
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Page N-45 through N-47 of the local CSP identifies 20 polices addressing the Natural
Environment.
Policy 1
allows only low intensity activities within the coastal resource management
districts.
Policy 2
requires any development within the coastal resource management districts to
provide geotechnical engineering studies to assess soil stability.
Policy 3
prohibits new permanent structures within extreme hazard areas of the coastal
resource management district.
Policy 4
encourages non-residential structures (i.e., Recreational Facilities) within coastal
resource management districts.
Policy 5
calls for stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas with high wild-
land fire hazard.
Policy 6
prohibits grading activities or structures within areas having flood or inundation
hazards.
Policy 7
prohibits siltation and implements non-point discharge in the resource management
districts.
Policy 8
requires disclosure and mitigation for impacts to wildlife habitats.
Policy 9
encourages revegetation within coastal resource management districts.
Policy 10
protects, enhances and encourages restoration of marine resources.
Policy 11
encourages the establishment of marine reserves.
Policy 12
encourages acquisition of rights over offshore tidelands.
Policy 13
encourages the support of activities of other agencies concerned with marine
water quality.
Policy 14
encourages the support of activities of other agencies concerned with avoiding
thermal discharge in marine waters.
Policy 15
requires mitigation measures, where possible, to mitigate.
Policy 16
encourages increased enforcement activity of the California Department of
Fish and Game.
Policy 17
encourages the exploration of additional enforcement activities to protect the
marine environment.
Policy 18
encourages climatic sensitive site and structure design.
Policy 19
supports monitoring of oil and gas extraction activities.
Policy 20
encourages restoration of marine environments.
2-12
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
The cumulative effect of these policies is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands covered in this
Subarea Plan.
Page S/C-7 contains policies addressing Social/Cultural concerns:
Policy 1,
although protecting cultural resources, will also as a secondary benefit protect
habitat associated with Native American sites.
Page U-67 contains policies addressing the urban environment:
Policy 6
requires existing trails (where allowed in the reserve) to be left in their natural
state.
Policy 7
restricts coastal access points thereby prohibiting habitat destruction via trail
Ðcutting.Ñ
Policy 8
requires sewer pump stations to be minimized thereby protecting native habitat.
Page C-16 contains the major policy protecting Natural Corridors defined as slopes above
35 percent and all areas having habitat designated as sensitive to human intrusion, both terrestrial
and marine.
The CSP then identifies site-specific policies for subregions within the PlanÓs jurisdiction.
Page S1-10 contains the following policies for Subregion One:
Policy 1
requires that the major drainage course in this subregion be protected.
Policy 2
requires native landscaping in developed areas to be beneficial to migratory and
resident bird species.
Policy 3
calls for the establishment marine reserves.
Policy 5
calls for the coordination in the design and placement of open-space areas.
Policy 6
ensures that flood control improvements do not affect natural habitat.
Page S2-15 contains the following policies for Subregion Two:
Policy 1
requires native landscaping in developed areas to be beneficial to migratory and
resident bird species.
Policy 2
calls for the establishment marine reserves.
Policy 3
encourages restoration of kelp beds off Point Vicente.
Policy 5
ensures that noise and lighting impacts are mitigated at the point of origin.
Policy 7
allows for the upgrading of Marineland, as long as there are no adverse impacts
to surrounding areas.
Policy 9
restricts access to fragile beach areas.
2-13
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Page S3-14 contains the following policies for Subregion Three:
Policies 1 and 2
encourage the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) relocate
development away from coastal bluffs.
Page S4-14 contains the following policy for Subregion Four:
Policy 2 requires development abutting natural drainage areas to maintain that character
of the watercourse.
Page S5-16 contains the following policy for Subregion Five:
Policy 1
ensures that flood control improvements within the subregion will be carried out
in a manner consistent with preserving natural habitats.
Policy 3
encourages that a carrying capacity for beaches be established so that impacts to
fragile marine environments are minimized.
Page S6-12 contains the following policy for Subregion Six:
Policy 1
requires that that native vegetation of the two major canyons in the areas is
protected.
Policy 2
encourages the establishment marine reserves to protect fragile marine
environments.
Policy 4
ensures that flood control improvements are carried out in manner consistent
with the preservation of natural habitat.
Policy 5
prohibits new structures in hazard areas.
Page S 7-12, 13 contains the following policy for Subregion Seven:
Policy 1
requires that natural vegetation be maintained and protected in major drainage
courses.
Policies 2 and 3
initiate and support the establishment marine reserves to protect fragile
intertidal marine environments.
Policy 9
requires sewer pump stations to be minimized thereby protecting native habitat.
Policy 10
requires that the natural drainage course in this subregion be protected and
where flood control is necessary, sensitive to the natural environment.
Policy 12
prohibits dirt fill for traversing identified drainage courses.
The above policies address a wide range of environmental protection. The cumulative effect of the
Coastal Specific Plan is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands covered by this Subarea Plan.
2-14
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
2.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2.2.1Vegetation Communities
The initial vegetation mapping and gnatcatcher and cactus wren distribution data of the Peninsula were prepared
by Atwood et al. (1994) and updated and verified during the first phase of the NCCP program (Ogden, 1999).
The vegetation map was compiled from 1 inch = 1,200 feet color aerial photographs and from field mapping
efforts that used U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps enlarged to a scale of 1 inch = 1,000 feet. The
vegetation mapping was ground-verified, and vegetation polygons were assessed for plant cover. A vegetation
category was assigned to each polygon according to plant species cover based on Holland (1986). These
vegetation data were digitized into the geographic information system (GIS) database. Additional source data
were also obtained from representatives of the local chapters of the CNPS, Audubon Society, and Endangered
Habitats League, as well as digital information from the major landowners and Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG). These data sources were collated and reviewed for spatially relevant information for
inclusion in the GIS database. Ogden updated this base vegetation map using project-specific vegetation data
from existing environmental reports. Minor updates to the vegetation map were made during formation of the
public review draft of this Subarea Plan document to account for changes in vegetation cover associated with
recently completed development projects (URS Corporation, 2003). Approximately 8,558.7 acres of land occurs
in Rancho Palos Verdes, including native habitats, non-native habitats, agricultural lands, disturbed areas, and
developed lands. These communities are listed in Table 2-1 and described below (see Figure 1-1).
Sensitive habitats within the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP planning area are those that are considered rare in the
region, support sensitive species of plants and animals, and/or are subject to regulatory protection through
various federal, state, or local policies or regulations. In the case of habitats in Rancho Palos Verdes, these
include all wetland habitat types (riparian scrub), as well as all upland scrub habitats. No native grasslands have
been delineated in Rancho Palos Verdes, but if patches of native grassland occur, this habitat would also be
considered sensitive if the patch exceeded 0.3 acre and supported at least 10 percent cover of native grassland
plant species. Habitats dominated by non-native plant species (non-native grassland, exotic woodland, and
disturbed vegetation) are generally not considered sensitive. Non-native grassland, however is considered
sensitive where it occurs in large, contiguous areas because it may provide vital foraging habitat for raptors and
support other sensitive plant and wildlife species. Because most grasslands in southern California are now
dominated by non-native annual grasses, conservation of some non-native grassland is necessary to achieving
NCCP planning goals for a multiple habitat reserve design. Patches of non-native grassland that exceed 5 acres
are considered to have some conservation value. Smaller patches of non-native grassland that are contiguous
with larger areas of biological open space are also important because they contribute to a habitat mosaic that can
be used by sensitive species.
2.2.1.1Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal sage scrub is composed of low, soft-woody subshrubs approximately 1 meter (3 feet) high, many
of which are facultatively drought-deciduous (Holland 1986). This association is typically found on dry
sites, such as steep, south-facing slopes or clay-rich soils slow to release stored water. Dominant shrub
species in this vegetation type may vary, depending on local site factors and levels of disturbance.
2-15
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Artemisia californica
Dominants within the study area include California sagebrush (), ashy-leaf
Eriogonum cinereumEncelia californicaBaccharis
buckwheat (), California sunflower (), coyote bush (
pilularisRhus integrifoliaSalvia leucophyllaSalvia
), lemonadeberry (), purple sage (), and black sage (
melliferaEriogonum
). Other less frequent constituents of this community include California buckwheat (
fasciculatumfasciculatumIsocomamenziesiiHeteromeles arbutifolia
ssp. ), goldenbush ( ), toyon (), laurel
Malosma laurinaBaccharis pilularisIsomeris arborea
sumac (), coyote bush (), and bladderpod ().
Numerous CSS sub-associations have been identified in Rancho Palos Verdes and classified according to
ArtemisiaEriogonum
the dominant species. Such sub-associations include -dominated scrub, -dominated
SalviaEnceliaBaccharisRhus
scrub, -dominated scrub, -dominated scrub, -dominated scrub, and -
dominated scrub. These sub-associations correspond to the California sagebrush series, California
buckwheat series, black sage series, purple sage series, and California encelia series, and/or coyote bush
series, as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). These sub-associations have been delineated and
digitized into a GIS database. Where the CSS cannot be clearly differentiated by a single dominant
species, it was classified as ÐundifferentiatedÑ CSS. There are approximately 1,003 acres of CSS in the
ArtemisiaEriogonum
city, of which 93 acres are-dominated scrub, 14 acres are -dominated scrub, 21 acres
SalviaEnceliaBaccharis
are -dominated scrub, 8 acres are -dominated scrub, 7 acres are -dominated scrub,
Rhus
225 acres are -dominated scrub, and 635 acres are undifferentiated.
The shrub layer in this community ranges from a continuous canopy with little understory cover to a more
open canopy with widely spaced shrubs and a well-developed understory. Native understory species
Nassella lepidaNassella
present in this association include foothill needlegrass (), purple needlegrass (
pulchraEriophyllum confertiflorumMirabilis californica
), golden yarrow (), wishbone bush (var.
californicaBloomeria crocea
), and common goldenstar (). Common non-native species in open or
Avena Centaurea melitensisBromus
disturbed sage scrub include wild oat (spp.), tocalote (), foxtail chess (
madritensis rubensSalsola tragus
ssp.), and Russian thistle (), among others. Disturbed CSS is also
present in Rancho Palos Verdes. A disturbed qualifier is placed on CSS (or any other native habitat) based
on mechanical disturbance (e.g., vegetation clearing and off-road vehicle activity). Disturbed CSS
typically has a high percentage of nonnative species, low percent cover of CSS indicator species, and is
fragmented to some degree.
2.2.1.2Southern Cactus Scrub
Southern cactus scrub is a low, dense scrub (less than 2 meters \[6.6 feet\]) with succulent shrubs consisting
Opuntia littoralis, O. oricolaOpuntia prolifera
primarily of prickly pear species () and coastal cholla () as
dominant constituents (Magney, 1992; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Although the dominant species are
succulent, woody species can also be present as co-dominants with the succulents. Typical woody species in
this association include California sagebrush, California buckwheat, California sunflower, bladderpod, and
wishbone bush. Southern cactus scrub ranges from coastal southern Santa Barbara County southward to
northern San Diego County and inland to the cismontane valley areas of San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties (Magney, 1992). Southern cactus scrub occurs mostly on steep, south facing slopes in sandy soils or
rocky areas below 1,200 meters (3,397 feet) elevation (Magney, 1992; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995).
Examples of this community occur on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall site and in the Ocean Trails project
open space. Approximately 97 acres of southern cactus scrub occur in Rancho Palos Verdes.
2-16
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Table 2-1
Vegetation Communities in
1
Rancho Palos Verdes
Vegetation Community Acres
Coastal Sage Scrub Sub-associations
CSS Î Artemisia Dominated 93.0
CSS Î Baccharis Dominated 7.2
CSS Î Encelia Dominated 7.9
CSS Î Eriogonum Dominated 13.9
CSS Î Rhus Dominated 225.0
CSS Î Salvia Dominated 21.0
CSS Î Undifferentiated 635.5
Saltbush Scrub 7.3
Southern Cactus Scrub 96.9
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 137.0
Grassland 955.3
Riparian Scrub 2.5
Exotic Woodland 75.4
Disturbed Vegetation 88.3
Subtotal Vegetation 2366.2
Other
Cliff Face 8.8
Disturbed 162.4
Agriculture 17.6
Developed 6,003.7
Subtotal Other 6,192.5
Total Acreage 8,558.7
1. Vegetation inventory from Ogden (1999) with minor updates in 2003 associated with Ocean Trails and Ocean Front Estates
projects.
2.2.1.3Saltbush Scrub
Atriplex lentiformisAtriplex
Saltbush scrub is dominated by quailbush () and the nonnative species
glauca
. Shrubs are less than 3 meters (10 feet) with closed to open canopies (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf,
1995). Saltbush scrub corresponds to the mixed saltbush series, as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf
Brassica nigra
(1995). The understory consists of ruderal species, such as black mustard (), wild radish
Raphanus sativusMalacothrix saxatile
(), and cliff aster (). Approximately 7 acres of saltbush scrub was
mapped in the city, and was also mapped in the Portuguese Bend area.
2-17
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
2.2.1.4Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
Southern coastal bluff scrub is a low, sometimes prostrate scrub that occurs at localized sites along the
coast south of Point Conception (Holland, 1986). Plants in this association cling to nearly vertical rock
faces just above the surf. The coastal bluff scrub community is widespread along the California coastline
as a very narrow band, often not extending more than a few meters inland (Holland and Keil, 1990).
Dominant plants are mostly woody and/or succulent species, such as California sagebrush, California
buckwheat, ashy-leaf buckwheat, lemonadeberry, coast cholla, and coast prickly pear. Other less-frequent
LyciumcalifornicumDudleya
constituents of this community include boxthorn ( ), bright green dudleya (
virensAphanisma blitoidesEriogonum parvifoliumSuaeda
), aphanisma (), seacliff buckwheat (), sea blite (
taxifolia
), and bladderpod. Development along the southern California coastline has reduced this
community throughout its range. Potential inclusions within coastal bluff scrub are CSS and beach
habitat. Coastal bluff scrub occupies 137 acres along the steep ocean cliffs of Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.2.1.5Grassland
Nonnative annual grasses and other annual species dominate grasslands in the city. Small patches dominated
by native perennial bunchgrasses were observed within the annual grassland, as discussed below, but were
generally too small in extent to map adequately. Annual or nonnative grassland generally occurs on fine-
textured loam or clay soils that are moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry
during the summer and fall. This association is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses,
often with native and nonnative annual forbs (Holland 1986). The number of natives versus nonnatives is site-
specific, and varies according to rainfall and other factors (Heady 1995). Estimates for the proportion of
nonnative species in this association range from 29 to 80 percent (White 1967; Bentley and Talbot 1948;
Heady 1956, 1995; Holland and Keil 1990). Talbot et al. (1939) report that annuals comprise approximately 94
percent of the herbaceous cover in annual grassland; Ewing and Menke (1983) state that annuals comprise 50
to more than 90 percent of the vegetative cover in annual grassland, and that most of the annuals are nonnative
species. Species composition varies within annual grassland and is a function of climatic conditions, soils, and
allelopathic effects of above-ground plant residue (e.g., mulch) (Evans and Young 1989; Heady 1995;
Bartolome et al. 1980).
Annual grassland is a disturbance-related community most often found in old fields or openings in native scrub
habitats. This association may have replaced native grassland and CSS at many localities throughout the study
Bromus diandrus
area. Typical grasses within the study area include wild oat, foxtail chess, ripgut grass (),
Hordeum murinumleporinumCynodon dactylon
barley ( ssp. ), and Bermuda grass (). Characteristic forbs
Erodium cicutariumBrassicaCentromadia
include red-stem filaree (), mustard ( spp.), tarweed ( spp.), tocalote,
and cliff aster. Within annual grassland, grasses are less than 1 meter (3 feet) high and form a continuous or
open cover. Emergent shrubs and trees may be present as well (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Native
grasses in the study region are characterized by the perennial, tussock-forming needlegrass species
Nassella
( spp.). Native and introduced annuals occur between the needlegrass, often exceeding the
bunchgrasses in cover (Holland 1986). Native grasses in Rancho Palos Verdes occur in small areas within
annual grassland and CSS habitats and have been mapped as such. Grassland communities totaling 955
acres cover large areas in the city.
2-18
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
2.2.1.6Riparian Scrub
Riparian scrub varies from a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous association dominated by several
Baccharissalicifolia
species of willow to an herbaceous scrub dominated by mule fat ( ) (Holland 1986).
S. gooddingiiS. lasiolepis
Typical willow species on site include black willow () and arroyo willow ().
Understory vegetation in this association is usually composed of nonnative, weedy species or is lacking
altogether. Riparian scrub may represent a successional stage leading to riparian woodland or forest or
may constitute a stable community. Riparian scrub occurs in Agua Amarga Canyon and south of Palos
Verdes Drive South on the Ocean Trails project property. This association occupies approximately
2.5 acres of land in Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.2.1.7Exotic Woodland
Exotic Woodland includes non-native trees and shrubs planted in Rancho Palos Verdes in the past. Some of
these introduced species are invasive and have dispersed into the adjacent grassland and native habitats. Exotic
Acacia longifoliaAcacia cyclops
species include everblooming acacia (), Sydney golden wattle (), Peruvian
Schinus molleSchinusterebenthifoliaRobinia
pepper tree (), Brazilian pepper tree ( ), black locust (
pseudoacaciaMyoporum laetumEucalyptusPinus
), myoporum (), gum tree ( spp.), and pines ( spp.). Most of
the exotic woodlands occur in the Portuguese Bend and Lower Filiorum areas and occupy approximately
75 acres.
2.2.1.8Disturbed Vegetation
Disturbed vegetation refers to plant associations that occur on highly disturbed sites in urbanized areas
(e.g., along roadsides, footpaths, in parking lots, or in previously graded areas) that support weedy
broadleaf species. Areas with disturbed vegetation are typically characterized by heavily compacted soils
that limit the species that can thrive here (Holland and Keil, 1990). Typical species associated with
Conyza canadensisSonchus oleraceus
disturbed vegetation include horseweed (), sow thistle (), knotweed
PolygonumMalvaFoeniculum vulgare
( spp.), mallow ( spp.), Russian thistle, sweet fennel (), castor bean
Ricinus communisChenopodiumCentaurea melitensis
(), goosefoot ( spp.), and tocalote (). Other common
species that can be found in disturbed areas, as well as other communities, include mustards, star thistle,
LoliumMedicago polymorphaSilybum marianum
rye grass ( spp.), burclover (), wild radish, milk-thistle (),
Xanthium
and cocklebur ( spp.), among others. True ruderal species are those found mainly or solely in
areas with previous surface disturbance (California Exotic Pest Plant Council, 1999; Beatty and Licari,
1992). Disturbed vegetation occupies approximately 88 acres in Rancho Palos Verdes.
2.2.1.9Cliff Faces
Cliff faces are steep, sometimes vertical slopes with little vegetative cover. Constant erosion from wind
and rain prevents vegetation establishment. Typically, there is little soil available for plants to become
established. Cliff faces in the city are found along the sea cliffs, in the landslide area, west of Coolheights
Drive, and north of Forrestal Road. Cliff faces can also occur as inclusions in coastal bluff scrub habitat.
Cliff faces occupy about 9 acres of land in Rancho Palos Verdes.
2-19
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
2.2.1.10Disturbed Areas
Disturbed areas are lands where the vegetation has been significantly altered by frequent disking or
mowing for fire protection and vegetation control and little to no vegetation cover remains. Typical plant
Erodium
species found scattered in disturbed areas include Russian thistle, black mustard, storksbill (
spp.), and annual grasses, among others. Disturbed areas primarily consist of maintained firebreaks and
occupy approximately162 acres in the city.
2.2.1.11Agriculture
Agriculture includes actively cultivated lands and lands that support nursery operations. Only two areas in
Rancho Palos Verdes are actively farmed, comprising approximately 18 acres. These two areas are in the
western portion of the city near the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall.
2.2.1.12Developed Areas
Developed areas in the city are lands that have been permanently altered by human activities and that support
no native vegetation. These areas include roads, buildings, ornamental landscapes, and other areas where the
land has been altered to such an extent that natural vegetation cannot become reestablished. Areas graded for
development in the late 1990s (i.e., Ocean Trails and Subregion One) were mapped as they were being
developed, but a portion of these areas are in the process of being revegetated with CSS and other native
vegetation. Developed areas occupy 6,113 acres in the city limits.
2.2.2Sensitive Species
Sensitive species, through the circumstance of natural distribution or habitat destruction, have declined in
population to a level so low that professional biologists are concerned about the longevity or vitality of
the species. Sensitive species include species listed by the State or Federal Wildlife Agencies under the
ESA, CDFG as an Species of Special Concern (SSC), or on the California Native Plant SocietyÓs
inventory of rare or endangered plants (CNPS, 2001). The distribution of sensitive species is based on
cumulative sighting data compiled during the Phase I NCCP program and focused rare plant surveys
conducted in spring 1998. Butterfly habitat was also assessed during the Phase I NCCP program. Only
recently has El Segundo blue butterfly been documented in Rancho Palos Verdes. All the sensitive
species are associated closely with scrub habitats on the Peninsula. Sensitive species in the Rancho Palos
Verdes Subarea Plan area are described below (see Figure 1-2).
Aphanisma blitoides
Aphanisma
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-2
Aphanisma is a small, annual herb that occurs on sandy soils near the coast in coastal bluff scrub and CSS
(CNPS, 2001). It occurs at elevations from 3 to 60 meters (10 to 200 feet) and is found from Santa
Barbara County to northern Baja California, Mexico, and is on all the Channel Islands except San Miguel
(Junak et al., 1995). This fleshy species blooms from April to May. Aphanisma is in steep decline on the
mainland and on the islands (CNPS, 2001). Mainland populations are declining because of recreational
2-20
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
use of beaches and development along the coast (Reiser, 1994). Aphanisma was located in Rancho Palos
Verdes in the coastal bluff scrub from Portuguese Point along the coast to the Rancho Palos Verdes/San
Pedro city limit.
Atriplex pacifica
South Coast Saltscale
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 3-2-2
South coast saltscale occurs in coastal bluff scrub, CSS, and alkali playas (CNPS, 2001). This small, wiry,
prostrate, annual herb grows in openings between shrubs in xeric, often mildly disturbed locales. This
species occurs from Ventura County to Sonora and Baja California, Mexico, and on San Clemente,
Anacapa, Santa Catalina, Santa Cruz, San Nicholas, and Santa Rosa islands (Reiser, 1994). South coast
saltscale is severely declining throughout its coastal range on the mainland (Reiser, 1994). In Rancho
Palos Verdes, this species has been detected on Portuguese Point and along the coast between Halfway
Point and Shoreline Park.
Calandrinia maritima
Seaside Calandrinia
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-1
Seaside calandrinia typically occurs on sandy bluffs near the beach and sandy openings in CSS at
elevations below 300 meters (1,000 feet) (Reiser, 1994; Hickman, 1993). It occurs from Santa Barbara
County to Baja California, Mexico, and is found on Anacapa, Santa Barbara, San Clemente, Santa
Catalina, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa Islands (Reiser, 1994; CNPS, 2001). In Rancho Palos Verdes,
seaside calandrinia occurs on the coastal bluffs in Abalone Cove and immediately west of Portuguese
Bend to the Rancho Palos Verdes/San Pedro city limit.
Calochortus catalinae
Catalina Mariposa Lily
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-3
Catalina mariposa lily is a perennial bulb species that flowers from February to May (CNPS, 2001). It
occurs below 700 meters (2,300 feet) in open chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland, and CSS (Hickman, 1993; Reiser, 1994; CNPS, 2001). Catalina mariposa lily occurs in CSS
near the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall, in the canyon north of Barkentine Road, in the Forrestal area, in
the northern part of the Portuguese Bend landslide near the closed portion of the Crenshaw Road
extension, at the West Bluff and the Upper La Rotonda Preserves in Ocean Trails, and in the Switchbacks
enhancement area north of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drives North and East.
2-21
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Calystegia peirsonii
PeirsonÓs Morning-glory
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-3
PeirsonÓs morning-glory is found in chaparral, CSS, chenopod scrub, and woodlands (CNPS, 2001). It is
a perennial herb from a rhizome and blooms from May to June. The elevation range of this species is 30
to 1,500 meters (100 to 5,000 feet; CNPS, 2001). PeirsonÓs morning-glory was previously known only
from Antelope Valley in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles County (Hickman, 1993); recent
Calystegia
studies, however, indicate that this species frequently intergrades with other species (CNPS,
2001). This species has not been observed in Rancho Palos Verdes but is known to occur in the San Pedro
area of the Peninsula.
Centromadia parryi ssp. australis
Southern Tarplant
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 3-3-2
Southern tarplant occurs in the margins of salt marsh margins, mesic valley and foothill grasslands, vernal
pools, and alkaline areas below 425 meters (1,400 feet) elevation (CNPS, 2001). It ranges from Santa
Barbara County to northern Baja California, Mexico, and possibly occurs on Santa Catalina Island
(CNPS, 2001; Reiser, 1994). This summer blooming annual occurs mostly in seasonally moist saline
grassland. Southern tarplant is severely declining throughout its range because of development and
recreation (Reiser, 1994). This species has not been detected in Rancho Palos Verdes, but occurs
northeast of the city near Machado Lake.
Convolvulus simulans
Small-flowered Morning-glory
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-2
Small-flowered morning-glory is found between 30 to 700 meters (100 to 2,300 feet) on clay soils
typically devoid of shrubs, in chaparral, sage scrub, and grassland (Reiser, 1994; Hickman, 1993).
Occurrences have been recorded in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis
Obispo, Kern, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, San Benito, and Stanislaus Counties, as well as on Santa
Catalina and San Clemente Islands and in Baja California, Mexico (CNPS, 2001). In Rancho Palos
Verdes, small-flowered morning-glory occurs at two locations: north of Forrestal Drive and northwest of
the terminus of Coolheights Drive.
2-22
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Crossosoma californicum
Catalina Crossosoma
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-2
Catalina crossosoma is a deciduous shrub that can reach 5 meters (16 feet) high. This shrub is usually
found on dry, rocky slopes and canyons in CSS below 500 meters (1,600 feet) elevation (CNPS, 2001;
Hickman, 1993). It is known from the Peninsula, San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands, and
Guadelupe Island, Mexico (Hickman, 1993). Catalina crossosoma has been detected at three locations in
Rancho Palos Verdes: north of Pirate Drive, and on the ridgeline and in the canyon west of Ganado Drive,
south of Crest Road.
Dichondra occidentalis
Western Dichondra
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-1
This perennial herb generally occurs at elevations from 50 to 500 meters (165 to 1,650 feet) on dry, sandy
banks in CSS, chaparral, grassland, or southern oak woodland and often proliferates on recently burned
slopes (CNPS, 2001, Reiser, 1994). This species occurs in Sonoma and Marin Counties, disjunct to San
Barbara County, and south along the coast to northern Baja California, Mexico (Reiser, 1994). In Rancho
Palos Verdes, western dichondra occurs northwest of Coolheights Drive in CSS.
Dudleya virens spp. virens
Bright Green Dudleya
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-2
Bright green dudleya is a succulent perennial with a basal rosette of leaves from a caudex (i.e., a short
woody stem at or below the ground; Hickman, 1993). This species occurs on steep slopes in chaparral,
coastal bluff scrub, and CSS habitats below 400 meters (1,300 feet) (CNPS, 2001; Hickman, 1993). It is
known from Los Angeles County, San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina Islands, and
Guadelupe Island, Mexico (Hickman, 1993). In Rancho Palos Verdes, bright green dudleya occurs along
the coastal bluffs from Point Vicente east to the Rancho Palos Verdes/San Pedro city limit.
Erysimum insulare ssp. suffrutescens
Suffrutescent Wallflower
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-3
Suffrutescent wallflower is a perennial herb that occurs at elevations of less than 150 meters (500 feet)
(Hickman, 1993). It is found in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and CSS habitats along the coast from
San Luis Obispo County to Los Angeles County (CNPS, 2001). Suffrutescent wallflower occurs on the
Peninsula, but has not been detected in Rancho Palos Verdes.
2-23
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Lycium brevipes var. hassei
Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 3-3-3
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is a deciduous shrub that can reach 4 meters (13 feet) high (Hickman,
1993). It is found on coastal bluff slopes in coastal bluff scrub and CSS habitats at elevations below 300
meters (1,000 feet) (CNPS, 2001; Hickman, 1993). This species was rediscovered on the Peninsula in
1976. Historical localities include San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands. In Rancho Palos Verdes,
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn occurs on Portuguese Point.
Pentachaeta lyonii
LyonÓs Pentachaeta
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: Endangered
CNPS: List 1B, 3-3-3
LyonÓs pentachaeta is an annual herb that blooms from March to August (CNPS, 2001). It occurs in
openings in chaparral and valley and foothill grasslands near the coast at elevations below 150 meters
(500 feet) (CNPS, 2001; Hickman, 1993). This species is known from Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
(i.e., Santa Monica Mountains and Simi Hills) and Santa Catalina Island. Currently, fewer than 20
populations are known to occur (CNPS, 2001). LyonÓs pentachaeta has not been reported in Rancho Palos
Verdes.
Suaeda taxifolia
Woolly Seablite
USFWS: No status
CDFG: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-1
Woolly seablite is a herbaceous perennial usually restricted to coastal salt marsh; it rarely grows in
peripheral scrublands adjacent to salt marshes or as isolated plants along beaches (Reiser, 1994). This
species occurs along the coast from Santa Barbara County to Baja California, Mexico, and on Santa
Barbara, San Clemente, Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, San Nicholas, and Santa Rosa Islands and on
Guadalupe Island, Mexico (CNPS, 2001). In Rancho Palos Verdes, woolly seablite occurs as isolated
plants along the peninsula shoreline from Torrance Beach to San Pedro.
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: No status
The Palos Verdes blue butterfly (PVB) is a rare subspecies of the silvery blue butterfly (Perkins and
Emmel, 1977; Arnold, 1987). The PVB is restricted to open CSS habitats that support either ocean milk
Astragalus trichopoduslonchus) Lotus scoparius
vetch ( var. ordeerweed (), which are this speciesÓ larval
food plants (Mattoni, 1992). Currently, PVB is known to occur only at the Naval Fuel Depot in San Pedro
(between Western Avenue and Gaffey Street, south of Palos Verdes Drive North; Mattoni, 1992), at
Malaga Dunes, and was recently reintroduced at the Chandler Preserve. Historical occurrences of PVB in
2-24
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Rancho Palos Verdes include locations near ÐThe SwitchbackÑ area of Palos Verdes Drive East, locations
within the landslide moratorium area (EdwardÓs Canyon in Area 4, Portuguese Canyon, and Forrestal
\[Klondike\] Canyon), and Agua Amarga (Arnold, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1990; Mattoni, 1992). Habitat for
PVB is typified by open CSS and ecotone areas between sage scrub and grassland. Milk vetch is the
primary larval host plant present in Rancho Palos Verdes. Deerweed does not generally occur in Rancho
Palos Verdes and is restricted mostly to the northeast slope of the Peninsula. Milk vetch is an early
successional or disturbance-associated species and would therefore decline if there is an extended period
without disturbance (e.g., fire). Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with agriculture and residential
development, fire suppression (e.g., fuel modification activities), severe weather conditions, and over-
collecting by butterfly enthusiasts have contributed to the current endangered status of this species
(Arnold, 1987; Mattoni, 1992). Federal Designated Critical Habitat includes ÐThe SwitchbackÑ area of
Palos Verdes Drive East and Agua Amarga Canyon (USFWS, 1980; Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 129,
pp. 44942).
Euphilotes battoides allyni
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: No status
The El Segundo Blue (ESB) is a rare subspecies of the square-spotted blue butterfly (Subfamily
Polyomattinae) restricted to remnant coastal dune habitats at four locations: Ballona Wetlands south of
Marina del Rey, Los Angeles International Airport Dunes, Chevron El Segundo Preserve and adjacent
habitat in El Segundo, and Torrance Beach/Malaga Cove (Mattoni et al., 1997). Coast buckwheat
Eriogonumparvifolium
( ) is the larval food plant of this subspecies. The historical distribution of ESB
included dune habitats in Redondo and Manhattan Beaches. A recovery plan for ESB has been prepared
with the Malaga Cove population as the most southern management unit (Torrance Recovery Unit) of the
recovery plan. The Malaga Cove population is small, between 10 and 30 individuals using between 50
E. parvifolium
and 100 individuals of (R. Arnold, pers. comm.). There is no dune habitat within the
jurisdiction of Rancho Palos Verdes, but coast buckwheat is known to occur within the coastal bluff scrub
habitat between Point Vicente and Abalone Cove. Dr. Richard Arnold conducted a butterfly survey in
summer 1998 with negative results for ESB in this area of the city. Subsequent biological surveys in 2000
for proposed development of the York Long Point site detected a population of ESB in coastal bluff scrub
habitat (RBF, 2001).
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei
San Diego Horned Lizard
USFWS: No status
CDFG: SSC
This subspecies is endemic to extreme southwestern California (Stebbins, 1985) from south of the
Transverse Ranges to Baja California. This species is relatively widespread and locally common from the
coast to the western edge of the desert, where extensive suitable habitat is still availableÏmostly in
Orange and San Diego Counties (San Diego Herpetological Society, 1980). This horned lizard has been
reported in the Malaga Cove area of the Peninsula (Mattoni et al., 1997) but was not observed during any
of the gnatcatcher studies or spring plant surveys. It occurs from sea level to elevations of over 8,000 feet
and frequents a variety of habitats from coastal dune, sage scrub, and chaparral to coniferous and
broadleaf woodlands (Stebbins, 1985). It is most often found on sandy or friable soils with open scrub.
2-25
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
Habitat requirements include open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, and fine loose soil for rapid burial.
Harvester ants are the primary food item of the horned lizard and indicate potential for occurrence of the
lizard in an area. This taxon is primarily active in late spring (April to May) and early summer (June to
July), after which individuals typically aestivate. Threats to this species include urban development,
conversion of habitat to agriculture, collecting of individuals for the pet trade, and reduction of food base
Linepithema humile
because of introduced Argentine ants () displacing native ant species (Jennings and
Hayes, 1994; Brattstrom, 1997; Holway et al, 2002).
Polioptila californica californica
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
USFWS: Threatened
CDFG: SSC, NCCP focal species
The California gnatcatcher population in the U.S. is estimated to exceed 3,400 pairs (USFWS, 1996). The
Peninsula supports a remnant population of 26 to 56 pairs considered isolated from the remainder of the
U.S. population (Atwood et al., 1994, 1998; Atwood and Bontrager, 2001). The center point locations of
gnatcatcher territories within the GIS database include cumulative data gathered during the Manomet
Center five-year study. The primary cause of this speciesÓ decline is the cumulative loss of CSS
vegetation to urban and agricultural development (Atwood, 1993). This speciesÓ habitat is being formally
protected and managed through the NCCP program, ESA Sections 10 (HCP processes) and 7 (agency
consultations on federal lands). Federal Designated Critical Habitat for the gnatcatcher includes suitable
habitats throughout the Peninsula. This species is probably extirpated from much of Ventura and San
Bernardino Counties and declining proportionately with the continued loss of CSS habitat in the four
remaining southern California counties within the coastal plain. The territory size requirements of the
gnatcatcher vary with habitat quality and distance from the coast. Documented home ranges have varied
from 1 to 7 acres on the Peninsula (Impact Sciences, 1990; Atwood et al., 1995). Over five years,
gnatcatcher productivity and survival have varied on the Peninsula. Annual reproduction has varied from
2.3 to 3.9 fledglings per pair. Annual adult survival has varied from 23 to 70 percent; juvenile over-winter
survival varied from 20 to 43 percent. Studies of the speciesÓ habitat preferences on the Peninsula and
Artemisia californica
elsewhere indicate that California sagebrush () and flat-topped buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum
() are the primary plants used by gnatcatchers when foraging for insects (Atwood
et al., 1995; Impact Sciences, 1990; RECON, 1987; ERCE, 1990; Ogden, 1992a). Breeding gnatcatchers
Rhus
on the Peninsula are noticeably absent from most sage scrub dominated by lemonade berry (
integrifolia
).
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
Cactus Wren
USFWS: No status
CDFG: SSC, NCCP focal species
Coastal southern California populations of cactus wren are seriously endangered throughout the coastal
plain from Ventura to the Mexican border (Rea and Weaver, 1990). This species is common throughout
the deserts of the Southwest. Coastal populations breed in CSS dominated by extensive stands of tall
prickly pear or cholla cacti. Once widespread in coastal southern California, by 1990 cactus wrens had
been reduced to fewer than 3,000 pairs scattered into colonies of widely varying size; many colonies are
isolated by distance from other colonies (Ogden, 1992b). The Peninsula cactus wren population was
relatively stable at approximately 58 ± 5 pairs during the mid-1990s (Atwood et al., 1998). Reproduction
2-26
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
TWO
Description of RPV Subarea
averages above three fledglings per pair, and adult survivorship varies from 57 to 73 percent; juvenile
over-winter survivorship varies from 9 to 36 percent. Home range size for Peninsula cactus wrens varies
from 1 to 3 acres.
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Pacific (Little) Pocket Mouse
USFWS: Endangered
CDFG: SSC
Historic records of this smallest subspecies of little pocket mouse extend along the immediate coast from
Marina del Rey in Los Angeles County, south to the Mexican border. Only eight definite localities have
been documented, most of which were subsequently lost to development (USFWS, 1994). Few records
are known after the 1930s, and the species was not definitively identified by trapping studies after 1971
until a small population was discovered on the Dana Point Headlands, Orange County in 1993 (Brylski,
1993). Habitats of the Pacific pocket mouse include coastal strand, sand dunes, ruderal vegetation on river
alluvium, and open CSS on marine terraces. Three populations were subsequently located on Camp
Pendleton in northern San Diego County. Potential habitat beyond Camp Pendleton is very limited and
highly fragmented by coastal land development and agriculture. No populations of Pacific pocket mouse
have been detected on the Peninsula, despite several trapping surveys within potentially suitable habitat.
This species is not expected to be currently extant in Rancho Palos Verdes (Dudek and Associates, 1994;
Marquez and Associates, 1995; BonTerra Consulting, 1997; Ogden, 1999). Several authors have noted
that this species is found in fine, alluvial, sandy soil near the ocean and adjacent terraces dominated by
open sage scrub (Brylski, 1993). The Pacific pocket mouse remains in its plugged burrow during the day
and is active only at night. Its peak activity tends to occur early in the night. It becomes torpid during
periods of food stress or low temperatures. It is inactive above ground from October to January, varying
with food reserves and minimum night temperatures. Breeding occurs from January to August, peaking
from March to May. Litter size ranges from two to eight, with usually one or two litters per year. Pacific
pocket mice are predominantly granivorous, eating mostly seeds of grasses and forbs.
2.2.3Regionally Important Habitat Areas
A key step in developing an NCCP plan for the City was to prioritize the most critical biological resource
areas for potential conservation so that (1) conservation is maximized; (2) acquisition, restoration and
management funds are efficiently used, and (3) relatively less important habitat areas can be developed.
Regionally Important Habitat Areas (RIHA) were identified through the overlay of vegetation and target
species information; they include areas where there is relatively extensive native vegetation supporting
concentrations of target species. Linkage Planning Area that provide a habitat connection between larger
habitat areas were also identified. Approximately 55 percent (1,292 acres) of the existing naturalized
vegetation in Rancho Palos Verdes was identified as RIHAs (Figure 2-3).
2-27
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
07/16/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
2-4
Lomita
Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkage Planning Areas
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Non-Natural (developed, disturbed,
Regionally Important Habitat Areas
Linkage Planning AreasSubarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Natural Vegetation
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
agriculture)
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
SECTION 3 PROPOSED RESERVE DESIGN
3.1 BIOLOGICAL RESERVE DESIGN
The Subarea Plan promotes biodiversity, allows for continued economic development, and avoids
property taking. Consequently, designing the reserve system (Reserve) involves balancing two major
goals:
Biological conservation;
Property development, property rights, and economic development.
The approach taken to design a functional Reserve was to identify properties where conservation would best
achieve biological goals with the least detrimental effects on other land use, property rights, or economic
goals. This approach involved examining opportunities and constraints and incorporating biologically
valuable lands into the Reserve.
The CityÓs primary conservation strategy is to acquire several key privately owned parcels deemed regionally
important, dedicate selected City-owned lands (Figure 3-1), and have the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land
Conservancy manage this Reserve with the assistance of the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The proposed
Reserve was designed to be consistent with NCCP standards and guidelines and the issuance criteria for ESA
Section 10(a) take authorizations for species covered by the city-wide permit. The Reserve conserves the most
practicable amount of regionally important habitat areas and provides adequate habitat linkages between
patches of conserved habitat. Based on a habitat restoration plan to be approved by the Wildlife Agencies, the
City and PVPLC will enhance/restore the most practicable amount of disturbed habitats within the Reserve,
emphasizing those directly adjacent to conserved habitat to enhance habitat patch size and habitat linkage
function (i.e., areas with moderate to high potential for successful restoration).
The proposed reserve design includes approximately 1,504 acres, of which 1,435 acres are dominated by
naturalized vegetation (Figure 3-2, Table 3-1). An additional 663 acres of land are categorized as Neutral
Lands that contribute to reserve function as natural open space and cannot be developed because of
extreme slopes, open-space hazard zoning, or official designation as deed restricted HOA open space. The
exact boundaries of the Neutral Lands shall be determined by the City based on a slope analysis
calculation for extreme slope areas (+35%), by the CityÓs zoning map for the OH zoning and by survey
for any recorded deed restrictions. Because Neutral Lands are currently not accessible for active habitat
management, they are not included in the Reserve. If agreements can be reached with the property owners
to allow management, these lands would be added to the Reserve. Including Neutral Lands,
approximately 96.3 percent (1,200 acres) of existing sage scrub habitats would be conserved and
precluded from future development under the proposed reserve design.
The Reserve acreages noted below are approximations. The actual acreages will be calculated after the
Reserve Map boundary lines are refined using the CityÓs 2004 orthographic maps and L.A. County
Assessor parcel line data. This will be done after the Wildlife Agencies complete their review of the
Subarea Plan. The Reserve includes:
3-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
3-1
Lomita
City-Owned and Private Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Private Development Open Space
Private Lands to be Acquired
Contributing to the Preserve
Contributed to the Preserve
City Owned Lands Already
City Owned Lands Being
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Dedicated
06/22/04
FIGURE
3-2
Pacific
Ocean
Rolling Hills
Reserve Design
04500
Estates
Rolling
FEET
Hills
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Southern Cactus Scrub
Rocky Shore/Intertidal
Disturbed Vegetation
Coastal Sage Scrub*
Exotic Woodland
Riparian Scrub
Neutral Lands
*See figure 1-1 for description.
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Reserve Area
City Property
Agriculture
Developed
Grassland
Disturbed
Cliff Face
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Table 3-1
Proposed Conservation Acreage
by Vegetation Community
In Habitat Neutral Outside Total Total
Existing
Vegetation Community
Reserve Lands Reserve Conserved Percent
(acres)
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Conserved
11
Coastal Sage Scrub Associations
CSS Î Artemisia Dominated 93.0 48.4 33.7 10.9 82.1 88.3
CSS Î Baccharis Dominated 7.2 7.2 0.0 0.0 7.2 100.0
CSS Î Encelia Dominated 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 100.0
CSS Î Eriogonum Dominated 13.9 6.8 7.1 0.0 13.9 100.0
CSS Î Rhus Dominated 225.0 127.4 96.0 1.6 223.4 99.3
CSS Î Salvia Dominated 21.0 19.2 1.8 0.0 21.0 100.0
CSS Î Undifferentiated 635.5 412.2 191.8 31.5 604.0 95.0
Southern Cactus Scrub 96.9 70.9 24.9 1.1 95.8 98.9
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 137.0 96.3 39.8 0.9 136.1 99.3
Saltbrush Scrub 7.3 7.1 0.0 0.2 7.1 97.3
Subtotal CSS 1,244.7 803.4 395.1 46.2 1,198.5 96.3
Other Vegetation
Grassland 955.3 530.7 216.1 208.5 746.8 78.2
Riparian Scrub 2.5 2.4 0.0 0.1 2.4 96
Exotic Woodland 75.4 47.1 9.1 19.2 56.2 74.5
Disturbed Vegetation 88.3 52.1 12.1 24.1 64.2 72.7
Subtotal Other Vegetation 1,121.5 632.3 237.3 251.9 869.6 77.5
Total Naturalized Vegetation 2,366.2 1,435.7 632.4 298.1 2,068.1 87.4
Other
Cliff Face 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 100.0
Disturbed 162.4 42.2 16.1 104.1 58.3 35.9
Agriculture 17.6 2.9 0.0 14.7 2.9 16.4
Developed 6,003.7 14.5 14.6 5,974.6 29.1 0.5
Subtotal Other 6,192.5 68.4 30.7 6,093.4 99.1 1.6
Total Acreage 8,558.7 1,504.1 663.1 6,391.5 2,167.2 25.3
1.Acreage in Habitat Reserve and Neutral Lands categories combined.
3-4
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
3.1.1Existing Public Lands (836.5 acres)
City-owned lands (423.5 acres) already dedicated as biological open space to be included in the
Reserve
102-acre Switchbacks Parcel
53-acre Shoreline Park Parcel
163-acre Forrestal Parcel
69 acres within the 70.5-acre open space area in the Oceanfront Estates Project now
owned by the City
1. City/Redevelopment Agency -owned lands to be dedicated to the Reserve (322.2 acres)
The entire 98-acre Barkentine Parcel
The 98-acre Barkentine Parcel was purchased by the City in 2001 with funds from the Los
Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District Specified Grant Program (1996
Proposition). Even though the proposition states that the property was purchased to acquire
Ðcritical natural lands and wildlife habitatÑ, the proposition does not require that the entirety of
the property be devoted solely to that purpose. Nonetheless, the City proposes to dedicate the
entire 98-acre property into the Reserve to ensure its conservation in perpetuity.
65 acres of the 79.3-acre Upper Point Vicente Property
The CityÓs Upper Pt. Vicente property consists of the following three (3) separate parcels: a 71.0-
acre parcel that was deeded to the City by the federal government in December 1979 and is
subject to a federally approved Program of Utilization; a 6.0-acre parcel that was purchased by
the City from the federal government and deeded to the City in March 1979 for use as a civic
center site; and a 2.2-acre parcel that was previously owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula School
District which was deeded to the City from the federal government in June 1987. Together these
parcels make up 79.3 acres that is owned and controlled by the City. This acreage does not
include a 3.9-acre parcel that is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard and surrounded by the City
parcels. Approximately 65 acres of the 79.3-acre City owned property is proposed to be dedicated
to the Reserve. Excluded from the Reserve is a 14.3-acre area that constitutes the level, disturbed,
developed portion of the property. The 14.3-acre area includes the entirety of the 6.0-acre
property, the entirety of the 2.2-acre parcel and 6.0 acres of the 71.0-acre parcel that is subject to
the Program of Utilization.
10 acres of the 26.4-acre Lower Point Vicente Property
In 2004, the County of Los Angeles deeded the 26.4-acre Lower Point Vicente property to the
City. The CityÓs Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center is located on this property. The only portion of
this property that is proposed to be included in the Reserve is the coastal bluff area, which is the
area between the mean high tide line and the bluff trail. This area is estimated to be
approximately 10 acres in size.
3-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
6 acres of the 10.5-acre Fishing Access Property
In 2004, the County of Los Angeles deeded the 10.5-acre Fishing Access property to the City.
The only portion of this property that is proposed to be included in the Reserve is the coastal bluff
area, which is the area between the mean high tide line and the top of the coastal bluff. This area
is estimated to be approximately 6 acres in size.
100 acres of the 124.3-acre Abalone Cove Property
The Abalone Cove property is owned by the CityÓs Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The property
consists of the following two (2) separate parcels: a 79.2-acre ÐAbalone Cove Shoreline ParkÑ
parcel that was acquired by the RDA from the County of L.A. in 1987 and the 45.2-acre Ðarchery
rangeÑ parcel that was also purchased from L.A. County in 1987. Together these parcels make up
124.3 acres that is owned and controlled by the CityÓs RDA. Approximately 100 acres of the
124.3-acre City owned property is proposed to be dedicated to the Reserve. Excluded from the
Reserve is the Abalone Cove upper parking lot and picnic area and the lower parking lot and pre-
school/lifeguard area.
17.4-acre Del Cerro Buffer Property
The City purchased this 17.4-acre property in 2003, which is located adjacent to the CityÓs Del
Cerro park. The entire parcel is proposed to be dedicated to the Reserve as it will serve as a buffer
between Del Cerro Park and the adjoining Upper Filiorum property.
16.8 acres of the 19.6-acre Crestridge Property
The CityÓs RDA currently owns a 19.6-acre parcel at the corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw
Blvd, that along with a adjoining 9.8-acre privately owned parcel, is the site of a proposed senior
condominium/affordable housing/park/senior center project. As currently proposed, the parcels
would be further subdivided to create two development parcels and one 16.8-acre open space
parcel. Therefore, it is proposed to dedicate 16.8 acres of the RDA owned 19.6-acre Crestridge
parcel to the Reserve.
9 acres of the 17.5-acre Grand View Park
Grand View Park is a 17.5-acre undeveloped park site that was obtained by the City in 1976. It is
proposed to include the northern slope and canyon portions of the park in the Reserve. The area
that would be in the Reserve is estimated at 9 acres, leaving approximately 8.5 acres of
moderately sloping land outside of the Reserve.
2. Other public/conserved lands (90.8 acres):
66.9 acres within the Ocean Trails Project (not yet transferred to the City)
Eventually, the Ocean Trails Golf/Residential project will dedicate to the City a total of 74.9
acres of open space. Of this open space, 66.9 acres will contain habitat and passive trail uses,
which will be maintained by the developer. Therefore, it is foreseen that when the 74.9 acres of
open space is dedicated to the City, 66.9 acres will be dedicated to the Reserve.
20-acre Lunada Canyon Preserve owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
3-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
3.9-acre Coast Guard property
It is expected that the federal government will include the entirety of the 3.9-acre Coast Guard
property in the Reserve. This property is located in Upper Pt. Vicente and is completely
surrounded by City owned open space.
3.1.2Private Lands to be Contributed (216.6 acres)
1. Private development projects will contribute 80 acres of biological open space to the
Reserve:
40 acres within the Long Point Parcel (bluff face).
Although not required to do so, it is anticipated that the developer of the Long Point Resort Hotel
Project will dedicate the bluff areas of the property to the Reserve after the project is constructed.
It is estimated that the bluff area constitutes approximately 40 acres of surface area.
40 acres within the Point View (Lower Filiorum) Parcel
Based on the location of the Reserve boundary line as depicted through the 94-acre Point View
(Lower Filiorum) property, it is estimated that approximately 40 to 45 acres of the property would
be dedicated to the Reserve. Although a more precise location of the Reserve boundary will be
determined before the Implementing Agreement is signed, at a minimum the Reserve area must
be at least 40 acres in size and the minimum reserve corridor width should be no less than 300
feet in width at its narrowest location. The 40 acres of dedicated Reserve include 1.5 acres to be
provided as mitigation for previous brush clearing activities and 38.5 acres of mitigation for CSS
and grassland losses resulting from any future development of the 95-acre Lower Filiorum parcel.
The inclusion of Lower Filiorum acreage in the Reserve will be a condition of approval for
any development project subsequently approved for theLower Filiorum property. If no
approvals are obtained, there will be no obligation on the part of present or future property
owner to donate these lands. Designating these lands as included in the Reserve in the text
and maps of this Subarea Plan does not constitute approval of development on the Lower
Filiorum property.
2. Seven local Homeowners Associations (HOA) are being requested to contribute 136.6 acres
of open space to the Reserve:
11.5 acres belonging to the Panorama Estates HOA
18 acres belonging to the Portuguese Bend Club
20 acres belonging to the Sea Breeze HOA
42.3 acres belonging to the Peninsula Pointe HOA
16.6 acres belonging to the Sunset Ridge HOA
13.2 acres belonging to the Seacliff Hills HOA
15 acres belonging to the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA
3-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
The City and PVPLC are actively working with these HOAs to sign agreements to include a
portion of their open space lots within the Reserve to be actively managed by the PVPLC.
Because they currently are not accessible for active habitat management, they are not included in
the Reserve. If agreements can be reached with the property owners to allow management, these
lands will be added to the Reserve. Until such agreements are obtained, however, these lands are
categorized as Neutral Lands that cannot be developed and habitat loss is not permitted except for
compatible uses identified in this Subarea Plan. These lands can be incorporated into the reserve
system through the ÐAdditions to the Reserve processÑ(Section 5.9.1).
3.1.3Private Lands to be Purchased (684.5 acres)
1. The City, PVPLC, Los Angeles County, and the Wildlife Agencies will provide funds for the
purchase and dedication of the Reserve 684.5 acres of privately owned lands considered
regionally important:
422.3-acre Portuguese Bend Parcel (397.3 acres will be included in the Reserve, and 25.0 acres in
the lower active landslide area will be an Ðactive recreation areaÑ outside of the Reserve that
would serve as a public-access point to trail network within the Reserve and could include an
equestrian facility.)
43.8-acre Agua Amarga Canyon Parcel
218.4-acre Upper and Middle Filiorum Parcels
3.1.4Regionally Important Habitat Areas and Linkages Conserved
Figure 2-3 shows the Regionally Important Habitat Areas. Approximately 78 percent of the RIHAs are
included within the Reserve, as are all primary habitat linkages between relatively large patches of
habitat, including a key linkage associated with proposed development within Lower Filiorum. Existing
linkages to habitat areas elsewhere on the Peninsula will also be conserved. Planned linkages are
consistent with reserve design guidelines in terms of dimensions and habitat characteristics (Mock et al.,
1992; Soule, 1991; Beier and Loe, 1992; Lovio, 1996).
3.1.5Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential
A significant portion of the undeveloped lands within Rancho Palos Verdes support nonnative plant
communities. As funding becomes available, these communities will be restored to native plant
communities to increase the local habitat carrying capacity of covered species. All restoration will benefit
covered species and will not result in decreasing conservation of vegetation necessary to support covered
species.
Non-native habitats that can be restored to native scrub habitats include non-native grassland and
disturbed vegetation communities, disturbed areas, and previously developed areas within the Reserve
boundary. The restoration potential of degraded lands was assessed during the Phase 1 program to allow
for prioritization of restoration efforts within the context of preliminary alternative reserve designs. The
areas of potential habitat restoration within the Reserve are shown in Figure 3-3. Areas with the greatest
3-8
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
potential for successful restoration within Regionally Important Habitat Areas of the Reserve should have
the highest priority for restoration funding.
Current habitat restoration programs within the proposed Reserve include 30 acres of CSS revegetation on
the Oceanfront Estates property and 50 acres of CSS revegetation associated with the Ocean Trails
development. The City and PVPLC are committed to enhancing the Reserve with a long-term habitat
restoration program as detailed below. Additional restoration work will be facilitated by the existence of
the restoration program as additional grant funds and required mitigation work add to the scope of the
restoration effort. Over the life of this Subarea Plan, the amount of sage scrub habitats within the Reserve
could potentially exceed the current inventory of CSS within Rancho Palos Verdes. Over 642 acres of
disturbed/developed areas, non-native grassland, and other non-native habitats assessed as having high to
moderate potential of being successfully restored are within the Reserve, and would be available for
restoration as funds become available (Figure 3-3). The priority for restoration would be to enlarge
existing patches of CSS in the larger blocks of conserved lands within the Reserve that support covered
species and enhance the habitat linkages between large blocks of habitat to improve linkage function. This
restoration program will provide the opportunity to expand or create new populations of covered species
by providing new suitable habitat for covered species.
3.1.6Proposed Potential Loss of Habitats
The City has identified 21 City projects and 9 private projects that will be covered by this Subarea Plan,
resulting in unavoidable loss of approximately 55.4 acres of CSS and 187.3 acres of non-native grassland
within or outside the proposed Reserve (Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Mitigation for these habitat impacts will be
at a 3:1 ratio (conserved or restored acreage to affected acreage) for CSS and a 0.5:1 ratio for non-native
grasslands. Mitigation for impacts of City projects (40.2 acres of CSS and 106.3 acres of non-native
grassland) will be provided by the dedication of 322.2 acres of City-owned land and 5.6 acres of
revegetation within the Reserve (2.1 acres of revegetation has already been completed). Mitigation for
impacts of private projects will be provided by dedication of private land or donation of monies to the
habitat restoration fund by the private entities.
A total of 13.7 acres of sage scrub habitats and 72 acres of non-native grassland are estimated to occur
outside the boundaries of the Reserve and Neutral Lands and are not associated with planned projects
detailed in this Subarea Plan (Table 3-1). Any potential unanticipated future impacts to habitats outside
the Reserve would be mitigated through dedication of additional acreage to the Reserve or restoration of
priority areas within the Reserve at a 3:1 mitigation ratio for CSS and other native habitats, and a 0.5:1
ratio for non-native grassland.
A small amount of riparian scrub (0.1 acres) is excluded from the Reserve. Additional unmapped riparian
habitats, other waters, or native grassland may also occur outside the Reserve. Wetland habitats and
streambeds within this Subarea Plan area would be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404 and Fish and
Game Code 1602 permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development.
Impacted vegetated wetlands would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio.
3-9
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
3-3
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Habitat Restoration Potential
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Moderate Restoration Potential
High Restoration Potential
Low Restoration Potential
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Native grasslands greater than 0.3 acre documented during subsequent project-specific environmental
review would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Native grasslands are defined as patches greater than 0.3 acre in
area that supports at least 50 percent cover of grass species and 10 percent cover of native grassland
species.
No fuel modification areas for new development will be allowed within the Reserve. Fuel modification
impacts to sensitive habitats from new development would be assessed as part of the development impact
area and mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for CSS and 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland.
Approximately 43.3 acres of other habitats (19.2 acres of exotic woodland and 24.1 acres of disturbed
vegetation) are excluded from the Reserve and Neutral Lands and would be available for potential
development. Any incremental biological value that these non-sensitive habitats may have would be
offset by the proposed reserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in
this Subarea Plan.
City Projects
The following City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects have or will involve an unavoidable loss of
40.2 acres of CSS and 106.3 acres of non-native grassland (Table 3-2, Figure 3-4). These impacts will be
mitigated by the dedication of 322.2 acres of City-owned land and 5.6 acres of revegetation within the
Reserve (2.1 acres of revegetation has already been completed).
1 Altamira Canyon Drainage Project (Proposed)
The City proposes to place an impermeable liner along the portion of the Canyon that traverses the active
landslide area to prevent water from percolating into the landslide. The removal of the CanyonÓs existing
vegetation will cause the loss of 2.5 acres of CSS habitat and 3.0 acres of non-native grassland. The City
proposes 2.5 acres of onsite CSS revegetation,5 acres of offsite CSS mitigation, and 1.5 acres of offsite
non-native grassland mitigation. However, if the onsite revegetation is not feasible, all 7.5 acres of CSS
will be provided off site (city property dedication).
2. Dewatering Wells (Proposed)
The installation of dewatering wells within the Portuguese Bend landslide area by the City has proven to
be an effective method of slowing down landslide movement by removing groundwater from the slide
plane. It is anticipated that at least 10 wells will be installed in the future in or near areas of existing CSS
habitat and grassland throughout the landslide area. It is estimated that such CSS habitat losses would
total 2.5 acres (0.25 10) and non-native grassland loss would total 2.5 acres. The City proposes 7.5
acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 1.25 acres of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (city property
dedication).
3-11
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Table 3-2
Total Loss of Habitat by City Projects
Habitat Loss Onsite Mitigation Offsite Mitigation
City Project Name Project Status
(Acres) Acreage Acreage
11
CSSGrasslandCSSGrassland
CSS Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project Proposed 2.5 3.0 2.5 0.0 5.0 1.5
2. Dewatering Wells (10 Wells) Proposed 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 1.25
3. Misc. Fissure Filling Proposed 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 1.5
4. Misc. Damaged Drain Repair Proposed 5.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 7.5
Completed 0.0 1.5
5. Portuguese Canyon Drainage Project 0.5 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.0 0.3
6. Sacred Cove Geologic Investigation 0.1 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.0 0.6
7. PVDS Roadway Rehabilitation 0.2 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.0 1.2
8. PVDS Emergency Washout Project 0.4 N/A N/A N/A
222
Proposed 0.0 12.0 6.0
9. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 4.0 12.0 0.0
Proposed 0.0 30.0 12.0
10. Misc. Drainage Improvement Projects 10.0 24.0 0.0
Completed 0.4 0.8 N/A
11. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase 2) 0.4 N/A N/A
2
22
Proposed 0.6 0.0 0.5
12. Abalone Cove Beach Project 0.2 1.0 0.0
Completed 0.0 1.5
13. Tarapaca Sewer Line Relocation 0.5 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.0 0.3
14. Forrestal Property Trail Clearing 0.1 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.1 0.2
15. 25th Street Road Repair (Phase 1) 0.1 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 2.0 1.0
16. San Ramon Canyon Repair 1.0 N/A N/A N/A
222
Completed 0.0 0.6
17. McCarrell Canyon Outlet Improvement 0.2 N/A N/A N/A
222
Proposed 0.0 15.0 7.5
18. RPV Trails Plan Implementation 5.0 15.0 0.0
Proposed 0.0 6.0 3.0
19. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 2.0 6.0 0.0
Proposed 1.0 13.6 0.0 3.0 6.8
20. Active Recreation Area 0.0
Proposed 1.5 11.2 0.0 4.5 5.6
21. Lower Point Vicente 0.0
Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 40.2 106.3 5.6 0.0 115.0 53.15
1.City would provide mitigation acreage as part of the City-owned lands to be dedicated to the Reserve based on a 3:1 mitigation ratio for CSS
and 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland, and accounting for onsite habitat restoration of temporarily disturbed habitat areas.
2.
City would provide mitigation for non-native grassland loss for proposed projects only. Acreage of impacts and mitigation for non-native
grassland is therefore not provided for completed projects.
3-12
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
03/26/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
3-4
Lomita
(Along PVDE)(Along PVDE)
99
1313
1616
1919
1111
1515
Rolling Hills
Locations of City Projects Covered by the Plan
1414
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
(Slide Area)(Slide Area)
2020
2,3,42,3,4
55
77
Pacific Ocean
11
66
88
04500
1212
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
1717
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
2121
Projects 10 and 18 (City-wide)
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
City Project
Project #9
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
3. Misc. Fissure Filling (Proposed)
From time to time, the filling of fissures by the City becomes necessary in the active Portuguese Bend
landslide area to safeguard trails, roads and drainage systems. It is anticipated that there will be a need to
fill such fissures on an as-needed basis. It is estimated that such activity would result in the combined loss
of 3 acres of CSS habitat and 3 acres of non-native grassland. The City proposes 9 acres of offsite CSS
mitigation and 1.5 acres of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (city property dedication).
4 Misc. Drainage Repair (Proposed)
From time to time, the repair of existing drainage systems becomes necessary by the City in the
Portuguese Bend landslide area because of excessively heavy rainfall or damage by landslide movement.
It is anticipated that there will be a need to repair such drains on an as-needed basis. It is estimated that
such activity would result in the combined loss of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native
grassland. The City proposes 15 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 7.5 acres of offsite non-native
grassland mitigation (city property dedication).
5 Portuguese Canyon Drainage Project (Completed)
This City project involved the installation of a drainage pipe at the bottom of Portuguese Canyon in 1995.
The project resulted in a loss of 0.5 acres of CSS habitat. The City proposes 1.5 acres of offsite mitigation
(city property dedication).
6. Sacred Cove Geologic Investigation Project (Completed)
This City project involved the grading of a road from Palos Verdes Drive South down to the shoreline in
June 1995, to perform a series of geologic borings at the shoreline. The project resulted in a loss of 0.1
acre of CSS habitat. The City proposes 0.3 acre of offsite mitigation (city property dedication).
7. PVDS Roadway Rehabilitation Project (Completed)
This City project involved the repair of a segment of damaged Palos Verdes Drive South roadway in 2001
that is located within the active Portuguese Bend Landslide. The City reconstructed the roadway between
Peppertree Lane and Klondike Canyon and replaced the storm drains underneath the roadway. The project
resulted in a loss of 0.2 acre of CSS habitat adjacent to the roadway. The City proposes 0.6 acre of offsite
mitigation (city property dedication).
8. PVDS Emergency Washout Project (Completed)
This City project was completed in December 2001 and involved the emergency stabilization and repair
of an existing storm drainage pipe, located between Palos Verdes Drive South and Inspiration Point. The
pipe had been severed because of movement of an underlying landslide caused by the 1999/2000 storm
season, which eroded the area underneath the pipe and created a washout area that extended to the beach
below. The related grading adjacent to the roadway resulted in a loss of 0.4 acre of CSS habitat. The City
proposes 1.2 acres of offsite mitigation (city property dedication).
9. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project (Proposed)
Based on a comprehensive drainage study, the City has identified numerous drainage system deficiencies
in the eastern portion of the city along Palos Verdes Drive East. To address these drainage deficiencies,
3-14
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
the City proposes to carry out 17 individual drainage improvement projects over an extended period of
time. Although it is anticipated that most of the projects will occur within the existing improved street
right-of-way, some projects may necessitate work in the adjoining canyon areas. It is estimated that such
activity would result in the combined loss of 4 acres of CSS habitat and 12 acres of non-native grassland.
The City proposes 12 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 6 acres of offsite non-native grassland
mitigation (city property dedication).
10. Misc. Drainage Improvements (Proposed)
The City anticipates that there will be the need to repair or improve other drainage systems in areas of the
city that are not located within the Portuguese Bend Landslide Area or the PVDE drainage study area. It
is also anticipated that some of the projects may necessitate work in habitat areas. It is estimated that such
activity would result in the combined loss of 10 acres of CSS habitat and 24 acres of non-native
grassland. The City proposes 30 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 12 acres of offsite non-native
grassland mitigation (city property dedication).
th
11. 25 Street Road Repair Î Phase 2 (Completed)
This City project was completed in 2002 and involved the repair of instability and settlement beneath the
th
Palos Verdes Drive South roadway (adjacent to 25 Street in San Pedro). Phase 2 included the installation
of a drainage system on the surface of the slope. The project resulted in a loss of 0.4 acre of CSS habitat.
The City has completed 0.4 acre of onsite mitigation and proposes 1.2 acres of offsite mitigation (city
property dedication).
12. Abalone Cove Beach Project (Proposed)
The City proposes to improve public access and beach amenities at the existing Abalone Cove beach site. The
project involves the construction of a restroom/storage area, a gate house, parking lot, and shade structures, as
well as improving the access road that leads from Palos Verdes Drive South to the beach and foot trails in the
area. The grading associated with the proposed project will cause the loss of 0.2 of CSS habitat and 1 acre of
non-native grassland. The Resource Agencies and Coastal Commission have required 0.5 acre of CSS
revegetation, all of which will be performed on site. The amount of CSS mitigation required is 0.1 acre short of
a 3:1 mitigation ratio. The City proposes 0.5 acre of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (city property
dedication). Although this project is not being proposed at this time, it is likely that the project will be
actively pursued during the life of this plan.
13. Tarapaca Sewerline Relocation (Completed)
This project was performed by the LA County Sanitation Department in May 1998 to relocate its
Tarapaca sewerline around the Tarapaca landslide. The relocation project included demolition of a bridge
that carried the pre-existing sewerline across San Ramon Canyon. The demolition of the bridge caused a
loss of 0.5 acre of CSS habitat. At the time of the project, the City agreed to mitigate for the loss so that
the work could proceed without delay. The City proposes 1.5 acres of offsite mitigation (city property
dedication).
3-15
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
14. Forrestal Property Trail Improvement (Completed)
In an effort to repair erosion damage, a trail on the CityÓs Forrestal property was widened by the City in
July 1998. The Quarry Bowl trail, which leads from Forrestal Drive to the Quarry Bowl, was widened
from approximately 2 to 6 feet. In performing the widening, a loss of 0.1 acre of CSS habitat occurred.
The City proposes 0.3 acre of offsite mitigation (city property dedication).
th
15. 25 Street Road Repair Î Phase 1 (Completed)
This City project was completed in 1999 and involved the repair of instability and settlement beneath the
th
Palos Verdes Drive South roadway (adjacent to 25 Street in San Pedro). Phase 1 included the installation
of a series of horizontal sub-drains into the adjacent fill slope. The project resulted in a loss of 0.1 acre of
CSS habitat. The City has completed 0.1 acre of onsite habitat restoration and proposes 0.2 acre of offsite
mitigation (city property dedication).
16. San Ramon Canyon Repair Project (Completed)
This City project was completed in 2002 and involved the stabilization of the upper reach of San Ramon
Canyon. The project involved remedial grading to construct a buttress fill to stabilize the area and the re-
construction of a drainage system. The grading within the canyon resulted in a loss of 1.0 acre of CSS
habitat. The City has completed 2.0 acres of onsite revegetation and proposes 1.0 acre of offsite
mitigation (city property dedication).
17. McCarrell Canyon Outlet Clearing (Completed)
This City project was completed in November 1997 and involved the removal of overgrown vegetation at
the outlet of the canyon before the onset of winter rains to improve the performance of the drain. The
vegetation removal resulted in a loss of 0.2 acre of CSS habitat. The City will perform 0.6 acre of offsite
mitigation (city property dedication).
18. Rancho Palos Verdes Trails Plan Implementation (Proposed)
It is anticipated that implementation of the CityÓs Conceptual Trails Plan will result in the loss of some CSS
habitat. Although, the establishment of new trails through CSS habitat will be avoided where possible, it is
anticipated that some trail maintenance, erosion repair and re-routing for public safety reasons may not be
avoided within habitat areas. It is estimated that such activities would result in the combined loss of 5 acres of
CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland. The City proposes 15 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and
7.5 acres of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (Barkentine property dedication).
19. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair (Proposed)
It is anticipated that the City will need to do some remedial grading in Lower San Ramon Canyon to
prevent a landslide from blocking water flow in the canyon. Geologic studies have identified a landslide
in the canyon that has the potential to create blockage of the stream flow. Blockage of the stream flow
could cause water to percolate into the adjacent South Shores Landslide. It is estimated that the grading
activity would result in the loss of 2.0acres of CSS habitat and 6.0 acres of non-native grassland. The City
proposes 6.0 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 3.0 acres of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (city
property dedication).
3-16
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
20. Active Recreation Area (Proposed)
The City is proposing to locate a recreation area within the Portuguese Bend active landslide area of the
city to provide a staging area for accessing the Reserve trail system to provide recreation uses, including
but not limited to a potential equestrian facility. The area would encompass approximately 25 acres and
be located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive South between the Cherry Hill privately owned lots and
Klondike Canyon. The area lies within the active Portuguese Bend Landslide and is completely disturbed
because of previous landslide stabilization activities. The uses of this area would be determined through
the Public Use Master Plan process, and could include equestrian riding rings and stables, outdoor
educational program areas, and unpaved vehicular access roads and parking areas. It is anticipated that
development of the facility will result in a maximum of 1.0 acre of CSS habitat loss and 13.6 acres of
non-native grassland. The City proposes 3.0 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 6.8 acres of offsite non-
native grassland mitigation (city property dedication).
21. Lower Point Vicente (Proposed)
The City is considering developing recreational uses in an area of City-owned land referred to as Lower
Pt. Vicente. The property is located between the Pt. Vicente Lighthouse property owned by the Coast
Guard and the CPH residential development project. It is anticipated that development of the site may
result in a maximum of 1.5 acre of CSS habitat loss and 11.2 acres of non-native grassland loss. The City
proposes 3.0 acres of offsite CSS mitigation and 5.6 acres of offsite non-native grassland mitigation (city
property dedication).
Private Projects
The City expects 9 recent and future planned private projects will involve unavoidable loss of 15.2 acres
of CSS and 81.0 acres of non-native grassland (Figure 3-5). Table 3-3 includes recent past projects and
planned future projects. Mitigation for these losses would include dedication to the Reserve of 3.9 acres
by the City and 82.2 acres provided by the project applicants as additions to the Reserve or equivalent
funds for habitat restoration of disturbed areas within the Reserve.
1. Brush Clearance at Windport Canyon (Completed)
In 1994, unauthorized vegetation clearing occurred on vacant private property by then owner Steve
Taylor, in the upper portion of Windport Canyon. The clearing resulted in the estimated loss of 0.5 acre of
CSS habitat. The City, as lead agency for the preparation of the NCCP, has taken responsibility to
mitigate for the loss and 1.5 acres of offsite mitigation is proposed (city property dedication).
2. Brush Clearance at 3303 Palo Vista (Completed)
In 1996, unauthorized vegetation clearing occurred on the developed private property known at 3303 Palo
Vista. The clearing occurred on the residentÓs rear yard slope, which resulted in the estimated loss of 0.3
acre of CSS habitat. The City, as lead agency for the preparation of the NCCP, has taken responsibility to
mitigate for the loss and 0.9 acre of offsite mitigation is proposed (city property dedication).
3-17
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
03/26/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
3-5
Lomita
22
99
Rolling Hills
Locations of Private Projects Covered by the Plan
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
33
55
44
Pacific Ocean
66
04500
88
77
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
11
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Private Project
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Table 3-3
Total Loss of Habitat by
Private Projects and Mitigation
Mitigation By
Project Habitat Loss Mitigation by
Private Project Name
Project
Status (Acres) City
1
Applicant
2
Private Projects with City-Provided Mitigation
CSSGrasslandCSSGrasslandCSSGrassland
1. Brush Clearance at Windport Canyon Completed 0.5 N/A 1.5 N/A 0.0 N/A
333
2. Brush Clearance at 3303 Palo Vista Completed 0.3 N/A 0.9 N/A 0.0 N/A
333
3. Portuguese Bend Club Slope Repair Completed 0.5 N/A 1.5 N/A 0.0 N/A
333
Subtotal City-Provided Mitigation 1.3 N/A 3.9 N/A 0.0
N/A
33
3
Other Private Projects
CSSGrasslandCSSGrasslandCSSGrassland
4.Portuguese Bend Club Remedial
Proposed 3.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 5.0
Grading
5.Hon Geologic Investigation Completed 0.6 N/A 0.0 N/A 1.8 N/A
333
6.Crestridge Development Proposed 2.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0
7.Brush Clearance at Lower Filiorum Completed 0.5 N/A 0.0 N/A 1.5 N/A
333
8.Lower Filiorum Development Proposed 7.3 59.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 29.5
44
9.Coolheights Residential Lot
Completed 0.5 N/A 0.0 N/A 1.5 N/A
333
Development
Subtotal Other Private Projects 13.9 81.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 40.5
Total Acreage Private Projects 15.2 81.0 3.9 0.0 41.7 40.5
1. City would provide mitigation acreage as part of the City-owned lands to be dedicated to the Reserve at a 3:1 mitigation ratio for
CSS and 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland.
2. Habitat mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for CSS and 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland in the form of habitat contributed to the reserve or
funds for habitat restoration within the reserve.
3.City would provide mitigation for non-native grassland loss for proposed projects only. Acreage of impacts and mitigation for non-
native grassland is therefore not provided for completed projects.
4.Project applicant would dedicate a total of 40 onsite acres to the Reserve and an additional 11.4 offsite acres or equivalent habitat
restoration funds.
* Please note that some anticipated impacts are preliminary estimates and could change during subsequent project specific CEQA
analysis.
3. Portuguese Bend Club Slope Repair (Completed)
In June 1996, remedial grading was undertaken by the Portuguese Bend Club, a private residential
community, to stabilize a failing slope that was threatening the main access road to the community and
adjoining homes. The slope repair was performed on private property owned by the Beach Club and
involved 20,000 c.y. of cut and 5,000 c.y. of fill for a buttress at the toe of the slope, adjacent to Yacht
Harbor Drive. The project resulted in the estimated loss of 0.5 acre of CSS habitat. At the time, the City
3-19
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
agreed to mitigate for the loss so that the emergency work could occur without delay. The City proposes
1.5 acres of offsite mitigation (city property dedication).
4. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading (Proposed)
Because of its proximity to the active Klondike Canyon Landslide, the homeowners association of the
gated residential community known as the Portuguese Bend Club periodically needs to perform remedial
grading on its property to prevent damage to its roads and to residentÓs homes. The remedial grading
activity usually takes place on property owned by the association, located on the western end of the
community, between the residences and adjoining City-owned property. It is anticipated that the
continuous remedial grading activity will result in a loss of 3.0 acres of CSS habitat and 10.0 acres of
non-native grassland. Any losses of habitat would be mitigated by the property owner through 14.0 acres
of habitat to be contributed to the reserve or funds for habitat restoration within the Reserve.
5. Hon Geologic Investigation (Completed)
In February 1996, a geologic investigation project was undertaken within the Portuguese Bend Landslide
area on vacant private property owned by Barry Hon. The project involved the creation of access roads
and clearings to conduct a series of geological borings. The project resulted in the estimated loss of 0.6
acre of CSS habitat. The loss is proposed to be mitigated by the property owner through the contribution
of 1.8 acres of privately owned land to the Reserve.
6. Crestridge Development (Proposed)
A project is proposed on privately owned land and City-owned land that would involve the development
of age-restricted condominiums, a public park, and a senior center. The project site is located along
Crestridge Road, between Crenshaw Blvd. and existing Institutional uses. It is anticipated that
development of the project will result in a loss of 2.0 acres of CSS habitat and 12.0 acres of non-native
grassland. Any losses of habitat would be mitigated by the property owner through 12.0 acres of habitat to
be contributed to the Reserve or funds for habitat restoration within the Reserve.
7. Brush Clearance at Lower Filiorum (Completed)
In November 2000, unauthorized vegetation clearing occurred on vacant private property owned by York
Long Point Associates. The clearing occurred in the northwest portion of the privately owned property
referred to as Lower Filiorum. The clearing resulted in the estimated loss of 0.5 acre of CSS habitat. The
loss is proposed to be mitigated by the property owner through the dedication of 1.5 acres of privately
owned land to the Reserve.
8. Lower Filiorum Development (Proposed)
A project is proposed on privately owned land that would involve the exclusion of approximately 62 acres
from the CityÓs Moratorium Area and a subsequent residential development encompassing approximately
55 acres. The project site is located north of Palos Verdes Drive South, between the Wayfarers Chapel and the
Upper Abalone Cove residential tract. It is anticipated that development of the project will result in a loss of
7.3 acres of CSS habitat and 59.0 acres of non-native grassland. Losses of habitat would be mitigated by the
project proponent through dedication of 40 onsite acres to the Reserve and 11.4 offsite acres to the Reserve (or
equivalent habitat restoration funds).
3-20
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
9. Coolheights Residential Lot Development (Completed)
A project has been approved that involves the construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant
lot at 3787 Coolheights Drive. Because the property is located adjacent to a natural canyon, the LA
County Fire Department regulations require a significant amount of brush clearance for fire protection
purposes. The required brush clearance resulted in the loss of 0.5 acre of CSS habitat. The property owner
has mitigated the loss at a 3:1 ratio by establishing a conservation easement over 1.5 acres of his property.
3.1.7Covered Species List
Through the configuration of the proposed City reserve design, and implementation of the habitat
restoration and management programs, all 12 proposed covered species listed in Table 1-1 would be
adequately conserved by this Subarea Plan. The covered species include all species listed as endangered
or threatened by the State and/or Federal ESA, as well as selected species that are currently not listed, but
could be listed during the permit period. Once the Wildlife Agencies have approved this Subarea Plan and
signed the Implementing Agreement, the City will receive permits and/or management authorizations to
directly affect or ÐtakeÑ individuals of listed species covered by this Subarea Plan. The term ÐtakeÑ is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Take will be allowed
for Covered Species in one of two categories: 1) Covered Species not listed and 2) Covered Species
subject to Incidental Take (i.e., listed species). When an unlisted covered species becomes listed, it will
continue to receive coverage under this Subarea Plan, only under the latter category.
The Implementing Agreement will assure that the conservation/mitigation identified in this Subarea Plan
and implementing regulations are implemented and the City will not be required to commit additional
land, land restrictions, or financial compensation, beyond that described in this Subarea Plan, for the
protection of any covered species. If in the future, a covered species not listed becomes listed as
endangered or threatened by the Federal or State governments, the take authorization will become
effective concurrent with its listing.
The standards for protecting covered species and issuance of take authorizations contained in this Subarea
Plan are consistent with the StateÓs NCCP Planning Guidelines (CDFG, 1993), the State ESA, and criteria
in Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA. This Subarea Plan meets the following key NCCP planning criteria
in the NCCP Planning Guidelines:
1. Conserve target species throughout planning area:
96 percent of existing CSS habitat is conserved.
93 to 100 percent of covered species locations are conserved.
A habitat-restoration program will contribute additional habitat to the Reserve, eventually
exceeding the current inventory of CSS habitats in the city.
2. Larger reserves are better:
The largest, most contiguous habitat areas are included in the Reserve.
3. Keep Reserve areas close together:
Reserve planning areas are within a relatively small area and linked by corridors.
3-21
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
4. Keep habitat contiguous:
Most contiguous patches of habitat are within the Reserve.
5. Link Reserve areas with corridors:
All regionally important habitat linkages are conserved.
6. Reserves should be biologically diverse:
93 to 100 percent of cover species locations are conserved.
96 percent of existing CSS habitat is conserved.
All known native habitat types are included in the Reserve (upland scrub habitats \[11 subtypes\]
and riparian scrub).
7. Protect Reserves from encroachment:
A habitat management and monitoring program is included in this Subarea Plan.
A habitat restoration program is included in this Subarea Plan.
This Subarea Plan is also consistent with the following criteria in Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA:
The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities;
The impacts of the taking will, to the maximum extent practicable, be minimized and mitigated;
Adequate funding for long-term protection of the species will be provided; and
The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species
in the wild.
3.1.8Estimated Take of Covered Species
The proposed reserve design does not include all point locations where covered species have been
sighted recently or historically. The GIS database developed for this Subarea Plan (Ogden 1999 and
Crossosoma
recently updated for ) indicates that several species point locations are excluded from the
Reserve (Table 3-4, Figure 3-6). If these locations are still occupied by the covered species, a take of
a covered species is assumed if these areas are developed. In addition to habitat conservation, the
restoration activities provided for in this Subarea Plan will increase the inventory of potential habitat
for covered species by about 16 percent above the current inventory of CSS habitats within the city.
A detailed conservation analysis and justification for incidental take for each covered species is
provided in Appendix B. Because approximately 93 percent or more of the species point locations
and approximately 96 percent of their potential habitats are being conserved and the long-term
habitat restoration program is likely to substantially increase the availability of suitable habitat for
covered species during the permit period, it is expected that the populations of covered species will
increase over time, particularly for PV Blue Butterfly, California gnatcatcher, and cactus wren. The
Reserve will provide the opportunity for the establishment of new populations of covered species
where they are currently absent.
3-22
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Table 3-4
Estimated Take of Covered Species Point Locations
Covered Species Existing Conserved Percent Conserved Expected Take
11
California Gnatcatcher 88 88 100.0 0
Coastal Cactus Wren 99 95 96.0 4
Historical PVB Butterfly
18 17 94.4 1
Historical Sighting
Historical PVB Butterfly Host Plant,
84 78 92.9 5
Astragalus trichopodus
El Segundo Blue Butterfly Sighting 1 1 100.0 0
El Segundo Blue Butterfly Host Plant,
19 18 94.7 1
Eriogonum parvifolium
35 35 100.0 0
Dudleya virens
26 26 100.0 0
Aphanisma blitoides
8 8 100.0 0
Atriplex pacifica
3 3 100.0 0
Crossosoma californicum
N/A N/A 96.3 0
Calystegia peirsonii
2
sspN/A N/A 96.3 0
Centromadia parryi . australis
2
var3 3 100.0 0
Lycium brevipes . hassei
N/A N/A 96.3 0
Pentachaeta lyonii
2
N/A N/A 99.3 0
Suaeda taxifolia
2
1.Includes point locations within Reserve and Neutral Lands.
2.sspare not known to occur in the
Calystegia peirsonii, Centromadia parryi . Australis, and Pentachaeta lyonii
Subarea Planning area; occurs regularly within coastal bluff scrub, which is 99.3%
Suaeda taxifolia
conserved.
3.2 LAND USES WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE RESERVE
Within two years of the signing of the Implementing Agreement, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) shall
be developed jointly by the City and PVPLC to address issues such as public access, trailhead locations,
overlooks, parking, trail use, fencing, signage, lighting (if any), and firebrush management, minimizing
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, public involvement in advisory capacities, and other issues that may
arise. The PUMP must be reviewed and approved by the Wildlife Agencies. Compatible lands uses within
the Reserve and Neutral Lands would, to the extent practicable, be sited to minimize impacts to sensitive
resources and are limited to the following:
Creation and maintenance of a recreational trail system consistent with the CityÓs Conceptual
Trails Plan (dated 1993, and as amended by the city council thereafter). A Reserve Trail Plan
(RTP) will be developed through the PUMP process, which is consistent with the CityÓs
Conceptual Trail plan and considers impacts to habitat and covered species.
3-23
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
THREE
Proposed Reserve Design
Existing trails within the Reserve not included in the Reserve Trail Plan approved by the city
council will be closed and appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent public access and
restore CSS habitat.
Creation and maintenance of passive overlook areas with benches, picnic tables, tie rails, portable
toilets, and trash cans, to be located near preserve boundaries where no existing habitat would be
lost. The location of these overlooks shall consider impacts to habitat and covered species, and
their location shall be reviewed and approved as a part of the PUMP by the city council and the
Wildlife Agencies before any work to implement them is initiated. Overlooks and staging areas
for trailheads will be located adjacent to existing roads and away from sensitive resource areas.
Existing recreational uses, such as the archery range or paragliding activities, can be allowed in
areas where impacts to habitat can be minimized.
Where required, landslide abatement activities may occur within the Reserve and Neutral Lands.
Such activities shall be scheduled outside the gnatcatcher breeding season if practicable.
Temporary disturbance areas will be revegetated with CSS species after completion of abatement
activities.
Selected drainage improvements, linear utility easements, and existing access roads within the
Reserve and Neutral Lands will be maintained and upgraded as required. An access protocol will
be created to facilitate access by utility agencies to areas within the Reserve and Neutral Lands
while minimizing, to the maximum extent possible, environmental damage.
Emergency access roads.
Geologic testing, if deemed necessary by the CityÓs geotechnical consultants, with impacts to be
minimized and unavoidable habitat impacts fully restored.
Utilities and related infrastructure serving existing and future developments, such as sewers,
water, cable, gas, electric, and storm drains.
Water quality basins, retention basins, and debris basins, if such features are required to meet
water quality standards, and if the design incorporates native vegetation where practicable and
minimizes the amount of hardscape.
Groundwater monitoring wells, and GPS stations for landslide monitoring, with associated
equipment such as pumps, electrical, drainage pipes, and access pathways, if such equipment is
deemed necessary by the CityÓs geotechnical consultants.
All brush management and fuel modification requested by the L.A. County Fire Department for
new development should occur outside the Reserve. Existing brush management and fuel
modification for existing development adjoining the Reserve boundaries may continue in the
Reserve provided it is not expanded. Any new development adjacent to the Reserve that requires
brush management within the Reserve shall mitigate impacts to CSS at a 3:1 mitigation ratio.
Existing agricultural uses within the Reserve and Neutral Lands can be allowed to continue as
long as all agricultural practices and improvements remain consistent with this Subarea Plan.
3-24
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
3-6
Lomita
Covered Species Point Locations Not Being Conserved by the Plan
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Coastal Sage Scrub-Not Conserved
Riparian Scrub-Not Conserved
Cactus Wren-Not Conserved
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
Grassland-Not Conserved
(historic)-Not Conserved
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Natural Vegetation
Neutral Lands
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Reserve Area
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
SECTION 4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Any proposed development of land in the city would first require consistency with the appropriate
provisions of the Municipal Code. Subsequent entitlements cannot be secured without compliance with
applicable provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Map Act,
and other applicable provision of the Municipal Code. Upon approval of this Subarea Plan, the City will
use its land-use authority to implement the provisions of this Subarea Plan. Consistency with this Subarea
Plan will be a mandatory finding of the CEQA review and planning process.
4.1 RESERVE COMPONENTS
The Reserve will be composed of public and private biological open-space lands as discussed below.
4.1.1Existing Public Lands
City-owned lands (423.5 acres) already dedicated as biological open space to be included in the Reserve
(Figure 4-1)
102.0-acre Switchbacks Parcel
53.0-acre Shoreline Park Parcel
163.0-acre Forrestal Parcel
69.0 acres within the Oceanfront Estates Project now owned by the City
City-owned lands to be dedicated to the Reserve (322.2 acres) upon adoption of the Implementation
Agreement.
98.0-acre Barkentine Canyon (Parcel 4)
65 acres of Upper Point Vicente Parcel (City Hall Parcel)
10 acres of Lower Point Vicente Parcel
6 acres of the Fishing Access Property
100 acres of Abalone Cove Parcel
17.4-acre Del Cerro Buffer
16.8 acres of the Crestridge Parcel
9 acres of Grandview Park
Other Public/Conserved Lands (90.8 acres)
69.9 acres within the Ocean Trails Project (not yet transferred to the City)
20-acre Lunada Canyon Preserve owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
3.9-acre Coast Guard Property
4-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
4-1
Lomita
City-Owned Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Contributed to the Preserve
City Owned Lands Already
City Owned Lands Being
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
Dedicated
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
4.1.2Private Lands
Private development projects will contribute 216.6 acres of biological open space to the Reserve (Figure
4-2):
Future private development projects would contribute 80 acres of biological open space to the Reserve
pending subsequent project approvals:
40.0 acres within the Long Point Parcel (bluff face)
40.0 acres within the Lower Filiorum Parcel
The inclusion of Lower Filiorum acreage in the Reserve will be a condition of approval for any
development proposals on the Lower Filiorum property. If no approvals are obtained, there will be no
obligation on the part of present or future property owner to donate these lands. Designating these lands
as included in the Reserve in the text and maps of this Subarea Plan does not constitute approval of
development on the Lower Filiorum property.
Seven local Homeowners Associations (HOA) are being requested to contribute 136.6 acres of biological
open space to the Reserve.
11.5 acres belonging to the Panorama Estates HOA
18.0 acres belonging to the Portuguese Bend Club
20.0 acres belonging to the Sea Breeze HOA
42.3 acres belonging to the Peninsula Pointe HOA
16.6 acres belonging to the Sunset Ridge HOA
13.2 acres belonging to the Seacliff Hills HOA
15.0 acres belonging to the Rancho Palos Verdes Estates HOA
The City and PVPLC are actively working with these HOAs to sign agreements to include their biological
open space with in the Reserve and to be actively managed by PVPLC. Until such agreements are
obtained, these lands are categorized as Neutral Lands that cannot be developed.
The City, PVPLC, Los Angeles County, and the Wildlife Agencies will provide funds for the purchase
and dedication of the Reserve 684.5 acres of privately owned lands considered regionally important:
422.3-acre Portuguese Bend Parcel (397.3 acres will be included in the Reserve, and 25 acres in
the lower active landslide area will be an Ðactive recreation areaÑ outside of the Reserve that
would serve as a public-access point to trails within the Reserve and could include an equestrian
facility)
43.8-acre Agua Amarga Canyon Parcel
218.4-acre Upper and Middle Filiorum Parcels
4-3
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
4-2
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Private Parcels Being Contributed to the Reserve
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
Home OwnerÂ’s Association Open Space
Private Development Open Space
Private Lands to be Acquired
Contributing to the Preserve
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
4.1.3Neutral Lands
Approximately 663 acres of ÐNeutral LandsÑ will exist outside the Reserve boundary, but are unlikely to be
developed in the future (Figure 4-3). The Neutral Lands designation has been applied to privately owned
properties in the City that contain development constraints due to existing City zoning code restrictions.
The designation is not intended to prohibit development on these properties but only recognize the
development constraints that already exist on these properties pursuant to the CityÓs Municipal Code. By
definition ÐNeutral LandsÑ are those areas that are considered to be extreme slopes (35% or greater
slope), are zoned Open Space Hazard or exist as deed restricted open space belonging to a Homeowners
Association. If any of these three conditions exist on a private property the area has been designated
Neutral Lands. Given the scale of the NCCP map, the mapped ÐNeutral LandsÑ areas are approximations.
The Neutral Lands designation is noted in the Subarea Plan because these areas of the City cannot be
developed under the CityÓs Codes and therefore will likely remain as open space which thus contributing
to the function of the Reserve. Except for specific HOA lands, Neutral Lands are not proposed to be
included in the Reserve and therefore not subject to the restrictions that apply to properties within the
Reserve. The Neutral Lands are mapped solely to provide an estimation of their area and location relative
to the actual NCCP Reserve. The Land Conservancy and the City will work to obtain conservation easements
over some of these lands (HOA open space) and add as many of these parcels to the Reserve as is practical.
These Neutral Lands can be placed into the following two categories: Extreme Slopes on Private Property and
Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard.
Extreme Slopes on Private Property
Extreme slopes have greater than 35 percent grade and occur in undeveloped canyons and developed
residential tracts scattered throughout the city, although they are mostly concentrated on the cityÓs east
side. These slopes are protected from development by City Ordinance.
Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard
Unstable geologic conditions or other physical constraints occurring on public and private properties zoned
Open Space Hazard may result in a prohibition against development. Any proposed development must be
accompanied by a detailed geotechnical investigation establishing the absence of geologic hazards and an
approved City application to remove the land from the Open Space Hazard designation.
4.2 CONSERVATION ACTIONS
Conservation consists of three separate actions:
Dedication
1. : The City will dedicate 745.7 acres of City-owned lands to the Reserve.
Acquisition
2. : The City, PVPLC, Los Angeles County, and the Wildlife Agencies will provide
funds for the purchase in fee and dedication to the Reserve 684.5 acres of privately owned lands
considered regionally important.
Management
3. : PVPLC, with assistance from the City and the Wildlife Agencies, will actively
manage all areas within the Reserve, including implementing habitat restoration activities in
priority areas of the Reserve annually. Additional habitat restoration may be performed as
available funding permits.
4-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
4-3
Lomita
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Neutral Lands
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
HomeownerÂ’s Association Open Space
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
Neutral Lands
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
4.2.1Compensation Mitigation
All project-specific habitat mitigation will be in the form of providing lands to the Reserve or providing funds
toward implementation of habitat restoration within the Reserve. The mitigation ratio for habitat restoration
funding is 3:1 for CSS, riparian scrub, and native grassland (exceeding 0.3 acre of native grassland impact;
i.e., sufficient funds to purchase or restore three times the affected acreage of habitat) and 0.5:1 for non-native
grassland and native grasslands less than 0.3 acre. The estimated cost for habitat restoration is $20,000 per
acre (2003 dollars).
4.2.2Priority Acquisition Areas to be Purchased (684.5 Acres)
The City, PVPLC, Los Angeles County, and the Wildlife Agencies will provide funds for the purchase
and dedication of approximately 684.5 acres of privately owned lands considered regionally important to
the Reserve:
422.3-acre Portuguese Bend Parcel (397.3 acres will be included in the Reserve, and 25 acres in
the lower active landslide area will be a recreation area outside of the Reserve that would serve as
a public-access point to trails within the Reserve and a potential equestrian facility.)
43.8-acre Agua Amarga Canyon Parcel
218.4 acres of Upper and Middle Filiorum Parcels
4.2.3Priority Restoration/Enhancement Areas
Current habitat restoration programs within the proposed Reserve include 30 acres of CSS revegetation on
the Oceanfront Estates property and 50 acres of CSS revegetation associated with the Ocean Trails
development. The City and PVPLC are committed to long-term enhancement of the Reserve via annual
Revegetation and Targeted Exotic Plant Removal programs, as allowed by available funds.
4.3 FUNDING AND FINANCING OF SUBAREA PLAN
4.3.1Estimated Implementation Cost
Implementation of the Subarea Plan will require funding of habitat acquisition, restoration and
management. Implementation costs were estimated for three alternative preserve configurations (Figure
4-4). Estimated costs for these actions are summarized in Table 4-1. See Appendix C for details.
4.3.1.1Habitat Acquisition
Generally, privately owned, biologically important habitat may be conserved onsite as mitigation, or
compensation for impacts to biological resources from development elsewhere on the project site. In
some cases, however, this Subarea PlanÓs conservation goals would be better served through acquisition
of properties containing important biological resources.
4-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
Rancho
Palos
PalosVerdes
Verdes
Estates
Rolling
Hills
Estates
Rolling Hills
Alternative A
Pacific
Ocean
Rancho
Palos
PalosVerdes
Verdes
Estates
Rolling
Hills
Estates
Rolling Hills
Alternative B
Pacific
Ocean
Rancho
Palos
PalosVerdes
Verdes
Estates
Rolling
Hills
Estates
Rolling Hills
Within Alternative
Neutral Lands
Pacific
Ocean
Proposed Golf Course
06000
Alternative C (Proposed Project)
Developed Areas
Within Rancho Palos
FEET
Verdes
FIGURE
4-4
Reserve Design Alternatives
/net/kearnymesa/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/altall_eir.aml06/24/04
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
Table 4-1
Comparison of Alternative Conservation Plans
Alternative C
Alternative A Alternative B
(Proposed Project)
Plannin Area Ac.
g()
Conserved \[1\] 1540 1,174 . 1,504 .
Neutral Lands \[2\] 663 663 663
Not Conserved 6,356 6,722 6,392
Total Land Area 8,559 8,559 8,559
Components of Conserved Area
Dedicated for Conservation 577 458 4349
Conserved for Mitigation Credit \[3\] 176 478 471
Additional Conservation \[4\] 787 165 684
Subtotal Natural Habitat 1,442 101 1,436
Conserved--Other \[5\] 98 73 68
Total Conserved Area 1,540 1,174 1,504
Estimated Land Acquisition
Potential Acquisition Area (Ac.) 787 165 684
Estimated Acquisition Cost \[6\] $ 25.7 Î 36.0 Mill. $ 5.3 Î 7.5 Mill. $ 22.3 - 31.3 Mill.
Appraised Acquisition Cost \[7\] 30.9 Mill 6.5 Mill 26.7 Mill
Management/Maintenance (x $1000)
Start-up/One-time Cost \[8\] $ 320 $ 244 $ 312
Annual Cost \[8\] $ 322 $ 246 $ 313
TOTAL PROGRAM COST \[9\] $31.6 Mill. $7.0 Mill. $27.3 Mill.
S: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, URS Corporation, TAIC (2003 GIS data), Onaka Planning & Economics.
OURCE
1. Includes natural habitat and other areas, such as agricultural, disturbed, and developed.
2. Neutral lands outside of the Reserve boundary. Includes very steep slopes and areas of open-space hazard.
3. Natural habitat lands that would be conserved as mitigation for impacts of public or private development projects.
4. Natural habitat to be conserved in potential acquisition areas.
5. Agricultural, disturbed, and developed areas.
6. Acquisition cost of land for habitat or open-space use is estimated to range from $0.75 to $1.05 per square foot, or an average of $39,200 per acre. This
estimate is intended for general planning use only; it is not an appraisal or estimate of site-specific value.
7 City-commissioned appraisals estimated value at less than $39,000 per acre applied to all three alternatives.
8. Based on ÐPARÑ analysis by URS Corporation and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for Alternative C; estimated for others based on per acre cos
t
estimate of Alternative C.
9. Sum of estimated acquisition cost based on appraised per acre value, startup and ongoing management costs.
The City acquired the Forrestal property (160 acres) in 1996, which subsequently became the Forrestal
Nature Preserve, and the Barkentine property (98 acres) in 2001. Both of these are important components
of the NCCP reserve system. Under Alternatives A and C, approximately 787 acres and 684 acres,
4-9
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
respectively, would be acquired for conservation, and under Alternative B, approximately 165 acres
would be acquired (Table 4-1).
Based on a review of over 2,400 acres of land sales for habitat or open-space use in coastal Los Angeles
and Orange Counties, it is estimated that the price of undeveloped land in the city, when purchased for
biological open space, would range from $0.75 to $1.05 per square foot, or approximately $39,000 per
acre (see Appendix C). The City recently commissioned appraisals for the proposed acquisition parcels,
which resulted in a more accurate acquisition cost estimate of $26.7 million for the 684.5-acre purchase
proposed in Alternative C. Alternative A and B acquisition costs would be $30.9 million and 6.5 million,
respectively, using the appraised per acre value determined for Alternative C.
As in the Forrestal Nature Preserve Management Agreement, the City will be responsible for services
such as storm drain maintenance and control, public security, trash disposal, fire management, utility
services, and maintenance of some signs. PVPLC will be responsible for the restoration and monitoring of
the habitat areas, covered species surveys, trail maintenance, installation and maintenance of fences and
benches. These activities may be provided in the form of in-kind services, or funded by cash, as
appropriate for each item. Annual management costs for Alternative C are estimated at $313,000 (Table
4-1). Initial start up management costs are estimated at $312,000. .
PVPLC is responsible for raising funds from public and private sources to fulfill its obligations. The City
is responsible for oversight and review of PVPLCÓs performance with respect to the management and
maintenance of the Reserve
4.3.1.2Habitat Management
The network of habitat lands conserved under the Subarea Plan will be managed for their habitat value
and periodically monitored. Currently, several areas are already being managed following these methods,
including:
The Forrestal Nature Preserve (163 acres)
Mitigation land dedicated by the Ocean Trails project; and
Mitigation land conserved by Vesting Tentative Map No. 46628 (Oceanfront Estates 69 acres are
being actively managed, including 30 acres of revegetated CSS)
Permanent endowments or funding commitments have been established for all three areas.
New private developments will be required to provide funds to manage in perpetuity any habitat
restoration required as a condition of approval for the project as mitigation for development impacts.
Alternatively, they may establish endowments for habitat management by a conservation organization
approved by the City. Public funds will not be used to manage private mitigation areas.
Funding will be required to manage and monitor existing City-owned habitat lands that will be
permanently conserved (including the Barkentine property \[98 acres\], Upper Point Vicente property
\[65 acres\], and the Abalone Cove property \[69 acres\]) and potential acquisition areas (787 acres under
Alternatives A, 165 acres under Alternative B, or 684 acres under Alternative C). Cost of habitat
4-10
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
management and biological monitoring varies according to habitat type, condition, and specific tasks
needed to maintain biological value. Generally, tasks include trash removal, control of invasive species,
installation and maintenance of fences, signs, and trails, and monitoring of biological resources. Center
for Natural Lands Management (CNLM), a non-profit organization engaged in management of numerous
habitat and open space preserves in California, developed a spreadsheet program (called Property
Analysis Record, or PAR, and licensed to users) to estimate costs of habitat management. URS and
PVPLC conducted a PAR analysis for the proposed Reserve (Alternative C; 1,504 acres), which indicated
that the cost to manage the system would total $312,000 per year, with a first year, start-up cost of
$313,000 (see Appendix C). These cost estimates also include removal of non-native vegetation on 5
acres, revegetation of another 5 acres, and weed control in 20 other selected locations, conducted
annually.
Annual and one-time costs to manage the Reserve under Alternatives A and B were estimated based on
the PAR analysis for Alternative C. Estimated annual costs range from $246,000 for Alternative B to
$322,000 for Alternative A; estimated first year start-up costs are $244,000 and $320,000 for these two
alternatives.
4.3.1.3Habitat Restoration and Maintenance
This Subarea Plan proposes an annual program of habitat restoration and maintenance at a sustainable
level (see Section 6). The program includes removal of non-native vegetation on 5 acres of land and
revegetation of another 5 acres, to be conducted annually. The cost for weed removal and restoration
work is estimated to be $95,700 plus a first year start-up cost of $116,400. Both annual and start-up costs
of habitat restoration and maintenance are included in the management cost estimates discussed above.
4.3.2Funding Sources
The following funding sources will be used to implement this Subarea Plan.
4.3.2.1Habitat Acquisition
Using funds generated in Los Angeles County (principally Measure A), the City has previously expended
$11.8 million for the purchase of the Forrestal and Barkentine properties. Additionally, the City will
dedicate .2 acres of City-owned land for exclusive habitat use. If an equivalent area were purchased
224
from private owners for habitat or open space use, the corresponding cost would exceed $ million
8.7
(using the average of high and low estimates of land cost for open space).
For habitat lands to be acquired under Alternatives A and C, the candidate sources of funds listed in
Table 4-2 would be pursued.
4-11
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
Table 4-2
Candidate Sources of Land Acquisition Funding
USFWS ÐSection 6Ñ funds $2 Million
Proposition 50, Coastal Watershed and Wetland
Protection portion for Los Angeles and Ventura
$17 Million
Counties
Los Angeles County $1 Million
City of Rancho Palos Verdes $1 Million
Private funding (PVPLC) $6 Million
Total $27 Million
4.3.2.2Reserve Management
In implementing this Subarea Plan, the City will enter into a contract with the PVPLC to manage and
monitor all of the conserved land in the Reserve and additional lands that are subsequently acquired.
PVPLC will also undertake the annual program of non-native vegetation removal and CSS habitat
restoration. The existing agreement between the City and PVPLC for management of Forrestal Nature
Preserve will serve as a model for the reserve management program.
In lieu of an endowment for the management program, the City will commit $100,000 per year (to be
adjusted annually for inflation) and certain in-kind services to fulfill its obligations for management and
maintenance. The PVPLC will commit $50,000 per year (to be adjusted annually for inflation), certain in-
kind services, and volunteer time to fulfill its obligations for management and maintenance.
4.3.2.3Summary of Habitat Management Funding
Funding commitments for habitat restoration and reserve management and monitoring will be provided
annually as listed in Table 4-3 (all numbers to be adjusted annually for inflation).
Table 4-3
Funding Commitments for
Habitat Restoration and Reserve Management
City $100,000 Cash
City $ 91,000 In-kind services
City $ 15,000 Private lands endowments
PVPLV $ 50,000 Cash
PVPLC $ 25,000 In-kind services
PVPLC $ 50,000 Volunteer time
Total $331,000
4-12
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FOUR
Plan Implementation
The City and PVPLC will actively pursue additional public and private funding sources to undertake
restoration projects in areas under their management responsibility. In-kind services from the City will
include public safety, trash collection, fuel modification, staff time (Planning, Public Works, etc.) and
maintenance as agreed to among the parties. In kind services from the PVPLC will consist of staff time,
use of equipment, etc. Private lands requirements will include obligations of projects such as Oceanfront
Estates to maintain habitat at the projectÓs expense or using income from an established endowment.
PVPLC has demonstrated the ability to generate significant amounts of volunteer support. For the first four
months of 2003, the total volunteer hours donated (including non-stewardship activities such as special events
and education) was 3,902 hours, as shown on the chart below. At $15 per hour, which is the lowest hourly rate
used in the PAR analysis, this effort is valued at $52,534. These numbers demonstrate that the volunteer
component of the stewardship proposal is sustainable at a $50,000 annual level. PVPLC will maintain records of
volunteer time, and will include this data in the annual report to the Wildlife Agencies.
Table 4-4
Volunteer Hours for Pvplc Projects for 2003 (January to May)
White Lunada Youth Adult
Date Chandler Forrestal DFSP Office Events George F Total
Point Canyon Education Education
January-03 113 133.25 387.5 12 12 23 16 25 13 64 798.75
February-03 229 32 15 27 17 48 22 27 64 481
March-03 593.5 13.5 48 21 130 26 23 80 935
April-03 429 8 15 13 12 63 30 33 64 667
May-03 441 93 110 10 17 33 34 29 182 72 1021
Total 2003 YTD 1805.5 226.25 537.5 65.5 117 106 291 132 278 344 3,902.75
4-13
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
SECTION 5 LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
5.1 CITY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Any proposed development of land in the Reserve would first require consistency with the appropriate
provisions of the Municipal Code. Subsequent entitlements will not be provided without compliance with
applicable provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grading Ordinance, Subdivision Map Act,
and other applicable provision of the Municipal Code. Upon approval of this Subarea Plan, the City will
use its land-use authority to implement the provisions of this Subarea Plan. Regulatory actions shall
include interim and permanent ordinances consistent with this Subarea Plan.
5.2 INTERIM PROTECTION
5.2.1Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code
Natural Overlay Control District.
Interim protection of habitat lands inside the Reserve is assured through
the mandatory implementation of the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) (Municipal Code
Section 17.40.040 et seq.) which is established to Ðmaintain and enhance land and water areas necessary for
the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetationÈÑ
Minor modifications to this ordinance will be required to be consistent with this Subarea Plan. This
ordinance, for example, establishes Performance Criteria (Section 17.40.040 C.1. - C.5.) prohibiting:
Disturbance of more than 10 percent of the total land area of a parcel Î excluding the main
structure and access;
Affecting any water body;
Affecting natural watercourses carrying over 100 cubic feet of water;
Affecting riparian buffers of 50 feet on natural watercourses carrying over 100 cubic feet of
water;
The clearing, and/or thinning of more than 20 percent of a parcelÓs area (fuel management zones
excluded);
The use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation;
The removal of vegetation within a designated wildlife habitat area.
5.3 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE
Natural Overlay Control District.
The City shall amend the Natural Overlay Control District (Municipal
et seq
Code Section 17.40.040 .) to ensure that before the issuance of any clearing or grubbing permits that
all proposed actions conform to the provisions of this Subarea Plan.
5-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Grading Ordinance.et
The City shall amend the Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 15.04.010
seq
.) to ensure that before the issuance of any clearing or grubbing permits that all proposed actions
conform to the provisions of this Subarea Plan.
Fire Code.
At no time would Subarea Plan provisions take precedence over the concerns of public health,
safety, and welfare as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies. The City will consult with the L.A. County Fire Department to ensure that proposed fuel
modification zone widths adjacent to the Reserve are adequate to meet fire department requirements. All
fuel modification areas shall be mapped in the GIS database. The CityÓs Fire Code would be amended to
reflect this.
Site Plan Review Process.
The City shall amend the Site Plan Review Process (Municipal Code
et seq
Section 17.70.020 .) to ensure that the provisions of this Subarea Plan are incorporated in to the Site
Plan Review evaluation process.
Zoning Map.
The CityÓs Zoning Map, which is established by the Zoning Code, would be amended to
incorporate the boundaries of the Reserve and to reflect any changes to Overlay Control Districts.
Subdivision Ordinance.
The City would amend its Subdivision Ordinance to ensure any future proposed
subdivisions conform to this Subarea Plan.
Coastal Permits.et
The City shall amend the Coastal Permit Process (Municipal Code Section 17.70.020
seq
.) to ensure that the provisions of this Subarea Plan are incorporated into the evaluation process before
the issuance of any coastal permits.
City CEQA Guidelines.
The City shall ensure that all development identified in Sections 17.02.020 and
et seq
17.02.05 .) shall be subject to enhanced California Environmental Quality Act. (CEQA) (Ord. 361
Section5, 2000) review to comply with applicable provisions of this Subarea Plan.
General Plan Amendment.
The City shall amend relevant sections of the Rancho Palos Verdes General
Plan to:
Identify all Reserve lands and their attendant land-use restrictions; and
Incorporate this Subarea Plan as part of the General Plan.
5.4 PERMANENT HABITAT PROTECTION
Permanent protection of conserved land shall be provided through recordation of conservation easements
in priority to other encumbrances upon the fee title or dedication of the fee title itself, as appropriate and
consistent with the needs of the landowners conveying the property to the Reserve. Both public and
private landowners may wish to retain compatible uses of the property while complying with Reserve
management guidelines. Compatible uses are accommodated with the grant of easement. The long-term
biological integrity of the Reserve will be ensured as follows:
All lands set aside in the Reserve as mitigation for development occurring outside the Reserve,
and lands acquired for the Reserve with public funds, will be protected by conservation
5-2
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
easements. Any lands within the Reserve, dedicated in fee to the City, will also be protected by an
open-space easement for conservation purposes. All conservation easements established under
this Subarea Plan shall be held by the PVPLC or another entity acceptable to the City and the
Wildlife Agencies.
Local public lands committed to the Reserve will be protected with conservation easements, to be
held by the PVPLC or another entity acceptable to the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
5.5 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Upon approval of this Subarea Plan and Implementation Agreement, impacts to all habitats associated
with City projects and private projects as agreed to by the City will be mitigated through the dedication of
the City-owned lands to the Reserve (see Table 3-3). The Habitat ManagerÓs oversight of the Reserve will
also serve to mitigate project impacts. Private projects shall mitigate unavoidable impacts through the
contribution of open space to the Reserve or by providing funds to the Habitat Manager to implement
habitat restoration within the Reserve. Impacts deemed consistent with but not specified in this Subarea
Plan shall be mitigated by the project proponent through monetary contributions to the habitat restoration
program in the Reserve, at a funding level sufficient to provide a 3:1 ratio of conserved or revegetated
acreage to affected acreage for CSS, wetlands, or native grassland. A 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland
would be required. Within the Coastal Zone, permissible impacts and mitigation to Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) will be consistent with the most current LCP.
5.5.1Wetlands Protection Program
Pursuant to this section of the Subarea Plan, wetlands protection will be provided throughout the Subarea
through individual project entitlement reviews and the associated CEQA process. The process will
provide an evaluation of Wetlands avoidance and minimization and will ensure compensatory mitigation
within the city for unavoidable impacts to wetlands, thereby achieving no overall net loss of wetlands.
As part of the CEQA review, development projects that support wetlands will be required to demonstrate
that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are
nonetheless proposed, that such impacts have been minimized. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands, the
City will apply a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to vegetated wetlands (e.g., riparian scrub). Unvegetated
waters of the U.S./State would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The Wetlands mitigation ratio provides a
standard, but may be adjusted depending on the functions and values of both the impacted wetlands as
well as the wetlands mitigation proposed by the project. The City may also consider the wetland habitat
type(s) being impacted and utilized for mitigation in establishing whether these standards have been met.
Within the Coastal Zone, permissible wetland impacts and mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the
most current LCP.
The Wildlife Agencies will review the mitigation program as part of the CEQA public review process.
Projects that document highly degraded habitat value may request a reduced mitigation ratio. If a reduced
mitigation ratio has been proposed, the Wildlife Agencies may submit a letter of concurrence or non-
concurrence to the City. If a letter of non-concurrence is received by the City from the Wildlife Agencies
during the CEQA public review period, the City will not approve the mitigation ratio reduction. If no
5-3
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
written concurrence or non-concurrence is received by the City from the Wildlife Agencies during the
CEQA public review process, the mitigation ratio reduction may be approved by the City.
Additionally, this component of the Subarea Plan is not intended to result in subjecting projects to
additive or, in some measure, duplicative, mitigation requirements for the same wetlands impacts
evaluated under the Federal and/or State wetland permitting process. Thus, the City reserves the right to
provide flexibility in the CEQA mitigation analysis and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) requirements to enable a project applicant to substitute the mitigation measures
imposed by another Federal or State agency for the same wetlands impacts for the mitigation imposed
under this City program; provided that the Federal or State agency mitigation measures are equivalent or
greater than those imposed by the City.
The wetlands mitigation program will be included in the projectÓs MMRP that is incorporated as a
condition of the projectÓs entitlement permit. For development outside of Covered Projects,
implementation of wetlands protection and the MMRP will be achieved through the HLIT permit. For
Covered Projects, implementation of wetlands protection and MMRP will be achieved through associated
Tentative Maps (TMs). In addition, the CityÓs Grading Ordinance will be amended to require verification
of compliance with the conditions of the applicable entitlement permit prior to the issuance of a permit to
impact wetlands (e.g. grading permit).
5.5.2Compliance with Existing Federal and/or State Wetlands Regulations
In addition to the CityÓs Wetlands Protection Program, Wetlands are afforded protection under existing
Federal and State law and regulatory programs. The Federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the California Fish and Game Code provide protection to
Wetland habitats and species through Federal and State regulatory permitting and agreements. Where
applicable, project proponents must submit an application for and receive Federal Section 404 and State
Section 1602 permits prior to impacting most wetlands. Applicants must also apply to Regional Water
Quality Control Board for Waste Discharge Requirements prior to any discharges, including discharges
from land that may affect any waters of the state. Water Discharge requirements must implement Basin
Plans that designate beneficial uses and water quality criteria for water-bodies, including wetlands.
Mitigation for an impact to wetlands must be consistent with the Federal policy of no overall net loss of
wetland functions and values, and Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 C.F.R. Part 230). Habitats and species
that are the subject of these permits require, as conditions of their approval, conservation and/or
mitigation resulting in avoidance or functional equivalent value mitigation. State guidelines for wetland
permitting also adhere to a no net loss policy for wetland acreage, functions and values. The CDFG Code
(Section 1600 et seq.) states that projects which substantially alter the flow or bed, bank or channel of any
river, stream or lake designated by the CDFG should first notify the CDFG, which may determine that a
Streambed Alteration Agreement is required. As part of the CityÓs Wetlands Protection Program,
compliance with conditions of the Federal Section 404 and State Section 1600 permits must be
demonstrated prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Projects that are regulated by Federal agencies will continue to be subject to Section 7 Consultations
under the ESA. Those projects that are subject to a Section 7 Consultation will be evaluated to insure that
the project is consistent with this Subarea Plan and wetlands mitigation program. The level of
5-4
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
conservation afforded by the provisions of this Subarea Plan to Covered Species has been established
through extensive consultation with, and review by, the Wildlife Agencies. Therefore, projects
undergoing Section 7 Consultations which are consistent with the provisions of this Subarea Plan will
receive Take Authorization for Covered Species through the Take Authorization permit issued to the City.
Within the Coastal Zone, the most current LCP shall define permissible impacts and mitigation for
wetlands and ESHA habitats (Appendix F).
5.6 SUBAREA PLAN BOUNDARY AND AMENDMENT PROCESS
Adjustments to the Reserve may be made without the need to amend the Subarea Plan in cases where the
Reserve boundary results in an area of equivalent or higher biological value or where additional acreage is
added to the Reserve. The determination of the biological value of a proposed boundary change will be
made by the City in accordance with this Subarea Plan, with the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies.
If the determination is the adjustment will result in the same or higher biological value of the Reserve, no
further action by the jurisdictions or Wildlife Agencies shall be required. The Wildlife Agencies shall be
notified of any additions to the Reserve and the provisions for habitat maintenance of lands added. Any
adjustments to the Reserve boundary will be disclosed in the associated environmental document (as part
of the project description) prepared for the specific project. An evaluation of the proposed boundary
adjustment to the Reserve will be provided in the biological technical report and summarized in the land-
use section of the environmental document. Minor and major amendments to the Reserve are discussed
below.
5.6.1Process for Exchanges and Minor Modifications to Reserve Boundaries
Adjustments to the Reserve may be made without the need to amend this Subarea Plan in cases where the
revised Reserve boundary results in a Reserve of equivalent or higher biological value or where additional
acreage is added to the Reserve. These actions are known as Ðminor amendments.Ñ
The City, in accordance with the Subarea Plan, will make the determination of the biological value of a
proposed boundary change, with the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies. If the CityÓs consulting
biologist determines the adjustment will result in the same or higher biological value of the Reserve, no
further action by the jurisdictions or Wildlife Agencies shall be required. The Wildlife Agencies shall be
notified of any additions to the Reserve and the provisions for habitat maintenance of lands added.
Any adjustments to the Reserve boundary will be disclosed in the environmental document (project
description) if prepared for a specific project. An evaluation of the proposed boundary adjustment will be
provided in the biological technical report and summarized in the land-use section of the environmental
document. Any approvals by the City under this section shall be based on a review by a qualified
biologist under contract by the City.
If lands designated as Reserve are annexed into the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, these lands shall be
incorporated into the Subarea Plan and shall be considered covered under the CityÓs Implementing
Agreement.
5-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
5.6.2Process for Major Changes to Subarea Plan
Requests for major amendments to this Subarea PlanÓs take authorizations would be processed by the
Wildlife Agencies consistent with applicable laws and regulations (including the National Environmental
Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act) in effect at the time of the original Subarea
Plan approval. Areas requiring major amendments include those subject to current or anticipated
conservation agreements with the Wildlife Agencies, should these agreements fail to materialize.
5.7 IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT
The Implementing Agreement (IA) is the binding contract between the City and the Wildlife Agencies. In
addition, due to their role in the reserve acquisition and management programs, PVPLC will also be a co-
signer to the IA. It identifies responsibilities to implement this Subarea Plan, binds the parties to their
respective obligations, and specifies remedies should any party fail to perform its obligations.
5.7.1Assurances in the Implementing Agreement
Additional assurances in the model Implementing Agreement are described below:
Local Land Use.
The Wildlife Agencies will issue to the City a 50-year authorization to take
species covered by this Subarea Plan. Additionally, this Subarea Plan will eliminate most USFWS
and CDFG involvement in project-specific review and approval. Impacts to wetlands must continue
to be regulated through the Clean Water Act, Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. and local
regulations, although coverage for endangered species through this Subarea Plan should facilitate
any consultation required between the USFWS and ACOE.
New Development.
Third-party beneficiaries undertaking land development will be allowed to
take covered species and habitats incidental to project construction, operation, and maintenance
based on the approvals extended to the project through the local project permitting process as
long as those land developments conform to the provisions of this Subarea Plan.
Covered Species.
The City will receive take authorizations for a list of covered species found
adequately conserved by the Subarea Plan. Take will be issued for Covered Species in one of two
categories: 1) Covered Species not listed and 2) Covered Species subject to Incidental Take (i.e.,
listed). When an unlisted species becomes listed, it will continue to receive take coverage under this
Subarea Plan, only under the latter category. The list includes species listed as threatened or
endangered, as well as other species not currently listed under either the FESA or CESA as long as
they are adequately covered by this Subarea Plan.
Critical Habitat.
If in the future, an FESA Critical Habitat Designation is made for a covered
species, that determination will not have the effect of causing additional land, mitigation,
restrictions, or compensation to be required of the City if this Subarea Plan is being implemented
in compliance with the take authorization conditions for that species.
Future Listings of Covered and Uncovered Species.
This Subarea Plan incorporates policies
describing how the covered species list may be expanded to include new species once actions in
other jurisdictions, or in Rancho Palos Verdes, ensure the speciesÓ long-term conservation.
5-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
5.7.2Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances
Pursuant to the ÐNo SurprisesÑ rule, if the USFWS makes a finding of ÐUnforeseen Circumstances,Ñ the
USFWS will not require commitment of additional land, water, or financial compensation or additional
restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level agreed to in this Subarea
Plan and the IA with respect to covered activities without consent of the City.
ÐUnforeseen CircumstancesÑ (defined in 50 CFR Section 17.3) means changes in circumstances affecting
a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been
anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS during the conservation planÓs negotiation and
development and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species.
Pursuant to the ÐNo SurprisesÑ rule at 50 CFR Section 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C), the USFWS must demonstrate
that unforeseen circumstances exist using the best scientific and commercial data available. The findings
must be clearly documented and based on reliable technical information regarding the status and habitat
requirements of the affected species. In its evaluation, the USFWS will consider but not be limited to the
following factors:
The size of the current range of affected covered species.
The percentage of the range of affected covered species that has been affected adversely by
covered activities under this Subarea Plan.
The percentage of the range of affected covered species that has been conserved by this Subarea
Plan.
The ecological significance of the portion of the range of affected covered species affected by this
Subarea Plan.
The level of knowledge about affected covered species and the degree of specificity of the
conservation program under this Subarea Plan.
Whether failure to adopt additional conservation measures would appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of affected covered species in the wild.
ÐChanged CircumstancesÑ is defined under the federal ÐNo SurprisesÑ rule as Ðchanges in
circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that can
reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS and that can be planned for.Ñ Changed
Circumstances to be addressed by this Subarea Plan include the following:
1. Fire occurring in the same location as a previous fire no sooner than three years following nor longer
than 10 years following an initial fire and damaging up to 30 acres of Reserve coastal sage scrub
(CSS) habitat.
2. Flood events occurring within the Reserve at greater than 50-year levels and up to and including 100-
year levels, as classified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and determined by the
Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works.
3. A major landslide event damaging up to 30 acres of Reserve CSS habitat.
5-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
4. Climatic drought up to three years in length, as declared by the State Department of Water Resources
and/or local water agency.
5. An increase of invasive species within the Reserve to the extent that, as determined by the City
Habitat Manager in consultation with the wildlife agencies, such increase is of sufficient magnitude to
significantly, adversely affect any covered species.
6. Listing of a non-covered species.
5.8 CITY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS AND PROCESS
The City will enter into the previously described Implementing Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies
following an action of the city council adopting this Subarea Plan and authorizing the agreement. The
duration of the agreement will be 50 years, and the agreement will be renewable if required. The
Implementing Agreement will ensure that this Subarea Plan will be continuously implemented over the
next 50 years, and that the State and Federal take authorizations will be in effect for the same time
interval. Key assurances for all parties described in this Subarea Plan will be incorporated in the
Implementing Agreement in full.
For its part, the City will guarantee implementation of this Subarea Plan through interim and permanent
regulatory measures, including codes, ordinances, and policies contained in the General Plan, and the
other City policy documents described herein. The City affirms that within 2 years of the signing of an
Implementing Agreement with the Wildlife Agencies, it will develop and schedule action on a
comprehensive General Plan amendment that will codify any new or modified City policies required to
implement this Subarea Plan. By mutual agreement, the parties may extend this period for one additional
year. This action will ensure consistent implementation of this Subarea Plan through City policy, private
and public project review and approval, and guidelines for operations and management of public lands.
Regardless of this period, the City will provide interim protection to habitat lands addressed in the take
authorizations through the process described herein.
5.8.1City Regulatory Actions
Upon signing of this Subarea Plan Implementing Agreement, the City will use its land-use regulatory
authority to fully implement the provisions of this plan. Regulatory implementation shall consist of the
following actions:
General Plan Update.
1. The City will amend the relevant elements of the General Plan to incorporate
this Subarea Plan by reference. If necessary or applicable, existing goals, objectives or policies
contained in the relevant General Plan elements may be amended to aid in implementing this Subarea
Plan.
Update Municipal Code of Ordinances.
2. If necessary or applicable, the Municipal Code will be
amended by reference to require lands addressed by this Subarea Plan to comply with the
conservation standards contained in this Subarea Plan.
Update Zoning Ordinance.
3. If necessary or applicable, additional text will be added to the Zoning
Ordinance or a new Article will be drafted to describe the effective boundaries and intent of this
Subarea Plan.
5-8
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Review and Modify Relevant Regulations
4. . To ensure the approval of private and public
development projects is consistent with this Subarea Plan relevant regulations will be reviewed and
modified, as needed. Current ordinances will be strengthened regarding enforcement and penalties for
illegal grading, clearing, and other operations within habitat or other sensitive resource areas.
Amend the Local Coastal Plan to incorporate the NCCP program and allow for a CCC
5.
consistency review
. Prior to this LCP amendment, the current LCP will take precedence over any
conflicting policies with this Subarea Plan for lands within the Coastal Zone. This LCP amendment
should be submitted to the CCC after the PUMP and HMP are developed.
Comply with Implementing Agreement.
6. The City will comply with all terms and conditions of this
Subarea Plan Implementing Agreement.
5.8.2City Interim Resource Protection
The goal of interim protection is to prevent important habitat areas or species from being lost to clearing,
conversion, or development in the period between signing of the Implementing Agreement and City
action to adopt the General Plan update. Existing City regulations and ordinances, as well as project-
specific plans described in this Subarea Plan, will provide both interim and permanent protection. No
proposed project requiring discretionary approval within the city will be approved by the City without a
determination of conformance to this Subarea Plan once an implementing agreement is signed. No
grading will be done within the city without a determination of conformance to this Subarea Plan by the
City Manager or his designee. No vegetation clearing, grubbing, or grading of vacant lands, or conversion
of non-agricultural lands to active agriculture shall be done without a determination of conformance to
this Subarea Plan by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or his designee.
5.8.3Development Review and Approval Process
Establishment of the regulatory framework described herein will enable the City to fully implement the
conservation policies of this Subarea Plan through the normal project review and approval process.
5.8.3.1Wildlife Agency Consultation
The agencies will receive notification of a project through the CEQA notification process and may
request a voluntary consultation within the normal public or CEQA review period. Likewise, the City is
free to request Agency involvement in a project where consultation would help address key issues or help
to streamline the process. All projects processed by the City will document their consistency with this
Subarea Plan during appropriate CEQA review.
The issuance of take authorizations will be documented by the City by maintaining a list of all approvals
under this Subarea Plan, which is attached or appended to this Subarea Plan and updated annually. The
list will describe the project, the amount of acres taken or conserved by the project, and the physical
location of the tentative map or other record or project approval produced by the City. All issuance of
project approvals over the course of a year will be documented and discussed at the required annual
meeting described herein. The primary exception to this general procedure would be if a project required
an amendment to this Subarea Plan as described herein.
5-9
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
5.8.3.2Annual Implementation Coordination Meetings
An annual meeting will be held between the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies to review and
coordinate Subarea Plan implementation, as documented by the annual Habitat Tracking Report. It is the
responsibility of the City to schedule this meeting within 60 days of each anniversary of execution of the
Implementing Agreement or as otherwise agreed to by the City and Wildlife Agencies. To meet the
stipulations of the Implementing Agreement, this Subarea Plan must be implemented in a way that
issuance of authorizations for taking of species and habitats is roughly proportional with implementation
of the conservation strategy in this Subarea Plan. The annual accounting of habitat acreage within the
subarea will include land conserved and habitat taken during the reporting period. Progress toward
achieving conservation requirements will be reviewed, and habitat management issues will be discussed,
along with a review of project approvals issued by the City over the course of the year. If the Wildlife
Agencies determine that this Subarea Plan is not being implemented as required, the Wildlife Agencies,
PVPLC, and the City will take the actions specified in the implementing agreement to remedy the
situation. These actions may include additional management activities, modification of the project
compliance process, or redirection of acquisition funds, as long as they are consistent with the provisions
of the implementing agreement.
5.9 SUBAREA PLAN AMENDMENTS
Certain events may require amending this Subarea Plan as described below. Although Subarea Plan
amendments are not anticipated regularly, amendments may be necessary to accommodate major changes
in conservation levels or reserve design, or large annexations of land. Consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies is required for a plan amendment, and these agencies must be notified as soon as the local
jurisdiction confirms that a plan amendment is warranted.
CEQA and NEPA documentation must be prepared for any project that triggers the amendment process.
The documents must address project impacts, as well as impacts on Subarea Plan implementation and any
effects on take authorizations held by the City.
Examples of amendments to this Subarea Plan include the following:
Removal of lands from conservation, or reconfiguration of project plans resulting in a decrease of
the amount or quality of habitat conserved that could not be addressed by a boundary adjustment.
A large annexation of land that requires take authorizations for development, and is not covered
by an existing NCCP Subarea Plan; or a major variation in design or implementation from an
existing NCCP plan.
Land excluded from a Subarea Plan at the time of approval, and therefore not covered by take
authorizations, but is later planned for development conservation purposes.
5.9.1Additions to the Reserve
Additions to the approved Reserve may be made without a plan amendment by providing the Wildlife
Agencies with:
5-10
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
A letter from the City agreeing to the addition and specifying the status of the property (i.e., City
parkland, HOA property, etc.).
An accurate map of the area to be added showing the total acreage and current vegetation
coverage.
A letter from the Habitat Manager agreeing to the acquisition and stating that the additional acres
can be maintained in a manner consistent with the surrounding area with the funds available for
Reserve management.
5.9.2Boundary Adjustments and Equivalency
Adjustments to the approved Subarea Plan Reserve boundaries may be desirable under some
circumstances that do not require plan amendment, and will be based on a like or equivalent exchange
concept. For example:
New biological information is obtained through site-specific studies;
Unforeseen engineering design opportunities or constraints are identified during the siting or
design of projects that require modification of the Reserve boundary;
A landowner may request that a portion of or all of his property be included within the Reserve
boundary.
Adjustments to Reserve boundaries can be made without the need to amend the Rancho Palos Verdes
Subarea Plan if the adjustment will result in the same or higher biological value to the Reserve. The
determination of biological value of the proposed change is made by the local jurisdiction and must have
the written concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies. The comparison of biological value will be based on the
following biological factors:
Effects on conserved habitats (the exchange maintains or improves the amount, configuration, or
quality of conserved habitats);
Effects on covered species (the exchange maintains or increases the conservation of covered
species);
Effects on habitat linkages and function of Reserves (the exchange results in similar or improved
habitat connectivity, wildlife movement corridor function, management efficiency and/or
protection of biological resources);
Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity (the exchange maintains
topographic and structural diversity and habitat interfaces or the Reserve); and/or
Effects to species of concern not on the covered species list (the exchange does not significantly
increase the likelihood that an uncovered species will meet the criteria for listing under either the
Federal or State ESAs).
Most adjustments to the boundaries will be in areas immediately adjacent to identified Reserves. Any
agreed upon modification of Reserve boundaries should be reported to the entity responsible for regional
5-11
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
reserve system accounting, and to adjacent jurisdictions if the modification might affect their portion of
the Reserve.
If Sections 7 or 10(a) FESA consultations are undertaken between a property owner and the USFWS
outside the structure of this Subarea Plan, the result of these consultations should be documented by the
USFWS and furnished to the City. The City will record the information using the same process described
herein, but would not be a cause for amendment
5.9.3Annexations
Future annexations of land to the city must be addressed by the requirements of this Subarea Plan. These
include interim protection of resources and conformance to this Subarea Plan project review and approval
process if development is proposed in the annexed area. The status of County NCCP Plan(s) in annexed
areas prescribes the CityÓs actions. The City will implement this Subarea Plan in the case of annexations
as follows:
If no approved county or other Subarea Plan exists for the area being annexed, the City must
assure that any development project design is consistent with the overall conservation directives
and reserve design strategy of the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan.
If an approved County or other Subarea Plan exists for the area being annexed, the approved
County Subarea Plan applies, and may be modified through the boundary adjustment process
described herein.
This same approach will apply to de-annexation or annexation of lands from another incorporated
city.
The City will apply the following guidelines to annexations whether a county or other Subarea Plan exists
or not.
For small annexations of less than 20 acres, where no take authorization for development is
required or where little habitat is present, the City will meet Subarea Plan requirements by
directing that overall conservation and project design guidelines be addressed in any project plan
proposed to the City for approval. No consultation with the Wildlife Agencies is required for this
process, and notification will occur through the process described herein.
In the case of annexations of land greater than 20 acres, or that require take authorizations for
development, the City will work cooperatively with the County of Los Angeles or other entity to
assure consistency between the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan, or other applicable conservation
standards. The Wildlife Agencies must be consulted in case of an annexation larger than 20 acres. If
any existing county or other Subarea Plan will not be modified, or is modified in a way consistent
with the Boundary Adjustment process, the resulting project design will be appended to the Rancho
Palos Verdes Subarea Plan and no plan amendment is required. If a major variation from a county
or other Subarea Plan is proposed, this Subarea Plan must be amended following the procedures
herein, including CEQA and NEPA requirements. The City and County, or other responsible
jurisdiction, may agree on which agency will issue the take authorizations, but the City will be
5-12
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
FIVE
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
responsible for assuring that any project level conservation plan is implemented following
annexation to the city.
5.9.4Process for Adding Species to Covered Species List
If a species not on the covered species list is proposed for listing pursuant to the Federal or State ESA, the
Wildlife Agencies will determine whether additional conservation measures, beyond those prescribed by
the Subarea Plan, are necessary to adequately protect the species. If no such measures are necessary, the
species will be added to the covered species list using the Federal and State take authorization amendment
process if requested by the City.
If the Subarea Plan conservation measures will not adequately protect the species, the Wildlife Agencies
will work with the participants to identify and jointly implement the steps necessary for coverage. These
may include the following measures:
Management practices and enhancement opportunities within the Reserve, provided these
measures do not adversely affect any covered species; and
Habitat acquisition through the reallocation of Federal, State, and regional funds identified for
Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan implementation, provided such reallocation does not
adversely affect any covered species.
If these options are not adequate to meet the speciesÓ conservation requirements, the Wildlife Agencies
will determine the additional measures necessary to add the species to the covered species list. Preference
will be given to conservation means that do not require additional mitigation or dedication of land. If
conservation measures necessary to add the species to the covered species list are identified when or after
the species is proposed for listing, the City (or other parties holding permits issued by the City through
this Subarea Plan) will not be required to approve or implement these conservation measures until such
time as the species is listed.
5.10 PERMANENT RESOURCE PROTECTION
5.10.1Local Resolutions
As has been described, the City will update, consolidate, and codify the environmental regulations
contained in this Subarea Plan into the General Plan, as appropriate. Additionally, the City implements
CEQA through the development review and approval process, which requires protection of significant
biological resources and mitigation for project impacts. Findings of consistency with the Subarea Plan
will be required for all projects requesting issuance of take authorizations.
5.11 COORDINATION WITH OTHER NCCP SUBAREA PLANS
No other jurisdiction within the Los Angeles Subregion is currently participating in the NCCP program.
Should new NCCP Subarea Planning programs be initiated, the City would coordinate with those
jurisdictions, as necessary.
5-13
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
SECTION 6 RESERVE MANAGEMENT
As an urban Reserve plan for wildlife and plants, the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan will enhance the
cityÓs quality of life and provide the city with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving
the cityÓs unique biodiversity and maintaining populations of sensitive resources. To succeed in these
goals, this Subarea Plan will require management practices and some land-use restrictions on conserved
lands that give special consideration to the interface between developed lands and open space. Adaptive
management measures and compatible adjacent land uses will minimize impacts to individuals or
populations of covered species from development abutting the Reserve. A process for monitoring habitats
and species in the Reserve will help to improve the effectiveness of resource management. The following
sections establish general guidelines for compatible land uses and development within and adjacent to the
Reserve and provide a framework for consistent and coordinated management and monitoring of the
Reserve.
Existing legal land uses adjacent to the Reserve may continue, and existing ownerships will be maintained
until lands are obtained by public entities through purchase, dedication, or donation. On private lands that
become part of the Reserve, public access will be allowed only on properties where access has been
granted by the owner through an appropriate easement or on property that has been voluntarily dedicated
in fee title to a public agency or nonprofit organization. All new public facilities will be reviewed for
consistency with this Subarea Plan regarding public safety and to minimize management concerns and
biological impacts.
6.1 HABITAT MANAGER
The City has selected the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) as the designated Habitat
Manager for the Reserve. Some conserved habitat areas addressed by this Subarea Plan are currently
managed by other organizations contracted by the private landowners (e.g., Ocean Trails and Oceanfront
Estates mitigation lands). Management of these private lands would be transferred to the PVPLC once the
monitoring requirements of the Wildlife Agencies have been met. The PVPLC will work with the City to
ensure that habitat on these lands is adequately maintained.
6.2 FRAMEWORK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
6.2.1Development of Public Use Master Plan
Within two years of the signing of the Implementing Agreement, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) shall
be developed jointly by the City and the PVPLC to address issues such as public access, trailhead
locations, parking, trail use, fencing, signage, lighting (if any), fire and brush management, minimizing
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods, public involvement in advisory capacities, and other issues that may
arise. This section provides management guidelines and measures for the development of the PUMP, to
reduce habitat impacts of land uses within and adjacent to the Reserve. The PUMP for the site would be
created based on extensive public input and would have to be approved by City Council and the Wildlife
Agencies. Prior to the final approval of the PUMP by the Wildlife Agencies, all lawful uses and activities
that are occurring in the Reserve at the time of approval of this Subarea Plan by the City Council shall be
6-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
deemed acceptable and allowed to continue unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by the Final
approved PUMP.
6.2.2Development Adjacent to the Reserve
6.2.2.1Management Issues
No new development activities will be allowed in the Reserve, except for the public and private
infrastructure projects identified in this Subarea Plan, geological testing in support of compatible land
uses, landslide monitoring, and any emergency actions associated with landslide abatement and
remediation activities. Development adjacent to the Reserve, however, may indirectly affect the Reserve.
These indirect impacts will be addressed through the existing project review process and CEQA
documentation, as required. In reviewing a proposed development project adjacent to the Reserve, site
design issues that need to be addressed are avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources
and retention of native habitats. Potential impacts to biological resources from existing and new
development adjacent to the Reserve will be considered in the design process. These include the locations
of access and staging areas, fire and brush management zones, potential for introduction of nonnative
species, increased night-lighting, increased stormwater and urban runoff, increased noise level and public
access to habitats supporting covered species.
6.2.2.2Project Design Review and Best Management Practices
The following guidelines are designed to protect biological resources in the Reserve during construction
of new development directly abutting the Reserve:
1. Review grading plans of development directly adjacent to the Reserve boundary (including access
routes, staging areas, etc.) to ensure the plans are consistent with this Subarea Plan, educate
contractors about the biological sensitivities associated with the area, and monitor construction to
ensure compliance with project-specific mitigation measures.
2. All construction site vegetation clearing will be conducted during the non-breeding season
(September 1 to February 15) to avoid destruction of active bird nests. If vegetation clearing must be
conducted during the bird breeding season, a nest survey must be conducted and a 15 meter (50 feet)
exclusion zone is placed around all active nests (i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) until the nest
becomes inactive
3. Use existing access roads outside the Reserve wherever practicable. Clearly mark all access routes
outside existing roads or construction areas. Develop an emergency access plan for the utility
companies with facilities within the Reserve.
4. When stockpiling topsoil, it should be placed in areas to be affected by project development.
5. Locate construction staging areas at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Reserve boundary and
natural drainages. Designate no-fueling zones a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from all
drainages and away from the Reserve boundary.
6. Schedule construction directly adjacent to the Reserve to minimize potential indirect impacts to
biological resources in the Reserve. Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of
6-2
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
minimum flow (i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentation
and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species. Construction adjacent to habitats
occupied by breeding sensitive wildlife species should be scheduled to avoid the breeding season
(February 15-August 31) if practicable.
7. Minimize construction noise impacts during the bird breeding season (February 15-August 31) by
precluding noise levels greater than 65 dB hourly L at the edge of habitat occupied by
eq
noise-sensitive covered bird species where existing noise conditions are less than this noise threshold.
Conduct pre-construction surveys of potentially affected conserved habitat between mid-January and
mid-March. If no noise-sensitive breeding bird species are detected within 15 meters (50 feet) of the
construction activity by this date, construction can proceed.
8. Locate new roads, trails, and utility corridors in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge
effects.
9. Place temporary construction fencing at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.
Add silt fencing to these fences to minimize excessive sedimentation into drainages.
10. Encourage undergrounding of utilities and use of trenchless technology, where feasible. Minimize the
width of construction corridors and easements, and where possible, use less impactive construction
practices such as jacking pipelines under drainages.
11. Revegetate cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to conserved habitat with
appropriate native species.
12. Require approved restoration plans and construction monitoring for all construction projects within
and adjacent to the Reserve.
13. Evaluate the practicality of noise barriers for short sections of road that may chronically affect
breeding wildlife.
14. Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance.
6.2.3Fire and Brush Management
Fire management can focus on two potentially different objectives: achievement of biological resources
goals and hazard reduction for humans and their property. Biological resource goals recognize that fire is
a natural process in ecosystems. Coastal sage scrub depends on a regular cycle of burning to maintain a
balance of species, create vegetation mosaics that favor increased animal species diversity, provide
habitat for species characteristic of early post-fire landscapes, and control exotic plant species invasion.
Fire and brush management can also affect restoration of disturbed habitats and site hydrology, which will
directly affect habitat value for wildlife. Fire management for hazard reduction for humans and their
property focuses on reducing fuel loads in areas where fire may threaten human safety or property,
suppressing fires once they have started, and providing access for fire suppression equipment and
personnel.
6.2.3.1Management Recommendations
Fire and brush management will be prioritized for human safety, but will also consider biological
resources, where appropriate. Therefore, fire and brush management practices in the Reserve need to
6-3
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
consider habitats and targets species, proximity to developed areas, and type of development. Standard
fire protection measures include vegetation management and fuel reduction by prescribed burning,
disking, chaining, vegetation clearing, and removal. Fire management through prescribed burns will not
be feasible in Rancho Palos Verdes because of the relatively small size of the Reserve, its proximity to
development, and the type of habitat that occurs within the Reserve. The biological effects of alternative
methods of fuel reduction should be weighed against their effectiveness in reducing fuel loads and fire
frequency. For example, disking creates opportunities for invasive weeds to gain a foothold in the
Reserve, but is extremely effective in reducing the fuel load. With both biological resources and human
safety considerations in mind, the following management guidelines should be implemented for
vegetation within the Reserve.
1. Maintain a 15-meter (50-foot) brush management zone around all houses, buildings, or other
structures. Ornamental landscapes individually planted, spaced, and maintained in such a manner that
do not form a means of transmitting fire from native growth to structure can be included as part of the
15-meter (50-foot) brush management zone. In certain situations, a 100-foot brush management zone
may be needed for fire protection (e.g., structures above steep slopes). Landscape species must be
either native species or non-invasive non-native species. Consistency with the CityÓs fire code is
required. ÐState fire code requires 30 feet minimum of cleared non-burnable zone and up to 100 feet
or more under Fire MarshalÓs orders. The City shall consult with the Fire Marshall to ensure all fuel
modification zones adjacent to the Reserve are adequate.
2. Brush management will occur outside the Reserve for all new projects. If new brush management
zones need to be established within the Reserve, a qualified biologist shall survey the area before
clearing activities to identify sensitive resources within the zone. If a sensitive resource is present, the
biologist shall make recommendations to minimize impacts to the resource.
3. Maintain brush management zones primarily for human safety, using mechanical fuel control
measures such as mowing, chopping, crushing, chaining, removal, and herbicide. In general,
chopping and crushing are the recommended methods based on biological and fuel reduction values
and safety concerns.
4. If recommended by the project biologist, remove debris and trimmings produced by the removal
process from the site or, if left, convert them into mulch by a chipping machine and evenly disperse
them to a maximum depth of 6 inches.
5. Where possible, existing brush management zones shall be located within the ownersÓ property or lots
owned and maintained by associations representing common ownership (e.g., homeownersÓ
associations). Brush management zones for new development shall be incorporated in the
development impact boundaries so they will not encroach into the Reserve.
6. The maintenance of brush management zones is the responsibility of the property owner or associations
representing common ownership benefiting from the brush management. Brush management should be
encouraged annually so that large fuel accumulations do not necessitate brush management during the
bird-breeding season. To the maximum extent practical, brush management should be conducted
outside the bird-breeding season, which typically occurs between February 15 to August 31.
6-4
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
7. If brush management zones extend off site, recorded documents shall be prepared that clearly state
the responsibilities and rights of the parties involved relative to the establishment and maintenance of
the brush management zones.
6.2.4Fencing, Signs, and Lighting
Fencing plays an important role in the use of the landscape by humans, domestic animals, and wildlife.
Fencing can control human access, particularly off-highway vehicles, and can prevent road kills of
terrestrial wildlife. Fencing, however, also can restrict normal wildlife movement and access to food and
water, and guide wildlife onto roads.
Signs educate, provide direction, and promote the sensitive use and enjoyment of natural areas, but they
can also inadvertently invite vandalism and other destructive behavior. Signs that explain the rules of the
Reserve (e.g., hiking, bicycle riding and horseback riding) are most effective at public entrance points.
Signs for educational nature trails and on roads near wildlife corridors (to reduce road kills) also should
be posted at appropriate locations.
Artificial lighting adversely affects the habitat value of the Reserve, particularly for nocturnal species.
Therefore, lighting should not be permitted in the Reserve except where essential for roadways, facility
use, and safety. Along Reserve edges, major highway lighting should be limited to low pressure sodium
sources directed away from Reserves.
6.2.4.1Management Recommendations
Fencing
1. Dismantle existing fencing inside the Reserve, except where needed to:
Protect particularly sensitive species or habitats. For example, perimeter fencing could be used in
habitat linkage areas where Reserve widths are narrower and there is greater exposure to adverse
edge effects.
Direct human access away from sensitive resource areas. Efforts to limit human access should
involve the use of natural vegetation, topography, signs, and limited fencing.
Protect from natural hazards or other public safety needs.
2. Design and locate new fences within the Reserve so they do not impede wildlife movement.
Signs
1. Provide educational brochures, interpretive kiosks, and signs to educate the public about the resources
and goals of the Subarea Plan and Reserve.
2. Establish signs for access control and education at the periphery of the Reserve that are accessible to
individuals. Post signs to prohibit firearms and unleashed pets.
3. Install signs for educational nature trails.
6-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
4. Limit the use and/or language of signs that might attract attention to sensitive species, because such
designation may invite disturbance of their habitat.
5. Install temporary signs to indicate habitat restoration or erosion-control areas.
6. Install barriers and informational signs to discourage shortcuts between established trails.
7. Establish road signs near wildlife corridors to help reduce road kills.
8. Consider signs denoting reduced speed limits along roads that have relatively high incidence of road
killed wildlife.
9. Include, where appropriate, contact information for law enforcement, and management staff.
Lighting
1. Eliminate lighting in or adjacent to the Reserve except where essential for roadway, facility use,
safety, and security purposes.
2. Use low-pressure sodium illumination sources. Do not use low voltage outdoor or trail lighting, spot
lights, or bug lights. Shield light sources adjacent to the Reserve so that the lighting is focused
downward and away from habitat areas.
3. Avoid excessive lighting in developments adjacent to the Reserve through appropriate placement and
shielding of light sources.
6.2.5Recreational Activities
Public access is appropriate in selected areas of the Reserve to allow entry for passive recreational
purposes and to promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources. Excessive or uncontrolled
access, however, can result in habitat degradation through trampling and erosion (e.g., along trails) and
disruption of breeding and other critical wildlife functions at certain times of the year. Passive
recreational activities (e.g., horse riding, hiking, bicycling, and bird watching) are anticipated within the
Reserve and are generally compatible with conservation goals. In general, passive activities pose a
significant threat to biological resources when the level of recreational use becomes too intense or occurs
in areas with sensitive resources.
Because of the relatively small size and fragmented nature of the Rancho Palos Verdes Reserve network,
active recreational uses that require new development, such as paved access roads, service facilities,
maintenance buildings, and exotic landscaping, are not appropriate land uses within the Reserve and shall
not be sited within the Reserve boundaries. Adverse impacts of motorized off-road vehicle use include
reductions in air quality because of automotive exhaust and creation of dust, soil erosion and
sedimentation into local waters, noise, and habitat degradation. Disturbance from off-road vehicles can
also disrupt breeding activities. For these reasons, off-road vehicle use, except for medical emergency or
law enforcement activities, is not compatible with conservation goals.
6-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
6.2.5.1Management Recommendations
Recreational use of the Reserve should be consistent with the protection and enhancement of biological
resources. Existing recreational facilities should be managed to promote the maintenance of habitat value
surrounding these facilities. Anticipated active recreation projects should be accommodated outside the
Reserve on land not required to meet covered speciesÓ habitat needs. The following actions should be
taken as a part of the development of the PUMP:
1. Determine appropriate levels of passive recreational activities within the Reserve, depending on the
resources to be protected, season, and successional stage of the adjacent habitat.
2. Develop a Reserve Trails Plan consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes Conceptual Trails Plan (as
amended), in such a way that new trail construction avoids direct access to sensitive resource areas
and major biological features (e.g., 7.6-meter \[25-foot\] setback to coastal bluffs).
3. Develop a plan for five passive overlook areas with benches, picnic tables, tie rails, portable toilets,
and trash cans, to be located near preserve boundaries where no existing habitat would be disturbed.
4. Locate overlooks and staging areas for trailheads adjacent to existing roads and away from sensitive
resource areas.
5. Restrict existing active uses, such as the archery range or paragliding activities to areas where impacts to
habitat can be minimized.
6. Use Ðfire-safeÑ locally native plants in landscaping along Reserve edges. Prohibit the use of invasive
exotics, and adopt an exotic plant control plan.
7. Require lighting use restrictions consistent with existing City lighting guidelines within 46 meters (150
feet) of the Reserve boundary. Direct lighting in adjacent areas away from the Reserve.
8. Minimize adverse effects of passive recreation, such as trampling vegetation and erosion.
9. Provide litter control measures, such as closed garbage cans and recycling bins, at access points
within the Reserve.
10. Prepare and maintain trail surfaces to minimize erosion. Do not use materials for trails that would be
a source of seed of invasive exotic species. Prohibit use of eucalyptus chips that could suppress native
plant growth adjacent to trails.
11. Limit equestrian use to specified trails where impacts to habitat can be minimized. If trails become
degraded because of heavy use, rotate or limit use during certain seasons to minimize further degradation.
12. Locate corrals, arenas, stables, and other associated equestrian facilities outside the Reserve. Any corrals
and/or stables located within this Subarea Plan area must evaluate the potential for supporting cowbirds.
If cowbirds are present, a cowbird trapping program should be implemented.
13. Ensure that public access to the Reserve is consistent with the protection and enhancement of biological
resources. Monitor existing access areas to ensure that they do not degrade or inhibit biological values,
and prioritize future access areas for protection of biological resources.
14. Seasonally restrict access to certain trails if deemed necessary to prevent disturbance of breeding
activities of covered species.
6-7
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
15. Close trails designated as unnecessary in the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) to minimize biological
impacts. For example, use fencing or signage to prevent the use or creation of unauthorized trails and
protect sensitive plant species adjacent to established trails on bluff slopes in the area between Point
Vicente and Long Point, and from the west edge of Portuguese Bend south to the city limits. Abandon
and revegetate steep eroding trails.
16. Locate new trails away from sensitive resources or restrict their use.
17. Construct barriers or signage at viewpoints or prominent features to prevent access to sensitive
coastal bluff areas. This measure would be appropriate at viewpoints or prominent features along
established trails in the area between Point Vicente and Long Point, and from the west edge of
Portuguese Bend south to the Rancho Palos Verdes city limits.
18. Construct trails for shoreline access to prevent extensive trampling and compaction. Close and
revegetate all other unauthorized and unnecessary trails.
19. Install water-bars on steep trails to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
20. Provide a 30-foot upland buffer along major drainages for new trails sited adjacent to drainages.
21. Establish a trail inspection and maintenance program to monitor trail conditions, and detect vandalism
and habitat degradation.
6.3 HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
6.3.1Reserve Habitat Management Plan
The Habitat Manager (PVPLC) shall develop a Reserve Habitat Management Plan (RHMP) for the
Reserve. The RHMP may consist of numerous subsidiary plans and reports and shall be reviewed and
approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies. The RHMP will have the following components and
reporting requirements:
6.3.1.1Initial Plans (may be combined or issued separately)
Initial Management and Monitoring Report
. Plant, gnatcatcher and blue butterfly surveys and
data analysis.
Predator Control Plan
. Based on the surveys, this plan will make provision for control of cowbirds,
feral cats, and other predators; it will be revised every three years or if additional controls are
needed.
Habitat Restoration Plan
. To encourage long-range planning, this plan will have a planning
horizon of five years and will be revised every three years.
Targeted Exotic Plant Removal Plan
. Based on a survey of all of the lands in the preserve, this
plan will designate 5 acres or 20 small sites where invasive plants will be removed during the
year ahead; this weed control will be done every year.
6-8
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
6.3.1.2Annual Plans
Targeted Exotic Plant Removal Plan
.
6.3.1.3Annual Reports (may be combined or issued separately)
Monitoring Report on Habitat Restoration Areas
. Using standard monitoring protocol as detailed
in the Habitat Restoration Plan.
Report on Targeted Exotic Plant Removal Efforts
.
Report on Covered Species Monitoring
. Years without Comprehensive Report.
Habitat Tracking
. Produced jointly by the City and PVPLC.
6.3.1.4Reports Every Three Years
Comprehensive Management and Monitoring Report
. Surveys and data analysis regarding
habitat, covered plants, gnatcatchers, cactus wren, and butterflies.
Updated Predator Control Plan
.
Updated Habitat Restoration Plan
.
6.3.2Management, Restoration and Reporting for the Reserve
6.3.2.1Initial Management and Monitoring
This section outlines the necessary monitoring tasks, including methodologies, data collection and
analysis. Refer to Section 6.6 for additional research that may be implemented as funds and/or researchers
become available.
6.3.2.1.1Plant Species Monitoring
Five target plant species occur within the Rancho Palos Verdes city limits. These include aphanisma,
South Coast saltscale, bright green dudleya, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn and Catalina crossosoma.
The first three species occur in southern bluff scrub, whereas the latter species occurs in CSS. An
additional three sensitive species have not been observed in the Rancho Palos Verdes city limits, but may
Calystegia peirsonii
occur on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: PeirsonÓs morning-glory (), southern tarplant
Centromadia parryiaustralisPentachaeta lyonii
( ssp. ), and LyonÓs pentachaeta (). The following
discussion of plant species monitoring focuses only on target plant species currently known from the
study area. If additional target species not currently known in the study area are included to the CityÓs
covered species list, monitoring efforts may be expanded to include these species.
Population Parameters
Long-term monitoring will focus on population parameters that indicate whether a population is
expanding, stable, or declining, such as population size, population density, and population structure (e.g.,
6-9
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
age classes). Parameters to be measured may vary from species to species according to species life history
(see below). Two additional parameters, survivorship and fitness (e.g., significant decreases in fruit or
seed set), are acknowledged as important in identifying causes of population decline but will not be
included in the Rancho Palos Verdes field monitoring program. Parameters included in this program are
discussed below.
Population Size.
It is well recognized that small populations are at an increased risk for
extirpation through both short-term catastrophic events and long-term genetic events that threaten
population viability (Allendorf 1983; Gilpin and Soulé 1986; Messick 1986; Falk and Holsinger
1991; Ellstrand and Elam 1993). Although it would be desirable to determine minimum viable
population sizes for the plant species of concern and manage populations accordingly, this task is
beyond the scope of this monitoring program. All covered species included in the field effort
(aphanisma, South Coast saltscale, bright green dudleya, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and
Catalina crossosoma) will be monitored to determine trends in population size. Population size
data will be correlated with environmental and ecological data, to the degree feasible, to
determine possible causes for declining trends. Depending on the cause, significant declines in
population size over time may warrant remedial measures (including but not limited to
reintroduction) to reverse the declining trend.
Population Density.
Populations too widely dispersed face the same risks as small populations,
but are particularly susceptible to adverse genetic effects associated with lowered outcrossing
rates. Population density data will be correlated with environmental and ecological data, to the
degree feasible, to determine possible causes for declining trends. Depending on the cause,
significant declines in population density over time may warrant remedial measures to reverse the
declining trend. Density monitoring is not warranted for species or populations that consist of one
or only a few individuals (e.g., Catalina crossosoma, some populations of aphanisma).
Furthermore, density monitoring may not be feasible for some species or populations located on
steep cliffs (e.g., aphanisma, South Coast saltscale, bright green dudleya).
Population Structure.
For some species (e.g., Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn and Catalina
crossosoma), the presence of flowering plants does not provide an adequate indication of the state
of the population or its potential for persistence (Oostermeijer et al. 1992). For example, a high
percentage of flowering may be observed in a relatively old, even-aged stand of plants. By its
very structure, however, this population may be more susceptible to extirpation than a population
with a lower percentage of flowering but a variety of age classes. Population structure, as
measured by the presence of various age classes, can provide an additional indication of the
overall vigor and long-term ÐpotentialÑ of a population. The presence of individuals representing
more than one stage of a life cycle (e.g., seedlings, juveniles, flowering and non-flowering adults)
is representative of a ÐdynamicÑ population. Conversely, populations characterized by minimal or
no seedling recruitment are typically considered Ðstable,Ñ even if there is a high degree of adult
flowering or non-flowering individuals. Although stable populations may persist for long periods,
they have a greater probability of becoming extinct over time because of their lack of recruitment.
Additionally, stable populations may experience declining trends in population size, even if the
rate of mortality is relatively low, simply because individuals that die are not replaced
(Oostermeijer et al. 1992).
6-10
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
The presence of age classes within a population will be monitored for herbaceous perennials
(e.g., bright green dudleya) or shrubs (Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, Catalina crossosoma)
that are on the covered species list and located in accessible locations. For example, it is
uncertain whether age class monitoring will be possible for bright green dudleya because of its
generally inaccessible location on bluffs. The presence of vegetative reproduction (e.g., clones,
stem or corm offshoots) will be considered evidence of a dynamic population.
Methodology
Field monitoring will focus on detecting both immediate threats to population viability and long-term
trends that indicate population decline. Immediate threats may include habitat loss or degradation (e.g.,
vehicles, trampling, plant collecting, illegal trash disposal and erosion) and will be measured through
visual assessments. Natural events that temporarily affect plant populations (e.g., fire) will be recorded
but typically will not be considered detrimental to the long-term survival of a population. Population
declines may be more difficult to assess because many species experience natural fluctuations in
population size over time. Efforts will be made to correlate apparent changes in population status with
environmental or ecological factors.
During the initial monitoring effort, a reconnaissance survey will be conducted for all populations
included in the field-monitoring program. The purpose of this survey will be to refine existing
information and establish baseline conditions. Specific objectives of this survey will be to define
population limits, estimate population sizes, and map populations onto base maps. The reconnaissance
survey is expected to be a one-time effort, and can be eliminated if recent and sufficiently detailed
baseline information is available. Field monitoring will include a qualitative assessment of disturbance
factors that may threaten the population. These factors will be recorded on the appropriate data sheets and
monitored over time to determine their effect on the target population. Where adverse effects are obvious,
however, remedial measures may be implemented immediately.
Most of the existing populations of covered plant species are currently small enough (< 1,000 individuals)
that direct counts can be made to determine both population size and density, and all populations can be
monitored. Bright green dudleya - occurs in larger populations and it is not feasible to establish transects
to census this species because of the inaccessibility of occupied sites (e.g., cliff faces). In this case,
population size and/or density will be assessed by direct counts in sample plots or estimates using
binoculars from vantage points or by photodocumentation, as discussed below.
Photodocumentation
Permanent photodocumentation points may be established for all monitored plant species plots but will be
particularly valuable for species for which direct monitoring of individual plants is impossible because of
accessibility problems and for which individuals may be reasonably counted or assessed from
photographs (e.g., bright green dudleya). Photodocumentation points will be established at least three
vantage points adjacent to the subject population(s). Color film will be used and photographs will be
taken at the same time of year to minimize discrepancies resulting from phenology. Additionally, cameras
should maintain the same orientation and focal length from year to year. Photographs should be taken
during each monitoring period.
6-11
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Climatic Data
Climatic information (e.g., precipitation and temperature) should be collected/recorded from the nearest
weather station monthly. This information will be used to correlate climatic conditions with species
presence and population size in any given year, for both plant and animal target species. The established
weather stations are on the Peninsula, Torrance, and Long Beach.
Timing
Monitoring of covered plant species should be conducted at the most phenologically appropriate time for
each species, depending on the type of monitoring being conducted. The phenological condition of each
species should be verified before initiating the monitoring effort. Target dates for monitoring are between
April and May for aphanisma, between May and July for South Coast saltscale, between April and
June for bright green dudleya, June for Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and between February and
May for Catalina crossosoma.
Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring frequency for covered plant species will vary according to speciesÓ habit (e.g., annual versus
perennial). Other considerations in monitoring frequency may include population trends noted over time
and budget and personnel available for monitoring. It is recommended that annuals and herbaceous
perennials be monitored during the spring season after the Peninsula experiences an annual rainy season
that exceeds 75-90 percent of the long-term average annual precipitation. This will allow for an unbiased
assessment of the population status under comparable weather conditions between monitoring years.
Longer-lived shrubs should typically be monitored once every three years.
For those that need more frequent monitoring, reports will be included in the yearly Targeted Exotic
Removal Report. Evidence of dramatic change in the populations of covered plant species will be
reported to the Wildlife Agencies and recommendations will be developed to address the concerns.
Data Collection
It is critical to the success of the monitoring program that a central data collection system and a central
repository for data are established and accessible to all personnel involved in the monitoring program,
including the Wildlife Agencies. A statewide monitoring database structure is currently being developed
by CDFG and others to allow for NCCP and other monitoring data to be stored consistently. This
database is expected to be finalized and operational in 2004. Data collected should be stored in such a
way that it can be easily incorporated into this database. Standardizing data collection is essential to
meeting monitoring objectives and streamlining the data collection, analysis, and reporting efforts.
Protocols and/or refinements can be made as the program evolves and as monitoring priorities shift;
however, any changes should be well documented and accessible to all persons involved in monitoring.
Monitoring documentation should include the following: hard copy or electronic data collection field
forms, data reduction forms, and final summary forms (Clarke 1986). Establishing these forms in advance
of the field effort will ensure that all aspects of the monitoring effort are examined, and will focus the
6-12
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
effort on the stated objective(s). Additionally, maps should be provided (as needed) that depict individual
site disturbances and other indicators/evidence of change.
Data collection forms will be used to record quantitative data at each point location and assess general
conditions within the monitoring site. Data reduction forms will be used in the office following the data
collection effort to summarize sampling site data and perform initial data analyses (e.g., means, variances,
standard deviations, etc.). A final summary form will be used to provide an evaluation of each monitored
population. Final summary forms are designed to condense quantitative data into summary statistics that
reveal the overall patterns being monitored. These forms will provide information used in the monitoring
reports.
Data Analysis
Data analysis will be performed as part of the Comprehensive Report every three years. Population
parameters measured to indicate whether a population is expanding, stable, or declining include
population size, plant density, and population structure (e.g., expressed as age class frequency) as
appropriate given the size of local populations.
After multiple years of data are collected, a test for time series analysis may be used to identify significant
trends. The major task of a time series analysis is to describe the nature of the variation of a variable at
different points in time so that its future values can be predicted (Kachigan 1986). A time series analysis
is also used to determine whether a long-term trend is significant or just part of an extended cyclic process
of population change.
Reporting
The main product of the covered plant species monitoring will include a report (with accompanying maps
and photographs) that indicates the status of species at each monitoring location. The first-year
monitoring effort will provide the ÐbaselineÑ for subsequent monitoring years. The report will provide a
concise summary of any proposed actions, their purpose and priority, schedule for implementation,
maintenance frequency, labor and materials, and cost estimate for implementing any proposed actions. In
addition to the written report, digital biological monitoring data will be made available to the Wildlife
Agencies for incorporation into the statewide monitoring database. Refer to Section 6.4.2 for additional
information on the reporting program.
6.3.2.1.2Animal Species Monitoring
Monitoring of focal wildlife populations is prioritized toward species that are considered indicators of
ecosystem function and species whose population status is of concern to the USFWS and CDFG. The
three focal species selected for monitoring are: California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, and El
Segundo Blue Butterfly. If Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly is reintroduced into the Reserve, this species
would be added to the monitoring program. Because of their small population size, concentrated
distributions in this planning area, and isolation from other populations, these three species may be
particularly vulnerable to local extirpation.
6-13
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Methodology
The goal of population monitoring is to implement a monitoring program sufficient to detect significant
long-term declines in population levels of focal species within the reserve system. A complete survey of
all potential habitat within the Reserve populations of California gnatcatcher and cactus wren in Rancho
Palos Verdes is proposed to be done every three years, per standard survey protocols. It is assumed that
gnatcatcher and cactus wren surveys will be done concurrently. It is further assumed that monitoring of
gnatcatchers and cactus wrens will facilitate a general qualitative assessment of CSS habitat quality
throughout the Reserve. A standard protocol for surveying California gnatcatchers and coastal cactus
wrens has been developed and should be used by the monitoring program to develop comparable trends.
This survey protocol is detailed below.
Survey Frequency.
Gnatcatchers/wrens are difficult to detect and can easily be missed with just
one site visit. At a minimum, a given area within a habitat patch will be surveyed twice with at
least a seven-day interval between site visits during January through mid-March. A third site visit
to the habitat patch will focus on relatively large areas of the patch (i.e., >20 acres) that lack any
gnatcatcher/wren sightings after two site visits. Maximum survey efforts for each 100-acre habitat
patch will be approximately 18 cumulative field hours.
Time of Day.
Surveys will begin within one hour after sunrise and end by noon. Surveys will
begin later in the morning when ambient morning temperatures are less than 40°F.
Areal Coverage of Survey.
The calling rate of California gnatcatchers is highly variable (Preston
et al. 1998). Relatively slow, methodical transects through presumptive gnatcatcher habitat are
required to maximize the potential for detecting gnatcatchers/wrens. Rate of coverage will be
100 acres per person per six hours of survey effort. Surveys are most effective when pairs of
biologists survey an area together to distinguish between pairs and minimize double counting of
the same pair/individual.
Survey Weather Conditions.
Gnatcatchers/wrens may be more difficult to detect under windy
(> 10 mph) and/or cold (< 40°F) conditions. Very hot conditions (> 95°F) also seem to depress
activity. Surveys should not be conducted under these extreme weather conditions.
Taped Vocalizations.
Taped vocalizations will be used on all surveys because there may be extensive
inter-observer variation in pishing. Volume of tape players should be similar to that of a quiet mew
call or contact note produced by a California gnatcatcher/cactus wren. Excessive volume can either
draw in or scare off birds from their normal territory and thus influence the estimate of population
size. Use of the tape should be infrequent in both time and space. Allow sufficient time for the birds to
respond (e.g., 5 to 10 minutes) before playing the tape again. Do not induce detected birds to follow
the taped call, thereby minimizing potential double counting.
Survey Routes.
Survey routes through the habitat patch will be systematic so that the area is
completely covered. Survey routes will be varied relative to time of day between visits. A zigzag
pattern that starts from the center of the habitat patch and moves toward the periphery of the
patch is highly recommended. Distinct topographical features (e.g., ridge lines or major trails)
often form the boundaries between gnatcatcher territories. Note the location of territorial behavior
if observed.
6-14
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Detailed Recording of Sighting Information.
Gnatcatcher/cactus wren sightings will be
recorded on a standard field data form (Appendix C), as well as on a standard field topographic
map of the plot. Attribute and location data should be stored digitally in such a way that it can be
easily incorporated into the statewide monitoring database currently being developed by CDFG
and others. Information to be recorded for each sighting will include, at a minimum, the
following:
Date and start/stop time of sighting.
Sex and age of individual(s).
Are any of the birds detected color-banded? -- record the color code.
Habitat type, dominant plant species, and vegetative condition (i.e., extent of disturbance).
Is the sighting a single bird, a pair, or a family group?
Is there any evidence of breeding activity (e.g., nesting behavior)?
Are there any other sensitive CSS species near the sighting?
Occupied and potential habitat for El Segundo Blue Butterfly within the Reserve shall be surveyed
annually during the flight period of this species (February-March). Numbers of adults detected and
condition of the larval habitat will be assessed and reported annually.
Data Analysis
As much as is practical, trend analysis methods will be used for data analysis of wildlife species. The
statistical analysis of time-series data for trends has received extensive attention (e.g., Ralph and Scott
1981; Verner 1985; Sauer and Droege 1990; Gerrodette 1987, 1993). Once a sufficient time-series of
population data is developed, long-term trend analyses can be conducted. The number of years of data
necessary to reliably identify a long-term population decline depends on the variability of the data. In the
short-term, the number of occupied sites, site turnover rate, and change in total population size between
years will be indicative of at least short-term variation in local population levels that can be related to
weather and site conditions (e.g., cold weather-induced population decline). If a negative population trend
is detected, a more intensive investigation of the potential causes of the population decline (e.g., cowbird
parasitism) should be initiated.
Reporting
A monitoring report documenting the results of the yearÓs survey efforts will be prepared within three
months of the completion of fieldwork. This report will identify any management actions (e.g., more
detailed investigations) required to clarify or resolve problems identified by the monitoring program.
Refer to Section 6.4.2 for additional information on the reporting program.
6.3.2.2Predator Control Plan
The Predator Control Plan will be written based on the results of the first Management and Monitoring
Report. It will recommend specific actions to be taken to reduce predation within the Reserve for the
6-15
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
following three years. It will be revised every three years based on the comprehensive survey to be done
every three years.
Native species are often at a disadvantage after exotic species or nonnative predators are introduced, so
special management measures may be needed to control these invading species. Nonnative plant and
animal species have few natural predators or other ecological controls on their population sizes, and they
thrive under conditions created by humans. These species may aggressively out-compete native species or
otherwise harm sensitive species. When top predators are absent, intermediate predators can multiply and
increase predation on native wildlife species and their nests. Feral and domestic animals, particularly cats,
also prey on small native wildlife species. Stables may provide resources for increased populations of
parasitic cowbirds, which adversely affect native songbird breeding populations.
A Predator Control Program shall be developed based on the results of the initial surveys. This program
shall address the need to control feral and domestic animals, cowbirds, and large exotic predatorsIt shall
be updated every three years after new surveys are performed.
Feral and Domestic Animal Control
These measures shall be considered for inclusion in the Predator Control Program for the Reserve.
1. Document evidence of feral or domestic animal use in the Reserve.
2. Establish an education program for homeowners regarding responsible pet ownership. The program
should encourage 1) keeping pets indoors, especially at night; 2) having pets neutered or spayed to
reduce unwanted reproduction and long-range wanderings; 3) belling of cats to reduce their
effectiveness as predators; 4) keeping dogs on leashes when walking them on trails in Reserves; 5)
discouraging release of unwanted pets into the wild; and 6) prohibiting the feeding of feral animals.
3. Fence selected segments of the Reserve boundary adjacent to housing to keep pets out of particularly
sensitive areas.
4. Establish a feral animal removal program, as necessary. This program shall consist of trapping and
removal at regular intervals throughout the year.
Cowbird Trapping Program
1. Document and monitor the extent of cowbird parasitism on target bird species nesting in the Reserve.
2. Establish a cowbird trapping program to increase nesting success of target species adversely affected
by cowbird parasitism, as necessary.
Native Predator Control
1. Monitor population levels of selected predators (e.g., coyote, grey fox).
2. Institute an educational program to explain the role and necessity of large native predators within the
ecosystem and the need to protect them from disturbance.
6-16
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
3. Initiate a program to control mesopredators (red fox, gray fox, skunks, raccoon, and opossum), if key
native predator species are extirpated from the Reserve and studies indicate that these specific
mesopredators are adversely affecting sensitive native wildlife.
Refer to Section 6.4.2 for additional information on the reporting program.
6.3.2.3Habitat Restoration Plan
Restoration is the process of re-establishing or enhancing historical biological functions and values to
degraded habitats. Restoration within the Reserve will consist of actively establishing native habitat in
areas currently nonnative habitat or disturbed lands, based on a five-year Restoration Plan to be developed
by the PVPLC in consultation with the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The five-year habitat restoration
plan will be updated every three years to incorporate changes in priorities, conditions or unique situations
while maintaining long-range planning perspective.
Active restoration of nonnative habitats and disturbed lands will require removal of existing non-native
vegetation, seeding with native species, and monitoring the restoration effort until it is determined a
success. As available funding permits, the habitat restoration program will focus on the creation of habitat
for target species with the objective of increasing the overall habitat carrying capacity for the target
species populations. Key habitats for restoration are CSS, cactus scrub, and Palos Verdes blue butterfly
habitat. Figure 6-1 depicts potential restoration areas in the Reserve, ranks them according to priority for
restoration to enhance the reserve design, and further classifies these areas according to suitable
restoration habitat type.
6.3.2.4Management Recommendations
Restoration is necessary to increase the quantity and quality of native habitat in the Reserve. This will
improve the viability of the Reserve to provide additional habitat for target species. Habitat-specific
restoration should occur only on sites assessed as suitable for that habitat type and should be implemented
according to Priority l, with initial restoration efforts occurring on high priority sites (Figure 6-1). Once
the site and size of the restoration effort is determined, a project-specific restoration program should be
prepared according to the following guidelines.
Develop a Detailed Habitat Restoration and Management Plan
The PVPLC will develop a five-year Habitat Restoration Plan. This plan shall:
1. Prepare one 5-acre (or greater) area each year by removing exotics; and
2. Revegetate that same 5-acre area (or greater) with native species in the subsequent year.
This plan will be reviewed and approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. PVPLC shall review this
plan every three years after reviewing at least one year of comprehensive monitoring reports. The plan
will address restoration design, installation procedures, maintenance and monitoring program, and success
criteria.
6-17
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Every effort will be made to obtain funding for additional restoration within the Reserve. Additional work
will be included in the yearly habitat restoration plan, with site-specific monitoring requirements for each
area. In situations where supplemental sites are added to those included in the Restoration Plan, a site-
specific Habitat Restoration Plan will be developed with monitoring requirements appropriate to the
situation.
6-18
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
06/22/04
FIGURE
Los Angeles
6-1
Lomita
Priority Habitat Restortion Areas within the Reserve
Rolling Hills
Estates
County
Rolling
Hills
Pacific Ocean
04500
FEET
Rancho
Verdes
Palos
Estates
Verdes
Palos
eas for
Restoration in Progress
Subarea Plan BoundaryJurisdictional Boundary
First Priority Areas for
Second Priority Ar
/gis/projects/mios/rpv/plots/figures/sap_figs.aml
RestorationRestoration
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Restoration Design
The following will be included in the restoration design criteria:
1. Specified plant and seed palettes that will be used in the restoration effort. Tables 6-1 through 6-3 are
recommended seed lists for use in the Reserve. These should be modified by the restoration biologist
to make them more site-specific and correspond to site-specific restoration goals.
2. The types of erosion control that will be used and how they will be applied shall be outlined in the
detailed restoration plan. Erosion-control measures can include, but are not limited to, straw wattles,
blown straw, crimped straw, and/or erosion-control matting. No erosion control devices shall be used
that contain seed from non-native plants.
3. Incorporation of local plant species of concern into the restoration program wherever possible and
appropriate to the site conditions. Plan ahead when adding a sensitive species to the restoration plan
to be able to obtain enough seed to have a viable restoration effort (Section 6.2.7).
4. No irrigation systems shall be installed within the CityÓs Landslide Moratorium Area or the
CityÓs coastal setback zone unless such installation is approved by the CityÓs geotechnical
consultants. The following will be included in the preparation criteria:
Weed control should begin in the winter before installation of the restoration plan.
The restoration site should be sprayed with herbicide as needed during the winter and spring
months.
After the weeds have been controlled, the site should be raked to remove above ground biomass,
and remain fallow until the appropriate time to begin revegetation.
A restoration ecologist shall oversee any use of herbicide to control weeds, following the
recommendations of a licensed Pest Control Advisor and shall be applied by a Qualified
Applicator.
Prepare the site by restoring it to existing grade, fixing any erosion that may have occurred, and
scarifying any compacted areas.
Apply erosion control measures where applicable.
Maintenance Program
1. Maintain the restoration site for five years following installation.
2. Perform maintenance on an as-needed basis, as recommended by the restoration biologist.
3. Perform the following maintenance activities to facilitate restoration success: weed control, erosion
control, soil fertility management, and access control.
6-20
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Table 6-1
Rancho Palos Verdes
Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix
Scientific Name Common Name Pound per Acre %Pure Live Seed
California sagebrush 5.0 7.5
Artemisia californica
var. Ocean locoweed 2.0 -
Astragalus trichopodus lonchus
California sunflower 2.0 24
Encelia californica
Ashy-leaf buckwheat 2.0 -
Eriogonum cinereum
California buckwheat 5.0 6.5
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Golden-yarrow 2.0 18
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
Deerweed 2.0 54
Lotus scoparius
Arroyo lupine 2.0 83
Lupinus succulentus
Laurel sumac 1.0 -
Malosma laurina
Foothill needle-grass 2.0 36
Nassella lepida
Purple needle-grass 2.0 42
Nassella pulchra
Purple sage 2.0 49
Salvia leucophylla
Black sage 3.0 35
Salvia mellifrea
Total 30.0
Table 6-2
Rancho Palos Verdes
Coastal Cactus Scrub Seed Mix
Scientific Name Common Name Pounds per Acre %Pure Live Seed
Seeds
California sagebrush 4.0 7.5
Artemisia californica
California sunflower 2.0 24
Encelia californica
Ashy-leaf buckwheat 2.0 -
Eriogonum cinereum
California buckwheat 5.0 6.5
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Golden-yarrow 2.0 18
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
Bladderpod 2.0 58.5
Isomeris arborea
Arroyo lupine 2.0 83
Lupinus succulentus
Foothill needle-grass 2.0 36
Nassella lepida
Total 21.0
Cuttings Plants per Acre
Coast prickly pear 200
Opuntia littoralis
Coast cholla 160
Opuntia prolifera
Prickly pear 75
Opuntia oricola
Total 435
1
3 m (10 ft) on center
1
6-21
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Table 6-3
Rancho Palos Verdes
Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix
Scientific Name Common Name Pounds per Acre %Pure Live Seed
California sagebrush 4.0 7.5
Artemisia californica
var.Ocean locoweed 4.0 -
Astragalus trichopodus lonchus
California buckwheat 4.0 6.5
Eriogonum fasciculatum
Golden-yarrow 2.0 18
Eriophyllum confertiflorum
California matchweed 3.0 2
Guiterrezia californica
Deerweed 2.0 54
Lotus scoparius
Arroyo lupine 2.0 83
Lupinus succulentus
Wishbone bush 2.0 -
Mirabilis californica
Foothill needle-grass 2.0 36
Nassella lepida
Purple needle-grass 2.0 42
Nassella pulchra
Total 23.0
4. Remove or control invasive exotic species. Weed control will require constant diligence by the
Schinus
maintenance personnel. Invasive exotic species, such as pepper trees ( spp.), gum tree
EucalyptusRicinus communisNicotiana glauca
( spp.), castor bean (), tree tobacco (), and fennel
Foeniculum vulgare
(), will be removed wherever they occur within the restoration area. Annual
BrassicaRaphanus sativus
weeds such as mustard ( spp.), wild radish (), and annual grasses may also
need to be controlled. The restoration biologist will determine what annual weeds need to be
controlled to ensure restoration success.
5. Control erosion as necessary. Potential erosion-control measures include haybales, sandbags, silt
fencing, and/or erosion-control matting. The restoration biologist will identify the need for erosion
control during regular site visits.
6. Control access to restoration sites. Access to restoration sites should be on existing dirt roads. All
vehicles should remain outside the restoration areas. If offroad vehicle or human activities become a
problem in the restoration area, the restoration biologist will recommend the installation of fencing.
6.3.2.5Targeted Exotic Plant Removal Plan
Each year, the PVPLC shall perform a survey of all properties included in the Reserve to identify
locations where exotic species are prevalent. A letter plan will be developed selecting 5 acres or 20 small
sites for removal each year. This weed control activity is in addition to the 5 acres being restored by the
habitat restoration program (Section 6.3.2.3). The Targeted Exotic Plant Removal Plan will:
1. Prioritize areas for exotic species control based on aggressiveness of invasive species and degree of
threat to the native vegetation. (Refer to Appendix D for a list of exotic plant species that could
6-22
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
threaten native habitats in Rancho Palos Verdes). Eradicate species based on biological desirability
and feasibility of successful implementation.
2. Use an integrated pest management approach (i.e., use the least biologically intrusive control methods),
at the most appropriate period of the growth cycle to achieve the desired goals.
3. Consider both mechanical and chemical methods of control. Only herbicides compatible with
biological goals should be used. Only licensed pest control advisers are permitted to make specific
pest control recommendations.
4. Properly dispose of all exotic plant materials removed from Reserve lands (e.g., in offsite facilities).
At the end of the year, a letter report will be prepared showing the locations of targeted exotic removal,
with before and after photographs of the work done.
In the years without a Comprehensive Survey, the locations of the covered plant species will be visited
and photographed by the surveyor during the course of the exotic removal effort. A brief summary of the
condition of the four varieties of plants with identified locations will be included in the report, along with
photographs. Several typical locations for bright green dudleya will also be included in the annual report.
Any significant changes to the populations of these plants will be called to the attention of the Wildlife
Agencies immediately.
6.4 REPORTING ON THE STATUS OF THE RESERVE
The Habitat Manager will submit a Comprehensive Report and Plan Report to the City and the Wildlife
Agencies every three years that summarizes management and monitoring activities, describes
management priorities for the next three-year period, reports on population monitoring and restoration
activities, and evaluates funding and the ability to meet the resource management goals and objectives.
This report shall include a summary of the financial requirements of plan maintenance, including reports
on volunteer hours donated. Other reports shall be submitted as described above.
6.4.1Biological Monitoring Program
The Subarea Plan is a comprehensive habitat-planning program that addresses multiple species habitat
needs and the conservation of natural communities in Rancho Palos Verdes. In addition to identifying
Reserves and compatible land uses within and adjacent to the Reserve, this Subarea Plan also seeks to
maintain biological values of Reserves over time by reducing human-related impacts to target species and
their habitats. Biological monitoring will allow the City and the Wildlife Agencies to evaluate whether the
reserve system is meeting conservation goals for covered plant and animal species and their habitats,
identify threats to covered species and habitats, and help prioritize management needs. Monitoring
activities will be tracked through a formal reporting program that will assess the need for remedial or
adaptive management and provide research recommendations.
6.4.1.1Responsibilities and Coordination of Efforts
Implementation of the biological monitoring program is the responsibility of the PVPLC, with the
assistance of the City and the USFWS and CDFG. A critical factor in the success of the biological
6-23
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
monitoring program will be coordination of monitoring efforts to ensure spatial and temporal consistency
in data collection and analysis, and to allow compilation of data from different sources into
comprehensive monitoring reports every three years. A centralized data storage repository will be
established at the PVPLC office, and will be structured in such a way that data can be easily incorporated
into the statewide monitoring database currently being developed by CDFG and others. Data will be made
accessible to biological monitors, researchers and reviewers (including the Wildlife Agencies), facilitating
the coordination of monitoring programs with other NCCP subregions.
6.4.1.2Biological Monitoring Objectives
Biological monitoring focuses on detecting changes in habitat quality and population trends in habitats
and plant and animal species considered covered by the Subarea Plan. The successful maintenance of
these resources will be measured against specific habitat acreages and/or species populations, as
documented in the final Subarea Plan and implementing agreements. PVPLC, Rancho Palos Verdes and
the Wildlife Agencies will have detailed maps providing locations of habitats and covered species
populations included in the Reserve and/or targeted for conservation.
Specific biological monitoring objectives include the following:
Document the protection of habitats and covered species in the annual Habitat Tracking Report
and Covered Species Report as specified in this Subarea Plan and implementing agreement. This
will be accomplished by tracking permanent habitat losses and take of covered species.
Document changes in the presence of conserved populations of covered species. This will be
accomplished through monitoring covered species within conserved habitat.
Describe new biological data collected, such as new species sightings, information on wildlife
movements and frequency of road-killed wildlife, as such information is available. Although not
the focus of the monitoring program, collection of new biological data will occur during covered
species monitoring. This information will be disseminated through the annual reporting program.
Evaluate effects of land-use changes in and adjacent to the Reserve. Evaluations will occur on
both a landscape level (tracking permanent habitat losses) and a local level (covered species
population monitoring). Results of this evaluation will be presented in periodic reports and
correcting actions implemented through the remediation and adaptive management program.
Evaluate management activities and enforcement difficulties. An assessment of the effectiveness
of specific management and enforcement activities will occur through the habitat and covered
species-monitoring component of this program. It should be noted that ongoing efforts of the
habitat manager would also assess these activities. Management and enforcement issues will be
discussed in the reporting program, along with remediation or adaptive management strategies, as
necessary.
Evaluate funding needs and the ability to accomplish resource management goals. An assessment
of funding needs and management goals will be provided every three years in the Comprehensive
Management and Monitoring Report. Accomplishment of management goals will be measured
against specific habitat and species conservation targets set forth in this Subarea Plan and
implementing agreements.
6-24
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Because of budgetary limitations, the highest priority monitoring tasks will be those 1) that provide direct
evidence of human-induced changes in key biological resources and 2) for which corrective or remedial
management actions are possible. Refer to Section 6.5 for remediation and adaptive management in cases
where negative or declining trends are identified.
6.4.1.3Limitations of Monitoring Program
The intensity and scale of any monitoring program is ultimately limited by the priorities and resources
(funding and staff) made available and considered sufficient to accomplish the stated goals of the
program. Because the proposed Reserve is small in scale in comparison to those being designed in other
NCCP subregions, monitoring of covered species and qualitative assessments of habitat quality
throughout the entire Reserve (rather than a sampling design that monitors representative sites and focal
species within the Reserve) was deemed a practical approach to follow. Limitations of the proposed
monitoring program include the following:
Focal species monitored are assumed to act as indicators of Reserve function and as surrogates
for other species not monitored.
The ability to detect adverse human-caused changes or downward trends in population size may
require time-series data of relatively long duration.
Qualitative measures of habitat characterization are less precise/accurate than detailed (and time-
consuming) quantitative measures.
6.4.2Restoration Site Monitoring Program
6.4.2.1Site Monitoring
Monitor the restoration work underway in the Reserve. Each site will be monitored for seven years, with
reports prepared in years 1 through 3, 5, and 7. Monitoring should document restoration progress and
provide direction and maintenance recommendations. Monitoring will include both horticultural and
botanical components.
Conduct horticultural monitoring to determine plant composition, plant health, performance of
maintenance personnel, and recommended maintenance activities.
Conduct botanical monitoring to quantitatively measure the progress of the restoration effort by
measuring plant cover, plant composition, and weed cover. Botanical monitoring should follow
the California Native Plant Society field sampling protocol (CNPS 1995).
Take photographs of the restoration site viewing the site from different locations. Photographs
should be taken at the same locations each year.
6.4.2.2Success Criteria
Measure success of site-specific restoration programs using the following criteria:
Soil at the site is stable and shows no significant erosion.
6-25
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Non-native plant cover is less than 10 percent with less than 10 percent cover of invasive
perennial species.
Native plant cover after three years in the CSS community should be greater than 40 percent with
at least 30 percent cover from perennial species.
Native plant cover after three years in the cactus scrub community should be greater than 30
percent with at least 20 percent cover from perennial species and 5 percent cover from cactus
species.
Native plant cover after three years in PV blue butterfly habitat should be greater than 30 percent,
but not more than 60 percent. Bare ground should comprise at least 40 percent cover. Perennial
Astragalus
species should be maintained at between 10 and 20 percent cover. Ocean locoweed (
trichopoduslonchusLotus scoparius
var. ) or deerweed () should constitute at least 10 percent
cover. Some replacement of ocean locoweed by deerweed is acceptable, particularly in the
northern portions of the Reserve.
6.4.3Covered Species Monitoring
Preservation of rare plant and animal populations in protected areas is the initial step in achieving
long-term conservation. Monitoring efforts are needed to ensure that human-related activities do not
present immediate threats to conserved populations nor threaten the ability of a population to persist over
time. The covered species monitoring program will identify (1) short-term threats to species persistence;
and (2) longer-term trends that may suggest declining populations. In either case, active management may
be required. The covered species monitoring effort will achieve Subarea Plan objectives of documenting
the protection of covered species and changes in conserved populations of covered species, collecting
new biological data, evaluating the impacts of land uses in and adjacent to the Reserve, and evaluating
management activities and enforcement difficulties in the Reserve.
6.4.4Habitat Tracking and Reporting
The annual accounting of the acreage, type, and location of habitat and species conserved, restored, and
destroyed by permitted land uses and other activities will be the responsibility of the City and PVPLC.
Records will be maintained in ledger and GIS format using the HabiTrak application (or similar
methodology) which is currently being used in other NCCP subregions. This accounting process will be
used to ensure that habitat conservation proceeds in rough proportion with habitat losses to development.
This information will be provided by the City to the PVPLC, which will submit it along with other yearly
reports to the Wildlife Agencies. The information will contribute to the annual public report
demonstrating compliance with the terms and conditions of this Subarea Plan Implementing Agreement,
and take authorization. Annual public workshops will also be held jointly by the City and PVPLC within
30 days of the anniversary of the approval of the Implementing Agreement to inform interested citizens
on the progress of the implementation of the Master Plan, and the Reserve assembly, restoration, and
management.
The loss of habitat will be accounted for when the project accrues the benefits of the take authorization.
For conserved lands, the conservation of habitat and species locations will be accounted for when habitat
is permanently conserved (e.g., date of recordation of title transfer, recordation of a conservation
6-26
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
easement, or execution/recordation of any other instrument that confers third-party beneficiary status to
the project/property). The accounting information for conserved acres also will identify the protection
mechanism, owner and agency or person responsible for conservation and management, and other related
information.
6.4.5Reporting Program
The reporting program will be the primary vehicle for (1) providing monitoring results and (2) identifying
habitats or species that require specific management activities. A comprehensive monitoring report will
be prepared every three years and will include both a synthesis of all data collected in the preceding three
years and an analysis of overall trends in biological resources. Where monitoring indicates that biological
resources are imminently threatened and in need of immediate attention, interim letter reports may be
used to document problems and notify the appropriate personnel in a more timely fashion. All monitoring
reports will be reviewed by the City, USFWS and CDFG. The reporting efforts will achieve Subarea Plan
objectives of describing new biological data, providing results of impact evaluations, evaluating
management activities and enforcement difficulties, and evaluating funding needs and the ability to
accomplish resource management goals. Specifically, the 3-year comprehensive monitoring report will:
Summarize results of monitoring efforts.
Identify management needs and provide specific management recommendations for the coming
three-year period.
Evaluate monitoring priorities for the coming three-year period and detail any proposed shifts in
monitoring priorities.
Evaluate funding needs for the coming three-year monitoring period.
Reporting
All biological monitoring data will be quantitatively analyzed and presented in Covered Species
Monitoring Report every year, with a comprehensive report submitted every three years, along with
recommendations (including remedial measures, as necessary) for the next yearÓs program. In addition to
the report, all biological monitoring data will be made available digitally to the Wildlife Agencies for
incorporation into the statewide monitoring database currently being developed by CDFG and others.
6.5 REMEDIATION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The comprehensive Management and Monitoring Report issued every three years will provide specific
management recommendations to reverse declining trends in habitat or speciesÓ populations. Although it
is difficult to anticipate the types of remediation that will be required before monitoring, potential actions
may include the following:
Fencing, signage, or redirecting trails to protect habitat or species populations from trampling or
other adverse, direct impacts.
6-27
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Removal of invasive exotic plant species to protect native habitats, plant populations, and wildlife
values.
Removal or control of nonnative animal species (e.g., cowbirds, feral cats) to protect native
animal populations.
Erosion-control measures to protect key habitats or populations of covered species.
Habitat enhancement to provide pollinator habitat, breeding areas for covered wildlife species, or
structural diversity for covered wildlife species.
Habitat restoration to reverse the effects of habitat disturbance and/or improve habitat quality for
covered species where natural regeneration processes are expected to be unacceptably slow or
delayed.
Vegetation management techniques (e.g., mechanized methods of fuel reduction) to revitalize
senescent stands of habitat or promote germination of fire-adapted covered plant species (note:
prescribed burns likely will be prohibited within the Reserve).
Plant population enhancements where conserved population numbers become so low, because of
human- or environmentally induced factors, as to threaten the continued viability of the
population, and where suitable habitat and other factors necessary for survival still exist.
Plant population reintroductions in areas where species populations have been extirpated.
Adaptive management may include re-prioritizing monitoring efforts, as indicated by monitoring results and
the resultant degree of management required for a given resource. For example, if a specific population
proves stable over a period (e.g., 10 to 20 years), the frequency of monitoring may be reduced, particularly if
a speciesÓ habitat and physical site characteristics remain unchanged and another species or populations
requires more intensive monitoring because of declining trends. The remediation and adaptive management
program will achieve the objectives of providing correcting actions where 1) resources are threatened by land
uses in and adjacent to the Reserve, 2) current management activities are not adequate or effective, or 3)
enforcement difficulties are identified.
6.6 COVERED SPECIES REINTRODUCTION
This section deals with the reintroduction of covered species, rather than reintroduction of a suite of more
common species that comprise a specific community or of local species of concern. In this context,
reintroduction refers to putting the species back into a known historical site or habitat within its historic
range. Reintroduction is generally used to enhance the overall species population viability.
The following concerns should be addressed before initiating a reintroduction effort: 1) does the
reintroduction effort benefit the species or population; 2) does the reintroduction site afford long-term
stability; 3) are there higher competing values (e.g., economic or land-use issues that could threaten the
long-term success of the effort); and 4) does the reintroduction effort provide the opportunity for natural
evolutionary processes to continue (Morse 1993, 1996). Reintroduction of any federally or State listed
threatened or endangered species will be done in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies.
6-28
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
6.6.1Management Recommendations
The decision to reintroduce a species depends on numerous species- and site-specific factors, and any
reintroduction effort will require detailed planning and monitoring, as well as available funding for planning
and implementation. Current information on target species in Rancho Palos Verdes may be insufficient to
determine whether reintroduction efforts are warranted. Guidelines on determining the appropriateness of
reintroduction, as well as reintroduction methodologies, are provided below in case covered species
monitoring (Section 6.4.1) indicates that such efforts are warranted.
Reintroduction efforts are appropriate if the species or proposed reintroduction site displays all or most of
the following characteristics:
High priority species (e.g., listed as Federal- or State-endangered).
Such release will further the conservation of the species.
Species biology is known or is being researched (some research may be conducted as part of the
reintroduction effort).
The site is within the historic range of the species.
The site is ecologically appropriate.
Suitable donor populations/propagule sources exist.
The site is in the Reserve and threats to its establishment and long-term viability have been
minimized.
Rancho Palos Verdes is within the historic range of all target species. Monitoring of selected target species is
expected to determine population trends that will indicate whether extant populations are stable or declining.
If declining trends are observed and reintroduction is determined appropriate, potential reintroduction sites
will be assessed for suitability in terms of ecological conditions and site protection status.
Reintroduction may not be feasible for all species under consideration, based on biological,
physical, logistical, or evolutionary factors. Although a general assessment of these factors is
presented below, a more complete assessment should be made before committing resources to a
reintroduction effort (Fiedler 1993; Fiedler and Laven 1996). Determine the type of rarity (e.g., is
the species a local endemic, relict, new species or hybrid, or rare because of loss of habitat from
development).
Extant populations of aphanisma and South Coast saltscale occur primarily on bluffs
where they may be subjected to limited trampling but are otherwise relatively protected
from impacts associated with development. It is unknown whether population numbers
documented to date for these species reflect inherently small population sizes, population
fluctuations because of climatic variability, or declining populations because of direct or
indirect human-induced impacts. If monitoring indicates continued declines in population
size that cannot be correlated with climatic variability and that do not respond positively
to protective measures recommended elsewhere in this Subarea Plan, reintroduction may
be appropriate for these species.
6-29
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Bright green dudleya also occurs primarily on bluffs and, in some locations, is subject to
similar impacts as aphanisma and South Coast saltscale. The dudleya, however, occurs in
higher numbers than either of the other two species. Reintroduction would likely be
appropriate for bright green dudleya only if monitoring indicates declining population
numbers that do not respond positively to protective measures recommended elsewhere in
this document.
There is some question as to whether the Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn plants on
Rancho Palos Verdes are wild plants or introduced cultivars. If determined to be wild
plants, they represent one of the few (if not only) extant stands of this species in
existence, and would likely be a candidate for reintroduction based on rarity. If
determined to be cultivars, reintroduction would not be appropriate.
There is a small population of Catalina crossosoma mapped in Rancho Palos Verdes that
may represent the only mainland occurrences of this species. These individuals occur in
relatively intact CSS. Reintroduction would probably not be warranted, particularly if
extant population were adequately protected. Expansion of the existing population to
increase long-term viability may be appropriate.
The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly appears to meet most of the above criteria (Lipman et al.
1999). Once sufficient butterfly habitat is restored, a reintroduction program should be
attempted by the Wildlife Agencies.
Evaluate biological, physical, logistical, and evolutionary factors. Key criteria include existing
site conditions; presence or potential for appropriate pollinators and seed dispersal agents;
possible genetic contaminants (hybrids or cultivars); soils; topography; slope; aspect; elevation;
drainage; hydrologic regime; light environment; site protection status and degree of protection;
access for monitoring and research; site location \[e.g., known versus potential habitat\]; and
evolutionary potential.
As funding permits, conduct studies to determine the feasibility of reintroduction, as necessary
(e.g., propagation studies, propagule viability studies).
6.6.2Use an Experimental Approach
Any attempted reintroductions should be treated as experimental (White 1993, 1996; Guerrant 1993,
1996; Pavlik 1993b, 1996). Following this approach, it should be recognized that the reintroduction may
be successful because of the knowledge obtained during the process, even if not all goals and objectives
are met. Any reintroduction program should institute an experimental design to test propagation
methodologies, measure ecological or other life history parameters, and validate appropriate
establishment and management techniques. The design and data collection should allow for appropriate
quantitative analyses of results with spatially appropriate replication of plots.
6.6.3Develop a Detailed Reintroduction Plan
The goal of any reintroduction effort shall be to establish self-sustaining population(s) of the species of
concern. Species-specific reintroduction plans shall:
6-30
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Specify design criteria, including a scientifically valid experimental design.
Indicate the appropriate time of year for reintroduction, based on species phenology.
Indicate reintroduction methods, including any specialized equipment that may be needed.
Specify type and source of source material, and provide a schedule for procuring source materials
in a timely fashion (see below).
Outline preliminary evaluation criteria (see below).
Specify the process for implementing remedial measures.
The plan shall also specify project management and implementation responsibilities. It is assumed that the
Reserve manager shall prepare or oversee development of the reintroduction plan, and the City and
PVPLC shall be responsible for implementation of the plan provided additional funding is available.
1. Develop formal construction documents (as needed) that address the specific responsibilities and
authorities of applicable personnel (the landowner, contractors, monitors, etc.). Specifications shall
include all pertinent conditions, coordination requirements, schedules, warranty periods, protected
areas, and restricted activities.
2. Specify propagule procurement procedures a year in advance of actual planting. Integrate genetic
conservation considerations (Center for Plant Conservation 1991; Brown and Briggs 1991) into
procurement specifications. Collect seeds, cuttings or other propagules from locally growing natural
sources. For example, if a population is being destroyed by development, the entire population may
be collected for reintroduction purposes. Conversely, if propagules are to be collected from an extant
conserved population with greater than 400 individuals, a maximum of 5 percent of the population
should be sampled in a given year.
3. Annual plants (e.g., aphanisma, South Coast saltscale) should be reintroduced only through seed, whereas
corm-forming species (e.g., bright green dudleya) may be additionally (or alternatively) reintroduced
through installation of plants grown from seed or cuttings under nursery conditions. Shrubs (e.g., Santa
Catalina Island desert-thorn, Catalina crossosoma) may be additionally (or alternatively) reintroduced
through cuttings or installation of plants grown from seed under nursery conditions. Where seed availability
is limited and alternative methods of reintroduction are unavailable, a seed increase program may be
warranted to ensure that enough seed is available for the reintroduction to have a reasonable chance of
success. In such cases, the potential genetic consequences of artificial propagation must be weighed against
the threat of extinction or local extirpation.
4. Delineate site protection measures both during installation and afterward during the establishment
period. Protection may include the use of fences, flagging, signs, patrols, and other barriers. Site
protection may require management of offsite resources and contaminants, drainage, exotic plant
species, vandalism, and trash.
5. Establish maintenance standards to ensure reintroduction success. Intensive maintenance at least once
a month during the first two years after planting is often required and may include weed control,
debris removal, reseeding, pest control, and site protection.
6-31
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
6.6.4Include Reintroduction Sites in a Population Monitoring Program
Monitor reintroduction sites. Monitoring should include both biological and horticultural components.
Biological monitoring will require collection of field data to assess whether project goals are being
met. At a minimum, biological monitoring should consist of direct measures of population size,
percent cover, vigor, and yearly fluctuations in these variables, particularly as they relate to climatic
conditions. Other potential factors to be assessed include natural colonization and increases or
decreases in species distribution, reproductive success, habitat quality, herbivory, survivorship, and
soil moisture content, among others. Monitoring should be conducted yearly, as needed, and will
occur in spring or summer for most species.
In accordance with guidelines issued by the California Botanical Society (1998), reintroduction-
monitoring efforts should be conducted for at least seven years. Horticultural monitoring will
consist primarily of weed control and site protection. It may also include recommendations for
supplemental fertilization, irrigation, and pruning, where appropriate. Weed control should focus
largely on removal of exotic plants or noxious weeds and/or control of areas in which the weed
cover is so high as to inhibit germination of the target species. Site protection includes
implementing measures to ensure that the reintroduction site is undisturbed by mechanical,
vehicular, or other human-related impacts. In some cases, temporary or permanent fencing may be
required to protect the reintroduction area.
Establish offsite-monitoring procedures, to the degree feasible. The offsite populations should be close
enough to the reintroduction site that they are subject to the same climatic conditions as those found
onsite. Monitoring offsite populations allows consideration of factors (e.g., temperature, precipitation,
and disease) that contribute to fluctuations in population size, particularly for annual and herbaceous
perennial plants. These data will allow a realistic assessment of success criteria yearly.
6.6.5Establish Success Criteria
Specify performance standards or success criteria by which the reintroduction will be judged. Because few
sensitive species have been grown commercially or received widespread (if any) use in reintroduction
programs, it may not be practical to pre-establish performance standards or success criteria. Therefore, it is
recommended that an assessment of the success of each species be determined yearly, using available
propagation data, climatic data, and monitoring data from offsite populations (i.e., reference sites). Design
biological monitoring of the reintroduction site to supply data to evaluate these standards. Develop remedial
measures in advance of project implementation to provide a means of response should performance standards
not be met.
6.6.6Reporting
All biological monitoring data will be quantitatively analyzed and presented in a report every year, with a
comprehensive report submitted every three years, along with recommendations (including remedial
measures, as necessary) for the next yearÓs program.
6-32
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
6.7 RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a summary of recommendations for future studies that would advance our knowledge and
improve our ability to manage covered species and their habitats. Some of these studies may be conducted as
part of future Reserve management and monitoring efforts, whereas others may be the focus of longer-term
university or agency research projects. These research recommendations are not included in the monitoring
plan budget. The research recommendations provided below can be grouped into several generalized
categories, including basic inventories, habitat and life history studies, population biology and genetic studies,
habitat restoration and/or population reestablishment studies, and management studies. These
recommendations are consistent with the research agenda recommended by the Scientific Review Panel for the
StateÓs NCCP program. Additional recommendations may be generated based on results of the monitoring
program and/or findings of the studies recommended below.
6.7.1Inventories
Conduct surveys to better determine the distribution and/or extent of certain covered species (e.g.,
southern tarplant, PeirsonÓs morning-glory, and LyonÓs pentachaeta).
6.7.2Habitat and Life History Studies
Determine the ecological requirements and life histories of covered plant species. This information would
complement the long-term status monitoring of key covered plant species, and would provide the practical
information necessary to enhance or establish populations. Specific studies might focus on the following:
Microhabitat requirements.
Reproductive, pollination, and dispersal strategies.
Seed and pollen viability studies.
Germination requirements.
Seedbank ecology.
Seedling mortality studies.
6.7.3Population Biology and Genetic Studies
On a species-specific basis, determine 1) the minimum size for viable self-sustaining plant
populations, 2) the effective size (generally larger than the minimum size) for viable self-sustaining
plant populations, and 3) the minimum and optimum densities of stable plant populations (Messick
1986).
Monitor a representative sample of individuals of focal target animal species (California
gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, Palos Verdes blue butterfly) to refine the variance estimate in
demographic parameters and dispersal capability.
6-33
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SIX
Reserve Management
Conduct genetic studies of populations of coastal cactus wren and California gnatcatcher to assess
relative levels of genetic variation and possible inbreeding depression. Determine the need for
supplementation of genetic stock with individuals from coastal Orange County.
Conduct inter- and intra-populational genetic analyses of representative populations of covered
plant species.
6.7.4Habitat Restoration and/or Population Enhancement/Reintroduction Studies
Using results of studies above, conduct and monitor small-scale habitat restoration studies within
the Reserve.
Conduct reintroduction studies for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly.
Using results of the studies above and speciesÓ distribution and risk status, identify candidates for
population enhancement or reintroduction studies. Conduct and monitor transplantation or
reintroduction studies.
Establish and maintain seedbanks in conjunction with recognized institutions for certain covered plant
species as a possible source of research and enhancement/reintroduction material.
6.7.5Management Studies
Conduct and monitor small-scale experiments that use alternative methods (e.g., mechanical chopping) to
simulate the effects of burns on species or habitats. These experiments would be most appropriate for
species that germinate in response to increased light (or decreased canopy cover), rather than species that
germinate in response to heat or specific chemicals in the charate.
6-34
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
SECTION 7 LITERATURE CITED
Allendorf, F.W., 1983. Isolation, gene flow, and genetic differentiation among populations. Pages 51-65
in Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations,
Schonewald-Cox, C.M., S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas, editors. Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
Arnold, R.A., 1990. Ecology and conservation of two endangered southern California butterflies. Pages
36-47 in P.J. Bryant and J. Remington (eds.). Memoirs of the Natural History Foundation of
Orange County (CA), Vol. 3.
1987. Decline of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly in California. Biological
Conservation 40:203-217.
1984. Palos Verdes blue butterfly recovery plan. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
January. 46 pp.
1986. Distribution, life history, and status of three California lepidoptera proposed as endangered
or threatened species. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. March. 39 pp.
Atwood, J.L., 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered
species listing. Pages 149-170 in J.E. Keeley (ed.). Proceedings of the symposium on the
interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of
Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Atwood J.L., M.R. Fugagli, J.C. Luttrell, and N.C. Nicolai, 1994. California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens,
and conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: progress report no. 1
(1993). Unpublished technical report, Manomet Observatory for Conservation Sciences,
Manomet, MA. 52 pp. plus appendices.
Atwood, J.L., J.C. Luttrell, T.J. Overbey, et al., 1995. California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and
conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: Progress Report No. 2 (1994).
Prepared by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. May. 32 pp.
Atwood, J.L., D.R. Bontrager, M. Fugagli, et al., 1998. Population dynamics, dispersal, and demography
of California gnatcatchers and cactus wrens in coastal southern California (1997 progress report).
Prepared by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and U.C. Irvine. January. 41 pp. plus 5
appendices.
Bartolome, J.W., M.C. Stroud, and H.F. Heady, 1980. Influence of natural mulch on forage production on
differing California annual range sites. Journal of Range Management 33:4-8.
Foeniculum vulgare
Beatty, S.W. and D.L. Licari, 1992. Invasion of fennel () into shrub communities on
Santa Cruz Island, California. Madroño 39(1):54-66.
7-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
Bentley, J.R. and M.W. Talbot, 1948. Annual-plant vegetation of the California foothills as related to
range management. Ecology 29:72-79.
Bon Terra Consulting, 1997. Pacific pocket mouse and Palos Verdes blue butterfly focused survey report
of Tentative Tract No. 46628, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Prepared for: Capital
Pacific Holdings, Inc., June.
Phrynosoma coronatum
Brattstrom, B.H., 1997. Status of the subspecies of the coast horned lizard, . J.
Herpetology 31:434-437.
Brown, A.H.D. and J.D. Briggs, 1991. Sampling strategies for genetic variation in ex situ collections of
endangered plant species. Pages 99-122 in Genetics and conservation of rare plants, Falk, D.A.
and K.E. Holsinger, editors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Brylski, P., 1993. A focused survey for the Pacific pocket mouse ()
on the Dana Point Headlands, Orange County, California. Prepared by the Planning Center for
EDAW, Inc.
California Botanical Society, 1998. Resolution by the California Botanical Society on transplantation.
Madroño 45(1):92.
California Exotic Pest Plant Council, 1999. The California Exotic Pest Plant CouncilÓs list of exotic pest
plants of greatest ecological concern in California - August 1996 revision.
California Native Plant Society, 2001a. Inventory of rare and endangered plant of California. Sixth Ed.
Sacramento. 388 pp.
2001b. 1995. Field sampling protocol: plant communities of California. Pages 416-426 in A
manual of California vegetation, Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf, editors.
Center for Plant Conservation, 1991. Genetic sampling guidelines for conservation collections of
endangered plants (appendix). Pages 225-238 in Genetics and conservation of rare plants, Falk,
D.A. and K.E. Holsinger, editors. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, R. (ed.), 1986. The handbook of ecological monitoring. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Dudek and Associates, 1994. Pacific pocket mouse assessment for the Ocean Trails project site, Rancho
Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Palos Verdes Land Holdings
Company. September.
Ellstrand, N.C. and D.R. Elam, 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size:
implications for plant conservation. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 24:217-242.
ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. (Ogden), 1990. Phase I report: Amber Ridge California
gnatcatcher study. Prepared for Weingarten, Siegel, Fletcher Group, Inc., April. 30 pp.
7-2
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
Evans, R.A. and J.A. Young, 1989. Characterization and analysis of abiotic factors and their influences on
in
vegetation. Pages 13-28 Grassland structure and function: California annual grassland,
Huenneke, L.F. and H.A. Mooney, editors. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bromus mollisAvenabarbata
Ewing, A.L. and J.W. Menke, 1983. Reproductive potential of and under
drought conditions. Madroño 30(3):159-167.
Falk, D., 1993. Introduction. Symposium on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an option for
endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. April 20.
Falk, D.A., and K.E. Holsinger (eds.), 1991. Genetics and conservation of rare plants. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. 283 pp.
Fiedler, P., 1993. Site selection criteria for rare plant reintroduction. Symposium on restoring diversity: is
re-introduction an option for endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri
Botanical Garden. April 20.
Fiedler, P.L. and R.D. Laven, 1996. Selecting reintroduction sites. Pages 157-170 in Restoring diversity:
strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants, Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gerrodette, T., 1993. Program TRENDS: userÓs guide. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA.
14 pp.
1987. A power analysis for detecting trends. Ecology 68:1,364-1,372.
Gilpin, M.E. and M.E. Soulé, 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinctions. Pages
19-34 in Soulé, M.E., editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity.
Sunderland, MS: Sinauer Associates.
Guerrant, E.O., Jr., 1996. Designing populations: demographic, genetic, and horticultural dimensions.
Pages 171-208 in Restoring diversity: strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants, Falk,
D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Guerrant, E.O., 1993. Factors to consider in the design of re-introduced species populations. Symposium
on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an option for endangered plants? Center for Plant
Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. April 20.
in
Heady, H.F., 1995. Valley grassland. Pages 491-514 Terrestrial vegetation of California, Barbour,
M.G. and J. Major, editors. California Native Plant Society, special publication no. 9. 1,020 pp.
1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch.
Ecology 37:798-812.
Hickman, J.C., 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California. 1,400 pp.
7-3
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
Holland, R.F., 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
Unpublished report. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game,
Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.
Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil, 1990. California vegetation, fourth edition, Biological Sciences Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. 318 pp.
Impact Sciences, Inc., 1990. California gnatcatchers at the Subunit 1 Rancho Palos Verdes site.
Jennings M.R. and M.P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and retile species of special concern in California. Final
report. Contract 8023. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries
Division, Sacramento, CA.
Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, et al., 1995. A flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden. 397 pp.
Kachigan, S.K., 1986. Statistical analysis. New York, NY: Radius Press. 589 pp.
Lipman, A, T.R. Longcore, R. Mattoni, et al., 1999. Habitat evaluation and reintroduction planning for
the endangered Palos Verdes Blue butterfly. Technical report prepared for CDFG. June. 44 pp.
Magney, D.L., 1992. Descriptions of three new southern California vegetation types: southern cactus
scrub, southern coastal needlegrass grassland, and scalebroom scrub. Crossosoma 18:1-9.
Marquez and Associates, 1995. Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Control Project focused survey for the Pacific
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
pocket mouse (). October.
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
Mattoni, R., 1992. Rediscovery of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly,
palosverdesensis
Perkins and Emmel (Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
31:180-194.
Euphilotes battoides allyni
Mattoni, R., G. Pratt, J. George, et al., 1997. El Segundo blue butterfly () draft
recovery plan. Prepared for the USFWS.
Messick, T.C., 1986. Research needs for rare plant conservation in California. Pages 99-108 in
Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants, Elias, T.S., editor. Proceedings
from a conference of the California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Morse, L.E., 1996. Plant rarity and endangerment in North America. Pages 7-22 in Restoring diversity:
strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants, Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
1993. The role of re-introduction and population restoration in North American rare plant
conservation. Symposium on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an option for endangered
plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. April 20.
7-4
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (Ogden), 1999. Palos Verdes Peninsula Subarea NCCP
Program Phase I Summary Report. January. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 56 pp.
1992a. Ecology of the California Gnatcatcher at Rancho San Diego. Prepared for: Home Capital
Corporation. December. 56 pp.
1992b. Population viability analysis of the coastal cactus wren within the MSCP study area.
Prepared for the City of San Diego. 19 pp.
Oostermeijer, J.G.B., J.C.M. Den Nijs, L.E.L. Raijmann, et al., 1992. Population biology and
Gentiana pneumonanthe
management of the marsh gentian ( L.), a rare species in The
Netherlands. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 108:117-130.
Pavlik, B.M., 1996. Defining and measuring success. Pages 127-156 in Restoring diversity: strategies for
reintroduction of endangered plants, Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Amsinckia grandiflora
1993a. . Symposium on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an option for
endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. April 21.
1993b. How can success be measured? Symposium on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an
option for endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden.
April 20.
Pavlik, B.M. and E.K. Espeland, 1998. Demography of natural and reintroduced populations of
Acanthomintha duttonii
, an endangered serpentinite annual in northern California. Madroño
45(1):31-39.
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
Perkins, E.M. and J.F. Emmel, 1977. New subspecies of from California
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 79:468-
471.
Preston, K.L., P.J. Mock, M.A. Grishaver, et al., 1998. California gnatcatcher territorial behavior.
Western Birds 29:242-257.
Ralph, C.J. and J.M. Scott (eds.), 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology
no. 6. 630 pp.
Raven, P., 1993. Opening remarks. Symposium on restoring diversity: is re-introduction an option for
endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden. April 20.
Rea, A.M. and K.L. Weaver, 1990. The taxonomy, distribution, and status of the San Diego Cactus Wren.
Western Birds 21:81-126.
RECON, 1987. Home range, nest site, and territory parameters of the black-tailed gnatcatcher population
on the Rancho Santa Fe Highlands study area. September.
7-5
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
SEVEN
Literature Cited
Reiser, C.H., 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA: Aquafir Press. 180 pp.
Sauer, J.R. and S. Droege (eds.), 1990. Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological report 90(1). 166 pp.
San Diego Herpetological Society, 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of
reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Committee,
San Diego Department of Agriculture, 33 pp.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A manual of California vegetation. Sacramento, CA: California
Native Plant Society. 471 pp.
Stebbins, 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston. 336 pp.
Talbot, M.W., H.H. Biswell, and A.L. Hormay, 1939. Fluctuations in the annual vegetation of California.
Ecology 20:394-402.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996. Reinitiation of formal consultation on implementation of the
Special Rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher (1-6-93-FW-37R1). California State
Supervisor, Sacramento. October 18, 1996.
1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; emergency rule to list the Pacific pocket
mouse as endangered. Federal Register 59(23):5306-5310.
Verner, J., 1985. Assessment of counting techniques. Current Ornithology 2:247-302.
Stipa pulchra
White, K.L., 1967. Native bunchgrass () on Hastings Reservation, California. Ecology
48:949-955.
White, P.S., 1996. Spatial and biological scales in reintroduction. Pages 49-86 in Restoring diversity:
strategies for reintroduction of endangered plants, Falk, D.A., C.I. Millar, and M. Olwell, editors.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
1993. Response to need: when is re-introduction appropriate. Symposium on restoring diversity:
is re-introduction an option for endangered plants? Center for Plant Conservation, Missouri
Botanical Garden. April 20.
7-6
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG
SECTION
EIGHT
Document Preparers
SECTION 8 DOCUMENT PREPARERS
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Joel Rojas, Planning Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Barbara Dye, Executive Director
URS Corporation
Patrick J. Mock, Ph.D., Project Manager, Senior Biologist
Liza Boquiren, Staff Analyst
Beth Famigletti, Staff Analyst
Diane Douglas, Ph.D., Technical Editor
Danielle Stearns, CEQA/NEPA Task Leader
David Acuff, Consultant Planner
Onaka Planning & Economics
Jun Onaka, Ph.D., Financial Planning
Technology Associates International Corporation
Debra Turner, M.S., GIS Task Leader
California Department of Fish and Game
Bill Tippets, Supervisor, South Coast Region
Warren Wong, Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kerri Davis, Biologist
Ken Cory, Assistant Field Supervisor
Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor
8-1
W:\\27644296\\08000-b-r.doc\\28-Jul-04\\SDG