2017 Draft NCCP
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Prepared for:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
URS Project No. 27644296.08000
1615 Murray Canyon Road, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92108-4314
619.294.9400 Fax: 619.293.7920
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................VII
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... VIII
1.0INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................10
1.1Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 11
1.2Regulatory Compliance of the NCCP/HCP .......................................................... 13
1.2.1Federal....................................................................................................... 13
1.2.2State........................................................................................................... 16
1.2.3Local ......................................................................................................... 22
1.3Species for which Incidental Take Authorization is Requested ........................... 23
2.0DESCRIPTION OF NCCP/HCP AREA .......................................................................25
2.1Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 25
2.2Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 25
2.2.1Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 25
2.2.2Covered Species ........................................................................................ 34
3.0PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................41
3.1Preserve Alternative Analysis ............................................................................... 41
3.1.1Alternative A Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative .................... 42
3.1.2Alternative B Landowner Alternative .................................................... 43
3.1.3Alternative C ..................................................... 45
3.1.4Alternative D The Proposed Alternative ................................................ 46
4.0PROPOSED PRESERVE DESIGN ...............................................................................47
4.1Conservation Strategy ........................................................................................... 47
4.2Existing Public Lands to be Dedicated to the Preserve
(1,402.4 acres) .......... 52
4.2.1Lands Dedicated as Previous Mitigation (258.7 acres) ............................ 52
4.2.2City-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (1,123) ............................. 54
4.3PVPLC-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (20.7 acres): ........................... 57
4.4Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication to the Preserve (170.7
acres) ..................................................................................................................... 57
4.4.1Coast Guard Upper Point Vicente Property (3.9 acres) ............................ 58
4.4.2Coast Guard Lighthouse Property (19.1 acres) ......................................... 58
4.4.3Terranea Resort Bluff Face (10 acres of the 102.1-acre parcel) ............... 59
4.4.4Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP 6.6 acres of the 9.7 acres of privately
owned open space (open space lots not to be owned by the City) ............ 73
4.4.5Lower Filiorum Parcel a minimum of 40 acres within the 94.2-acre Point
View .......................................................................................................... 73
4.4.6Homeowner Association Contributions (76.1 acres) ................................ 73
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.4.7 Private lands adjacent to Agua Amarga Canyon (14 acres) ..................... 74
4.4.8 A portion of 3787 Coolheights Drive (1 acre) .......................................... 74
4.5Neutral Lands ........................................................................................................ 76
4.5.1Extreme Slopes on Private Property ......................................................... 76
4.5.2Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard ............................................................. 76
4.5.3Deed-Restricted Lands .............................................................................. 77
4.6Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential ......................................................... 80
5.0COVERED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ...............................................................81
5.1Summary of Covered Projects and Activities ....................................................... 81
5.2Covered City Projects and Activities .................................................................... 82
5.2.1Altamira Canyon Drainage Project ........................................................... 82
5.2.2Dewatering Wells...................................................................................... 82
5.2.3Landslide Abatement Measures ................................................................ 82
5.2.4Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas ................................. 84
5.2.5Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Project ......................... 84
5.2.6 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements .................................................... 85
5.2.7Abalone Cove Beach Project .................................................................... 85
5.2.8 Rancho Palos Verdes Trails Plan Implementation .................................... 85
5.2.9 Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair ........................................................... 86
5.2.10 Lower Point Vicente ................................................................................. 86
5.2.11 Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair .................................................... 86
5.2.12Upper Point Vicente .................................................................................. 86
5.2.13Preserve Fuel Modification ....................................................................... 87
5.2.14Utility Maintenance and Repair ................................................................ 87
5.2.15 Unimproved City Park Projects ................................................................ 87
5.2.16 Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements ................................................. 87
5.2.17 Other Miscellaneous City Projects............................................................ 88
5.3Covered Private Projects and Activities ............................................................... 88
5.3.1Lower Filiorum Development................................................................... 89
5.3.2Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading ................................................ 91
5.3.3Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the City ..................... 92
5.3.4Miscellaneous Private Projects Throughout the City Outside of the
Preserve ..................................................................................................... 93
5.3.5Plumtree Development.............................................................................. 93
5.4Other Covered Activities ...................................................................................... 94
5.4.1Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................... 94
5.4.2Public Use ................................................................................................. 95
5.4.3Preserve Management ............................................................................... 96
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.5Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Projects and
Activities ............................................................................................................... 97
5.6Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species ............................ 100
5.6.1Aphanisma .............................................................................................. 100
5.6.2South Coast Saltscale .............................................................................. 101
5.6.3Catalina Crossosoma ............................................................................... 101
5.6.4Island Green Dudleya ............................................................................. 102
5.6.5Santa Catalina Island Desert-Thorn ........................................................ 102
5.6.6Wooly Seablite ........................................................................................ 103
5.6.7El Segundo Blue Butterfly ...................................................................... 103
5.6.8Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly.................................................................... 104
5.6.9Coastal California Gnatcatcher ............................................................... 104
5.6.10Cactus Wren ............................................................................................ 105
5.7Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting and Adjacent to
the Preserve ......................................................................................................... 106
5.7.1Abutting Development Project Review .................................................. 106
5.7.2 Fencing and Lighting .............................................................................. 106
5.7.3 Equestrian Use ........................................................................................ 107
5.7.4 Landscaping ............................................................................................ 107
5.7.5Stormwater and Urban Runoff ................................................................ 107
6.0LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS .........................................109
6.1City Implementation Process .............................................................................. 109
6.2Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code ........................................................ 109
6.3City Implementation Actions and Process .......................................................... 109
6.3.1Municipal Code Amendments ................................................................ 110
6.3.2Other Amendments ................................................................................. 111
6.3.3City Interim Resource Protection............................................................ 112
6.4City Approval of the Implementing Agreement ................................................. 112
6.5Sequence of Events ............................................................................................. 113
6.6Wildlife Agency and City Coordination ............................................................. 115
6.7Compliance with Existing Federal and State Wetland Regulations ................... 115
6.8 Amendments ....................................................................................................... 116
6.8.1Minor Amendments Preserve Boundary Adjustments and Equivalency
................................................................................................................. 116
6.8.2Major Plan Amendments ........................................................................ 118
6.8.3Annexations ............................................................................................ 120
6.9Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances ................................... 121
6.9.1Unforeseen Circumstances ...................................................................... 121
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.9.2Changed Circumstances .......................................................................... 122
6.10Coordination with Other NCCPs ........................................................................ 130
7.0BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY .........................................131
7.1Biological Objectives .......................................................................................... 131
7.2Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 132
7.3Covered Species Surveys Methodologies ........................................................... 132
7.3.1Plant Species Monitoring ........................................................................ 133
7.3.2Animal Species Monitoring .................................................................... 136
7.3.3Data Collection for Plant and Animal Species ....................................... 138
7.4Non-Native Animal Species Management Plans ................................................ 139
7.4.1Feral and Domestic Animal Control ....................................................... 139
7.4.2Cowbird Trapping Program .................................................................... 139
7.4.3Other Predator Control ............................................................................ 140
7.5Habitat Restoration Plan ..................................................................................... 140
7.5.1Management Recommendations ............................................................. 141
7.5.2Develop a Detailed Habitat Restoration Plan ......................................... 141
7.5.3Restoration Design .................................................................................. 142
7.5.4Maintenance Program ............................................................................. 144
7.5.5Restoration Site Monitoring and Reporting ............................................ 145
7.5.6Restoration Site Success Goals ............................................................... 145
7.6Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP) ........................................... 146
7.7Covered Species Reintroduction ......................................................................... 146
7.7.1Management Recommendations ............................................................. 147
7.7.2Use an Experimental Approach .............................................................. 148
7.7.3Develop a Detailed Reintroduction Plan................................................. 148
7.7.4Include Reintroduction Sites in a Population Monitoring Program ........ 149
7.7.5Establish Success Criteria ....................................................................... 150
7.7.6Reporting................................................................................................. 150
7.8Research Recommendations ............................................................................... 150
8.0FUNDING AND FINANCING OF NCCP/HCP .........................................................153
8.1Estimated Implementation Cost .......................................................................... 153
8.1.1Management Budget Analysis ................................................................ 153
8.2Funding Sources.................................................................................................. 154
8.2.1Summary of Habitat Management Funding ............................................ 154
8.2.2PVPLC Land Management ..................................................................... 159
9.0PRESERVE MONITORING, MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING....................164
9.1Preserve Habitat Manager ................................................................................... 164
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
9.2Preserve Management ......................................................................................... 164
9.2.1Preserve Habitat Management Plan ........................................................ 164
9.2.2The Public Use Master Plan .................................................................... 165
9.2.3Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve ............................................. 169
9.2.4Fencing and Signage ............................................................................... 169
9.3Reporting............................................................................................................. 170
9.3.1Annual Reports (all due by April 30th) .................................................. 170
9.3.2Comprehensive Reports (Every Three Years) ........................................ 171
9.4Annual Coordination Meetings ........................................................................... 173
10.0LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................175
11.0.DOCUMENT PREPARERS .........................................................................................182
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1. City Boundary and Regional Vicinity Map ........................................................................... 26
2-2. Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes ................................................................... 27
2-3. Natural Vegetation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula ................................................................ 28
2-4. Covered Species Distributions............................................................................................... 35
3-1. Preserve Alternative A ........................................................................................................... 43
3-2. Preserve Alternative B ........................................................................................................... 44
3-3. Preserve Alternative C ........................................................................................................... 45
3-4. Preserve Alternative D (Proposed Preserve Design) ............................................................. 46
4-1. Preserve Design and Vegetation Mapping ............................................................................ 49
4-2. Preserve Properties ................................................................................................................ 50
4-3. Properties Identified for Possible Inclusion to the Preserve .................................................. 58
4-4. Reserve Areas (Management Units) of Preserve ................................................................... 60
4-4A. Vista Del Norte Management Unit ..................................................................................... 61
4-4B. Agua Amarga Management Unit ........................................................................................ 62
4-4C. Ocean Trails Management Unit .......................................................................................... 63
4-4D. Portuguese Bend Management Unit ................................................................................... 64
4-4E. Abalone Cove Management Unit ........................................................................................ 65
4-4F. Three Sisters Management Unit .......................................................................................... 66
4-4G. San Ramon Management Unit ............................................................................................ 67
4-4H. Forrestal Management Unit ................................................................................................ 68
4-4I. Vicente Bluffs Management Unit ........................................................................................ 69
4-4J. Alta Vicente Management Unit ........................................................................................... 70
4-4K. Filiorum Management Unit ................................................................................................ 71
4-4L. Malaga Canyon Management Unit ..................................................................................... 72
4-5. Neutral Lands ........................................................................................................................ 78
5-1. Brush Management in Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes .............................................. 83
5-2. Locations of City Projects Covered by the NCCP/HCP ........................................................ 84
5-3. Potential Preserve for Lower Filiorum .................................................................................. 90
5-4. Locations of Private Projects Covered by NCCP/HCP ......................................................... 91
8-1. PVPLC Fundraising History (Fiscal Year 19982006) ....................................................... 158
8-2. PVPLC Volunteer Support 20012007 ............................................................................... 163
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
1-1. Proposed Covered Species List for the NCCP/HCP ............................................................. 12
1
2-1. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes ............................................................. 29
3-1. Summary of Preserve Alternatives ........................................................................................ 42
4-1. Public and Private Lands Contributed to the Preserve .......................................................... 75
4-2. Acreage in Preserve, Neutral Lands, and City Mitigation Lands by Vegetation Community
............................................................................................................................................... 79
5-1. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities ............................................ 88
5-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities ..................................... 94
7-1. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix .......................................................... 143
7-2. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Cactus Scrub Seed Mix ....................................................... 143
*
7-3. Potential Rancho Palos Verdes Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix .............................................. 144
8-1. Annual Funding for Plan Implementation During the Permit ............................................. 155
APPENDICES
ADefinitions
BSpecies-Specific Conservation Analyses and Conditions for Coverage
CManagement Budget Analysis
DExotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
ECoastal Zone
FSummary of preserve protection provided by eneral Plan, Coastal Specific
Plan and Municipal Code
GPlumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report (2009)
HInitial Preserve Habitat Management Plan
IPublic Use Master Plan
viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CE State of California-listed endangered species
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
City City of Rancho Palos Verdes
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CSP Coastal Specific Plan
CSS Coastal Sage Scrub
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FE Federally endangered species
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FT Federally listed threatened species
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IA Implementing Agreement
LCP Local Coastal Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan (State Initiative)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Permit Area City NCCP/HCP Plan Area
PHMP Preserve Habitat Management Plan
PUMP Public Use Master Plan
PVPLC Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Preserve Habitat Manager)
PAP Preserve Access Protocol
RPV The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SSC State of California species of special concern
ssp. Subspecies
TERP Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
ix
SECTION
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991, as amended (NCCP Act, California Fish
and Game Code Section 2800, et seq.) provides for the preparation and implementation of large-scale
natural resource conservation plans. A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) must identify and
provide for the regional or area-wide protection and management of natural wildlife diversity while
allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth. An NCCP is intended to provide
comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, including but not limited to species
listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The NCCP Act is intended to promote cooperation and
coordination among public agencies, landowners, and other interested organizations or individuals.
The section 10 Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) process of the ESA provides an opportunity for
species protection and habitat conservation within the context of non-Federal development and land use
activities. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City or RPV) has developed an NCCP/HCP proposal that
will encompass the entire City with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), formerly
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), hereafter
collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies. One of the initial NCCP planning efforts was for the
southern California coastal sage scrub subregion (extends from Palos Verdes in Los Angeles County to
the north to San Diego County to the south and San Bernardino/Riverside counties to the east) and
targeted three imperiled species (coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange-throated
whiptail) that represent the majority of the geographic range of southern California coastal sage scrub
(CDFG, 1993). Although the NCCP subregion includes the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula), the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes was the only jurisdiction in the subregion to enter into a NCCP planning
agreement with the Wildlife Agencies. The remaining Peninsula cities were encouraged to formally
participate in the Peninsula NCCP process but chose not to participate. Thus the subregion or Plan Area is
now functionally synonymous with the City boundaries.
As the lead agency of the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP, the City of RPV developed a Phase I Peninsula
NCCP Program, which included a NCCP Working group and a landscape-scale database of biological
resources and land-use information to allow for the City and Wildlife Agencies to make informed land-
use and conservation decisions in developing the Plan. The main purposes of the Phase I Program (guided
by the NCCP Working Group) was to summarize the existing conditions of biological resources within
the Plan area; research/answer questions regarding the regional importance of parcels to a potential
biological Preserve system; synthesize vegetation mapping, sensitive species distributions and habitat
evaluations; preliminary development/comparison of alternative reserve designs; and,
evaluation/prioritization of the restoration potential of degraded lands through the City within the context
of preliminary alternative reserve designs (City of RPV, 1999). Included in this database was the mapping
of vegetation communities and sensitive-species distributions and their potential habitat. This database
was used in part to create preliminary alternative preserve designs. Four preserve designs were developed
to represent a reasonable range of alternatives (Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4). Alternatives A and B were
developed in 1999. In 2002, Alternative C was created by the City as a compromise between Alternatives
10
SECTION
Introduction
A (NCCP/HCP working group) and B (landowner).
NCCP/HCP was developed for agency and public review and comment. Based on extensive discussions
with the Wildlife Agencies and the NCCP/HCP Rancho Palos Verdes working group (City officials, local
environmental organizations, the Wildlife Agencies, and other members of the public) and evaluations of
potential development on the largest properties supporting natural vegetation, the City decided to
emphasize acquisition of key private properties and conservation of existing habitats on City-owned lands
as the primary forms of conservation. An Alternative D was subsequently developed by the City, Palos
Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC), and the Wildlife Agencies when it became clear that not
all of the Upper Filiorum property was available for acquisition from the private landowner, other
acquisitions were possible, and landslide and legal constraints reduced the viability of including a former
City Redevelopment Agency-owned coastal property in the Preserve. Alternative D is the same as
Alternative C except that it does not include approximately 27 acres of the Upper Filiorum parcel in the
Preserve, approximately 40 acres of a former City Redevelopment Agency Archery Range property, and
includes approximately 68 acres of open space land in Malaga Canyon acquired by City associated with a
USFWS Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grant (Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund). Alternative D is the proposed Preserve design and the alternative that the
NCCP/HCP will analyze for purposes of receiving state and Federal take authorizations for Covered
Species. The recommendations for refining the preliminary reserve designs from the Phase I Program
were incorporated into the final Preserve design for the NCCP/HCP (City of RPV, 1999). Alternative D
was approved by the City Council in 2014.
Habitat restoration of disturbed areas within the Preserve will be an important component of the
NCCP/HCP conservation strategy, with a required minimum level of restoration and enhancement to be
accomplished each year. The PVPLC will act as Preserve Habitat Manager to the Rancho Palos Verdes
Habitat Preserve (Preserve) for the City over the course of the permit, a minimum of 250 acres of non-
native plant communities will be restored with native species to increase the local habitat carrying
capacity of Covered Species. The restoration potential of these degraded lands was assessed to allow for
prioritization of restoration efforts within the context of the proposed Preserve design. Lastly, with a
restoration program in place, restoration above and beyond that required in this Plan can be accomplished
as additional sources of funding (beyond required funding elements of the NCCP/HCP) are identified.
1.1 Purpose and Need
or Plan has been prepared to maximize benefits to wildlife
and vegetation communities while accommodating appropriate economic development within the City
pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act and section 10(a) of the ESA. This NCCP/HCP is intended
to provide for the comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, including but not
limited to those species protected under the ESA (identified in Table 1-1).
11
SECTION
Introduction
11-1. Proposed Covered Species List for the NCCP/HCP
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Aphanisma Aphanisma blitoides CNPS List 1B
South Coast Saltscale Atriplex pacifica CNPS List 1B
Catalina Crossosoma Crossosoma californicum CNPS List 1B
Island Green Dudleya Dudleya virens ssp. insularis CNPS List 1B
Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn Lycium brevipes var. hassei CNPS List 1B
Woolly Seablite Suaeda taxifolia CNPS List 4
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis FE
El Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotes battoides allyni FE
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT, NCCP Focal Species, SSC
Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus NCCP Focal Species, SSC
FE = Federally endangered
FT = Federally threatened
SSC = State Species of Concern
CNPS List 1B = Plants, rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
CNPS List 4 = Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
An important objective of this NCCP/HCP is to obtain state and Federal permits from the Wildlife
Agencies for Covered Activities, which include City and private projects as well as habitat management
and monitoring. The City and PVPLC are the Permittees for this NCCP/HCP. The City will be issued
Take Authorizations for Covered Projects and Activities under this Plan that require local land use
authority, whereas PVPLC will be issued Take Permits related to implementation of specified biological
management and monitoring activities as agreed to by the City and PVPLC under the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve Management Agreement and this Plan (see Section 8.1 of the Plan). As intended by the
NCCP Act, implementation of this NCCP/HCP will facilitate cooperation and coordination among public
agencies, landowners, and other interested organizations.
This NCCP/HCP identifies habitat to be conserved through acquisition and recordation of conservation
easements. This NCCP/HCP also includes 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 for Covered Species will be
obtained, is also identified. The NCCP/HCP is accompanied by an Implementing Agreement (IA) with
the Wildlife Agencies which defines the roles and responsibilities of the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife
Agencies with respect to implementation of the Plan. Under the NCCP/HCP, the authority for
development and land-use decisions is to be retained by the City, and will be enhanced by its ability to
extend incidental take coverage under its permits to third parties carrying out Covered Projects and
Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Municipal Code ordinances.
Through the NCCP/HCP development process, the City has considered regional planning before
evaluating 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 the extent practicable to
maximize shared conservation benefits.
12
SECTION
Introduction
conservation strategy is to dedicate 1,402.4 acres of habitat for the NCCP/HCP
Preserve assembly. Of this total, 61.5 acres were acquired in association with a grant to the State of
quisition Program.
Another 798 acres of land in Portuguese Bend, Agua Amarga, Upper Filiorum, and Forrestal were
purchased by the City for conservation in support the NCCP/HCP with funds provided by the City,
PVPLC, California Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, City of Rolling Hills, County of
Los Angeles, and California State Dominquez Hills. Of the 798 acres, funding for 236.3 acres was
contributed from non-state funding sources. An additional 263.6 acres are being dedicated directly by the
City. Thus, the City is contributing a total of 499.9 acres to mitigate for all Covered City Projects and
Activities (Figure 4-2). The remainder of the Preserve is comprised of 20.7 acres owned by PVPLC, and
258.7 acres of City-owned land, or land that will eventually be owned by the City, which has been
previously dedicated for conservation as mitigation for certain private projects. The City and PVPLC will
be responsible for the management of the entire 1,402.4-acre Preserve. The proposed Preserve is designed
to be consistent with NCCP conservation and management standards and guidelines and the issuance
criteria for an ESA section 10(a) Take Authorization for species covered by the City-wide permit. The
Preserve conserves regionally important habitat areas and provides adequate habitat linkages between
patches of conserved habitat. The City and the PVPLC will enhance/restore a minimum of 5 acres per
year of disturbed habitats within the Preserve (minimum of 250 total acres). This NCCP/HCP will
emphasize habitat restoration to enhance habitat patch size and habitat linkage function (i.e., areas with
moderate to high potential for successful restoration).
1.2 Regulatory Compliance of the NCCP/HCP
1.2.1 Federal
The USFWS has the legal authority to issue permits for the incidental take of species under
section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA. Section 10 and 16 USC Section 1539(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 section 10(a)(l)(B) clearly indicates that Congress
also intended that the USFWS will approve HCPs that protect unlisted species as if they were listed under
the ESA, and that in doing so the USFWS will 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 has approved many HCPs that address both listed and Non-
Listed species.
The USFWS issued a formal regulation known as the No Surprises Rule, effective March 25, 1998
(Federal Register 63\[35\]:8859-8873). The rule provides regulatory assurances to holders of HCP
incidental take permits. These regulatory assurances generally provide that no additional land use
restrictions or financial compensation will be required of the permit holder with respect to species
covered by the permit beyond the levels provided under the HCP, even if unforeseen circumstances arise
after the permit is issued, without the consent of the permittee.
13
SECTION
Introduction
Approval and proper implementation of the NCCP/HCP will facilitate compliance with section
10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Through this planning process, the City will obtain ESA section 10(a) incidental
Take Authorizations. "Take" includes the direct killing, harming, or harassing of an animal species, or
modification or destruction of habitat that result in injury or death to listed animal species. The take
permit authorizes take of covered animal species by the City in compliance with the terms and conditions
of the permit, the IA, and the NCCP/HCP.
Permits issued pursuant to this NCCP/HCP are not intended to satisfy mitigation requirements for any
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) 404 permit for impacts to wetlands. However, this NCCP/HCP is
largely intended to fulfill the requirements for endangered species consultation relative to wetland
permitting, as well as associated incidental take of Covered Species. This NCCP/HCP is intended to
provide the basis for future ESA section 7 consultations for ACOE 404 permits affecting Covered Species
within this NCCP/HCP area. Thus, approval of this NCCP/HCP should streamline the endangered species
consultation process and wetland permitting process.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
has been prepared with this HCP. The EA: 1) identifies the purpose and need for USFWS action if issuing
a section 10(a) Permit; 2) describes the environment that would be affected by the proposed action; 3)
discusses alternatives considered, including a no action alternative; 4) describes plans to minimize and
mitigate impacts to Covered Species incorporated into the proposed action and other alternatives; 5)
identifies and analyzed the likely environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives;
and 6) describes the agencies and individuals coordinated and consulted with during the preparation of the
EA.
This NCCP/HCP is intended to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements to authorize incidental
take of four animal species associated with land-use development and habitat management activities
within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Permit Area/Plan Area). The NCCP/HCP is also intended to
provide the basis for extension of regulatory assurances for the four animal species and six plant species
covered under the Plan (Table 1-1 and Figure 2-4). The NCCP/HCP is also designed to ensure that
Covered Activities are carried out in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
1.2.1.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918, as amended, implements various treaties and conventions between the United States,
and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the
MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful as is taking of any parts, nests, or eggs
of such birds (U.S. Government Code \[USC\], Title 16, Section 703). The definition of taking is different
under the MBTA than under the ESA and includes only the death or injury of individuals of a migratory
bird species or its eggs. Take under the MBTA does not include the concepts of harm and harassment as
defined by the ESA. The MBTA defines migratory birds broadly; all covered birds in this NCCP/HCP are
considered migratory birds under the MBTA.
14
SECTION
Introduction
USFWS provides guidance regarding the incidental take of ESA-listed migratory birds. According to
these guidelines, an incidental take permit can function as a Special Purpose Permit under the MBTA (50
C.F.R. 21.27) for the take of all ESA-listed covered species in the amount and/or number and subject to
the terms and conditions specified in an HCP. Any such take will not be in violation of the MBTA of
1918, as amended (16 USC 703-12). The following Covered Species are protected by the MBTA.
Cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
One of these species, the coastal California gnatcatcher, is listed under the ESA. Accordingly, once
issued, the incidental take permit will automatically function as a Special Purpose Permit under the
MBTA, as specified in 50 C.F.R. 21.27, for these species for a 3-year term subject to renewal by the
Permittees. The cactus wren is not listed under the ESA, and, therefore, no MBTA coverage can be
provided for this species through the Plan. Should the cactus wren become listed under the ESA during
the Permit Term, the ESA permit would also constitute an MBTA Special Purpose Permit for this species
for a 3-year term as specified under 50 C.F.R. 21.27, subject to renewal by the Permittees.
Non-listed Covered Species as well as other migratory birds not covered by the Permit would benefit
from conservation measures described in the Plan. The acquisition of the Preserve system and funding of
Purpose Permit. However, until a covered bird is listed under the ESA, it will be the responsibility of the
Permittees to comply fully with the MBTA.
1.2.1.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Eagle Act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited
transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the
American eagle, or
as to include pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, and disturb.
Disturb is further defined in 50 C.F.R. 22.3 as follows: to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a
degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available (1) injury to an
eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding,
or sheltering behavior.
Recent revisions to regulations implementing the Eagle Act authorize take of bald eagles and golden
eagles under the following conditions: (1) where the take is compatible with the preservation of the bald
eagle and golden eagle, (2) is necessary to protect an interest in a particular locality, (3) is associated with
but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity, (4) for individual instances of take where the take
cannot be avoided or (5) for programmatic take where the take is unavoidable even though advanced
conservation practices are being implemented (50 C.F.R. 22.26). Permits issued under this regulation
15
SECTION
Introduction
usually authorize disturbance only; however, in limited cases a permit may authorize lethal take that
results from but is not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity.
Neither the bald nor the golden eagle is a Covered Species under the Plan. The Plan does not seek a
permit under the Eagle Act because direct injury or death of eagles, eggs, or disturbance of nests is not
anticipated in association with Covered Projects and Activities or overall Plan implementation. Bald
eagles and golden eagles are afforded additional legal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (Eagle Act), 16 U.S.C. 668668d. The Eagle Act prohibits the take, amongst other
prohibited actions, at any time or in any manner of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part,
efined as
agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best
scientific information available (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially
interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by
substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior (50 C.F.R. 22.2 & 22.3).
1.2.2 State
1.2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any wildlife and plant species that are listed
as threatened or endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission. Take is defined in Section 86
of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill." Like ESA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game
Code, Sections 2050 et seq.) allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. CESA allows the
Department to authorize project proponents to take state-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate
species if certain conditions are met. The permitting program administers the incidental take provisions of
CESA to ensure regulatory compliance and statewide consistency. CESA emphasizes early consultation
to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate
mitigation planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their essential
habitats. The requirements of an application for incidental take under CESA are described in Section 2081
of the California Fish and Game Code. Incidental take of state-listed species may be authorized if an
impacts of this take. In 1991,
Section 2835 was added to the California Fish and Game Code which enables the state to authorize by
permit the taking of any covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a NCCP.
1.2.2.2 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
In 1991, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act) (California Fish and Game
Code, Section 2800 et seq.) was enacted
16
SECTION
Introduction
and species diversity on a landscape or ecosystem level through the creation and long-term management
of habitat reserves of other measures that provide equivalent conservation of covered species appropriate
2820 \[3\]). The NCCP Act
there is a need for broad-
the preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather
than one species or habitat at a time. The NCCP Act is broader in its orientation and objectives than are
ESA and CESA: the NCCP Act goes beyond project mitigation and calls for conservation of covered
species that will reduce the need for listing species under the CESA, enhance species conditions, and
restore and manage resources for ecological integrity on a broad scale (2801 \[b\]). Pursuant to the NCCP
Act, local, state, and Federal agencies are encouraged to prepare NCCPs to provide comprehensive
management and conservation of multiple species and their habitats under a single plan, rather than
through preparation of numerous individual plans on a project-by-project basis. In November 1993, the
CDFW and California Resources Agency prepared the "Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP
Process Guidelines" to guide jurisdictions with the preparation of NCCPs (CDFG, 1993). An approved
NCCP provides for take of species whose conservation and management are provided for in the Plan
(California Fish and Game Code Section 2835).
The 1991 NCCP Act was repealed and replaced with a substantially revised and expanded NCCP Act in
2002. The revised NCCP Act established new standards and guidance on many facets of the program,
including scientific information, public participation, biological goals, interim project review, and
approval criteria. The new NCCP Act took effect on January 1, 2003. Approval and implementation of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP will secure City compliance with and be consistent with
Section 2835 of the NCCP Act in the California Fish and Game Code. The Plan for the City is
grandfathered pursuant to Section 2830 (Grandfathering of Existing Plans) of the updated 2002 NCCP
Act; therefore, the NCCP Act as it read on December 31, 2001, will be applied to issuance state NCCP
authorizations. Listed species not on the Covered Species list will continue to be regulated under the ESA
and CESA. Take of listed species can be authorized or exempted separately from the Plan under separate
section 7 consultations, section 10 HCPs, and state incidental take permits under section 2081 of the
California Fish and Game Code. Alternatively, species can be added to the Plan Covered Species list
using the amendment process. This process for adding species to the Covered Species list may involve
additional or reprioritized management practices or habitat acquisition, as discussed in Section 6.9 of the
NCCP/HCP.
The NCCP/HCP permits are not intended to satisfy mitigation requirements for any 401 Water Quality
Certification issued by Regional Water Quality Control Board or a Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement issued by CDFG under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. Any project with
wetland impacts will be subject to permit requirements of the state.
In addition to CDFW
Coastal Program (LCP) and California Coastal Act regulations (14 CCR 30000 et seq.) for lands within
the Coastal Zone.
17
SECTION
Introduction
1.2.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
In the 1960s (prior to CESA), the California Legislature identified species for specific protection under
the California Fish and Game Code. These Fully Protected Species may not be taken or possessed at any
time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for
necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock. Fully
Protected Species are described in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and
amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code. These protections provide that Fully
Protected Species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for
their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird
species for the protection of livestock. For California Fully Protected Species (i.e., light-footed clapper
rail, white-tailed kite, and golden eagle) lethal take of individuals is forbidden and the Plan will not affect
breeding individuals due to the avoidance measures and other conditions of coverage required under this
Plan. The mountain lion is also specially protected by the California Fish and Game Code section 4800.
No take authorization is being requested by the City or PVPLC for any state fully- or specially-protected
species under the Plan.
1.2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code 3503 (Bird Nests)
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take, possess or needlessly
destroy the nests or eggs of any bird. CDFW may issue permits authorizing take. This Plan contains
conservation measures to avoid such take in order to comply with Section 3503.
1.2.2.5 California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey)
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession or destruction of any
birds of prey or their nests or eggs. CDFW may issue permits authorizing take pursuant to CESA or
NCCP Act. This Plan contains conservation measures to avoid such take in order to comply with Section
3503.5.
1.2.2.6 California Environmental Quality Act
The CDFW is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate
animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA, California Fish and Game
Code 2050, et seq.), the statewide NCCP Program (Fish and Game Code 2800, et seq.) and other sections
of the California Fish and Game Code (e.g., 1600 et seq. and 3500 et. seq.). CEQA is similar to but more
extensive than NEPA in that it requires that significant environmental impacts of proposed projects be
reduced to a less-than significant level through adoption of feasible avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation measures unless overriding considerations are identified and documented. CEQA applies to all
California projects, and NCCPs are required to comply with CEQA.
18
SECTION
Introduction
This Plan implements a conservation strategy designed to achieve a comprehensive set of biological goals
and objectives. Furthermore, as a NCCP, the Plan provides for broad-based planning to preserve natural
communities at the ecosystem scale. Many of the conservation measures in the Plan will also benefit other
special status species (i.e., species not covered by the Plan) and these measures may be sufficient to meet
CEQA standards for these other species as well. The City implements CEQA through the development
review and approval process, which requires protection of significant biological resources and mitigation
of project impacts. Findings of consistency with this Plan will be required for all projects requesting
issuance of Take Authorizat
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is serving as the lead agency under CEQA for this NCCP. To comply
with CEQA, the City released an environmental impact report/environmental assessment (EIR/EA) on
February 20, 2004 (SCH# 2003071008). The public comment period on the EIR/EA closed on April 20,
2004. The Final EIR was certified by the City on August 31, 2004. Since the final NCCP/HCP differs
slightly from the project analyzed in the previously certified EIR, an EIR Addendum has been prepared to
address the changes. The final EIR/EA and EIR Addendum prepared for this NCCP/HCP is intended to
provide programmatic compliance for CEQA for all activities covered by this Plan regarding impacts to
covered species and jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Future projects that receive take coverage under
the NCCP/HCP must also comply with CEQA through their local jurisdiction, which would include
subsequent project-specific review. It is expected that the conservation provided in this Plan will be
sufficient to meet all CEQA mitigation standards for impacts to the special-status species and natural
communities that are covered in this Plan. Future CEQA documents for applicants that receive take
coverage under this Plan will incorporate the conservation measures in this Plan to comply with CEQA
for the Covered Species and natural communities addressed in this Plan.
1.2.2.7 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the mechanism by which the State of California
implements the CWA under delegation from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Porter-Cologne enables the State to regulate the discharge of pollutants from any source (point and non-
point sources) that may affect the quality of the waters of the State of California and regulates pollutant
discharges to any waters of the state including groundwater. DFG has authority over any activity that may
substantially modify a river, stream, or lake (California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.) and
may comment on Army Corps of Engineers permit actions under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667e, March 10, 1934, as amended 1946, 1958, 1978 and 1995) and as a trustee
agency under CEQA. Where applicable, project proponents must submit an application for and receive
Federal CWA section 404 permit and/or state CDFW lake and streambed alternation agreement (LSAA)
prior to impacting most jurisdictional wetlands. Additionally, all applicants should contact the RWQCB
for any water discharge requirements prior to allowing any discharges (aside from rainwater) to discharge
to a conveyance system or waterway.
Mitigation for an impact to wetlands must be consistent with the Federal policy of no net loss of wetland
functions and values, and section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 C.F.R. Part 230). State guidelines for wetland
19
SECTION
Introduction
permitting also adhere to a no net loss policy for wetland acreage, functions and values. The CFG Code
(section 1600 et seq.) states that projects which substantially alter the flow, bed, bank, or channel of any
river, stream or lake must first notify the CDFG, which may determine that a Streambed Alteration
Agreement is required. As part of Los Angeles
conditions of the Federal CWA section 404 permit and state section California Fish and Game Code
1600 agreement must be demonstrated prior to issuance of a grading permit.
1.2.2.8 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
CDFG has jurisdictional authority over streams and lakes and wetland resources associated with these
aquatic systems under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq. California Fish and Game
Code Section 1600 et seq. was repealed and replaced in October of 2003 with the new Section 16001616
that took effect on January 1, 2004 (Senate Bill No. 418 Sher). CDFW has the authority to regulate work
flow of, or substantially change or use any material
from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or
other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream,
agency, or public utility are regulated by
CDFW under Section 1602 of the Code. CDFW enters into a streambed or lakebed alteration agreement
with the project proponent and can impose conditions on the agreement to ensure no net loss of values or
acreage of the stream, lake, associated wetlands, and associated riparian habitat. The lake or streambed
alteration agreement is not a permit, but rather a mutual agreement between CDFW and the project
proponent. Since CDFW includes under its jurisdiction streamside habitats that may not qualify as
wetlands under the Federal CWA definition, CDFW jurisdiction may be broader than ACOE jurisdiction.
A project proponent must submit a notification of streambed alteration to CDFW before construction. The
notification requires an application fee for streambed alteration agreements, with a specific fee schedule
to be determined by CDFW. CDFW can enter into streambed alteration agreements (SAAs) that cover
recurring operation and maintenance activities and can also enter into long term agreements to cover
development and other activities described in regional plans. Within the Plan Area, there are at least 2.5
acres of potential riparian California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 habitat (see Table 2-1).
1.2.2.9 California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) was established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20)
and later made permanent by the Legislature through adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.). The CCC is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency
that, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the
coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among
others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land
or public access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the CCC or the local
government. d from the mean
high tide line and varies in width from several hundred feet in highly urbanized areas up to five miles in
certain rural areas, and offshore the coastal zone includes a three-mile-wide band of ocean. The coastal
20
SECTION
Introduction
zone established by the Coastal Act does not include San Francisco Bay, where development is regulated
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
the coastal zone extends up to the Palos Verdes Drive South/Palos Verdes Drive West roadway.
The Coastal Act includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address
issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and
marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries,
industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design,
power plants, ports, and public works. Development within the coastal zone may not commence until a
coastal development permit has been issued by either the Commission or a local government that has a
Commission-certified LCP.
California's coastal management program is carried out through a partnership between state and local
governments. Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation
and CCC approval of LCPs that are required to be completed by each of the 15 counties and 60 cities
located in whole or in part in the coastal zone. A LCP includes a land use plan (LUP) which may be the
relevant portion of the local general plan, including any maps necessary to administer it, and the zoning
ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan.
Coastal Act policies are the standards by which the CCC evaluates the adequacy of LCPs and any
proposed amendments. The CCC is required to review each certified LCP at least once every five years.
After certification of an LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the appropriate local
government, but the CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands (such as
tidelands and public trust lands). The CCC also has appellate authority over development approved by
local governments in specified geographic areas as well as certain other developments. A Coastal Specific
Plan (CSP) was adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on December 19, 1978 to serve as the
LUP and implementation ordinance for that portion of the City located within the California Coastal Zone
(7.5 miles of coastline).
Along with the BCDC, the CCC is one of California's two designated coastal management agencies for
the purpose of administering the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in California. The most
significant provisions of the Federal CZMA give state coastal management agencies authority to review
for consistency with the Coastal Act, Federal activities and federally licensed, permitted, or assisted
activities, wherever they may occur (i.e., landward or seaward of the respective coastal zone boundaries
fixed under state law) if the activity affects coastal resources. Under 1990 amendments to the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act, the CCC and the State Water Resources Control Board have prepared and
adopted and are now implementing a Coastal Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program. The
CCC also implements a Coastal Access Program, in partnership with other state agencies such as the
Coastal Conservancy, State Lands Commission, California State Parks, and Federal, regional, and local
parks, and recreation entities.
21
SECTION
Introduction
1.2.3 Local
-use authority provided through General
Federal environmental land use laws (e.g.,
CEQA/NEPA) and the IA between the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies. In addition, the
NCCP/HCP includes habitat restoration and management of Preserve land by the PVPLC on behalf of the
City using in-kind services and various secured funding sources, and provides a framework for acquiring
additional private lands from willing sellers.
1.2.3.1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
s: Natural
Environment, Socio/Cultural, Urban Environment, and Land Use, which are relevant to this NCCP/HCP.
are summarized in Appendix
F. Proposed amendments to the General Plan that provide additional protection to the Preserve are
discussed in Section 6.3.2 of this NCCP/HCP.
1.2.3.2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
protection to lands located in the Preserve (Figure 3-
the time of adoption of the NCCP/HCP that protects the Preserve is listed in Appendix F to this Plan,
along with an explanation of how the cited code protects the Preserve. In summary, the Preserve is
directly protected by certain City ordinances that are part of the Municipal Code, such as the zoning
ordinance (Title 17) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16). These City ordinances require grading and
development proposals to be reviewed for compliance with established regulations and controls that
include natural habitat protection. Thus, applications for new development on vacant lots abutting the
Preserve can be modified to ensure habitat protection in the Preserve. The Preserve is indirectly protected
by other City ordinances, such as the stormwater discharge ordinance; the off-road vehicle ordinance; and
the streets, parks, and recreational facilities ordinance. The stormwater discharge ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 13.10) indirectly protects the Preserve by establishing standards and procedures for
reducing pollutants in stormwater discharge for major projects throughout the City, thus reducing the
likelihood of contaminated stormwater entering the Preserve. The off-road vehicle ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 10.24) indirectly protects the Preserve by prohibiting off-road vehicles from driving in the
Preserve. The recreational facilities ordinance (Municipal Code chapter 12.16) prohibits trail use in the
Preserve not authorized by the City.
22
SECTION
Introduction
1.2.3.3 Coastal Specific Plan
The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on December 19,
1978. The CSP provides a series of polices to guide development and protect natural features in the
California
all land on the coastal side of Palos Verdes Drive South and West (Figure 1-1). Although the NCCP/HCP
contains focused policies directed toward native lands management, the CSP clearly contains similar
elements, thereby enforcing and complementing the goals of the NCCP/HCP.
The CSP identifies natural habitat which is not only vital to local animal life, but is the key to the
migratory species (Page N-1 of CSP) while acknowledging that the Peninsula has already experienced
the lowest ebb in habitat quality and notes that Recent programs are providing indicators that this
habitat is recovering (Page N-2 of CSP).
1.2.3.4 CEQA
Once the NCCP/HCP Take Authorizations are issued, the City does not anticipate the need to regularly
consult with the Wildlife Agencies during the CEQA normal project review and development approval
process. The exceptions to this are Plan Amendments, impacts to non-Covered Species, wetlands, and
substantial changes to implementing regulations (including the General Plan, CEQA, LCP). The Wildlife
process (e.g., individual project review)
and through review of the CityAnnual Report. The Wildlife Agencies may, upon receipt of a CEQA
notice for a project, request a voluntary coordination meeting within 30 days. Likewise, the City may
request agency involvement in a project where coordination would help address key issues or streamline
the permitting process. The primary exception to this general procedure is for a project that proposes a
Preserve boundary line adjustment, or impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (see Section 6.0 of this Plan).
Otherwise, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will follow the project review and approval process,
including maintaining a list and map of all projects receiving Take Authorizations
permits under the Plan as described in Section 6.0 of the Plan. All project approvals issued over the
course of a year may be discussed at the required annual meeting.
1.3 Species for which Incidental Take Authorization is Requested
Permits are requested by the City for the federally endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche
lygdamus palosverdesensis, PVB), El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni, ESB), and
federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, gnatcatcher). Take
of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA and cannot be authorized under a Federal incidental
take permit. However, the USFWS encourages applicants to address the needs of plant species in HCPs,
and will include adequately covered plant species on an incidental take permit in recognition of the
conservation benefits accorded the species in the underlying HCP. The USFWS extends No Surprises
regulatory assurances to both covered animal and covered plant species. Coverage under the Federal and
23
SECTION
Introduction
state permits are also requested for seven additional species including six plants and one bird that are not
currently listed under the CESA or ESA but have specific known locations or appropriate habitat in the
City and will benefit from conservation under this NCCP/HCP. These species include the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B and List 4 plants: aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), south coast
saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum), island green dudleya
(Dudleya virens subsp. insularis), Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei), and
woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) and the cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), a State
Species of Concern (SSC) that is also a NCCP focal species. Species covered by this NCCP/HCP are
identified in Table 1-1.
24
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NCCP/HCP AREA
2.1 Regional Setting
The 13.6-square-mile coastal City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located on the southwest side of the Palos
Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County (County). It is bounded on the north by Rolling Hills, Rolling
Hills Estates, and Palos Verdes Estates and to the east by the community of San Pedro, with the high-
density urbanized core of South Bay communities located farther to the north (Figure 2-1).
Beginning in the early 1900s, the Peninsula enjoyed prosperity as a cattle ranch and farming area. By
1913, the residential future of Palos Verdes was envisioned as the "most fashionable and exclusive
residential colony" 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 (December 20, 1939), Rolling Hills (January 24, 1957), and Rolling Hills Estates
(September 18, 1957).
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 the City. All citizens elected
to the first City Council ran on similar platforms of low-density land uses, minimum taxes, and
responsiveness to residents. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was officially incorporated as a California
municipality on September 7, 1973.
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 approximately 42,000 people
comprising the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are predominantly employed in management, professional,
and related occupations.
2.2 Biological Resources
2.2.1 Vegetation 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 by Ogden (1999). Ogden also used other
existing documents (e.g. recent biological studies, EIRs) and digital data sources that were considered
relevant to the NCCP/HCP Plan Area. Biological resource information compiled from these
environmental documents included both vegetation and sensitive species data. This data is considered the
baseline for calculating habitat loss from Covered Projects and Activities as well as habitat acreages
within the Plan Area, because it is the most recent mapping effort that covers the entire Plan Area.
However, more recent vegetation community mapping was conducted in 2007 only for Preserve lands and
is used as the current baseline for habitat and species management.
25
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
1 2-1. City Boundary and Regional Vicinity Map
26
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
22-2. Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes
The natural vegetation map for the Palos Verdes Peninsula shown in Figure 2-3 was compiled from 1 inch
= 1,200 it 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 California Native Plant Society (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 (1999) 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 NCCP/HCP
document to account for changes in vegetation cover associated with recently completed development
projects. Approximately 8,616.6 acres of land are in the Plan Area, including native habitats, non-native
27
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
habitats, agricultural lands, disturbed areas, and developed lands. These communities are listed in
Table 2-1 and described below.
32-3. Natural Vegetation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula
(1)
28
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
1
22-1. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes
Natural Vegetation Community Acres
Coastal Sage Scrub Sub-associations
CSS Artemisia Dominated 94.4
CSS Baccharis Dominated 7.2
CSS Encelia Dominated 8.3
CSS Eriogonum Dominated 13.9
CSS Rhus Dominated 234.3
CSS Salvia Dominated 26.0
CSS Undifferentiated 642.6
Saltbush Scrub 7.3
Southern Cactus Scrub 99.7
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 133.2
1,266.9
Subtotal CSS
Grassland 2 950.2
Riparian Scrub 2.5
Exotic Woodland 75.4
Disturbed Vegetation (includes Ruderal) 86.9
Subtotal for all Natural Vegetation 2,382.1
Other
Cliff Face 8.8
Rocky Shore 58.8
Disturbed Areas 164.9
Agriculture 17.6
Developed 5,984.4
Subtotal Other 6,234.5
Total Acreage 8,616.6
1
Vegetation inventory from Ogden (1999) with minor updates in 2003 associated with
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and Ocean Front Estates projects.
2
Includes both non-native and a small amount native grassland.
Field verification of the baseline vegetation data was conducted by Ogden on June 9, July 23 and 24, and
August 19 and 20, 1997 and on March 31, April 1 and 23, May 20 and 28, and June 16 and 17, 1998. Not
all vegetated areas were visited during these field visits. For areas that were not visited, 1 in = 200 foot color
aerial photographs (flown on June 23, 1997) were used to refine the vegetation map, as appropriate. All
vegetation mapping efforts assumed a minimum mapping unit of 1 acre. An additional site visit was conducted
November 10, 1998 with representatives from Ogden, CNPS, Chambers Group, and the Hon Properties.
Additional locations of California crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) were discovered within the
NCCP/HCP Area in 2004.
Sensitive habitats within the Plan 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
29
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
local policies or regulations. In the case of habitats in the Plan Area, these include all wetland habitat
types (consisting primarily of riparian scrub) and all upland scrub habitats. No native grasslands have
been delineated in the Plan Area because the patches are too small, but if larger patches of native
grassland are identified, these patches will be delineated. Habitats dominated by non-native plant species
(e.g., non-native grassland, exotic woodland, and disturbed vegetation) are generally not considered
sensitive. However, grassland (including non-native) may provide valuable foraging habitat for raptors
and support other sensitive plant and wildlife species. Smaller patches of grassland (including non-native)
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. Most grasslands in southern California are now
dominated by non-native annual grasses; nonetheless, these areas support many native species. Therefore,
conservation of grassland (including some non-native grasslands) contribute to NCCP planning goals.
The Preserve design includes mitigation for potential impacts of City projects to grasslands (including
non-native).
Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal sage scrub (CSS) 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.
CSS is distinguished from grasslands and disturbed vegetation by the presence of a minimum of 20%
shrub cover.
Dominant CSS species within the Plan Area include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), ashy-
leaf buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), California sunflower (Encelia californica), coyote bush
(Baccharis pilularis), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and black sage
(Salvia mellifera). Other less frequent constituents of this community include California buckwheat
(Eriogonum fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum), goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and bladderpod (Peritoma arborea).
Numerous CSS sub-associations have been identified in the Plan Area and classified according to the
dominant species (Table 2-1). Such sub-associations include Artemisia-dominated scrub, Eriogonum-
dominated scrub, Salvia-dominated scrub, Encelia-dominated scrub, Baccharis-dominated scrub, and
Rhus-dominated scrub. These sub-associations correspond to the California sagebrush series, California
buckwheat series, black sage series, purple sage series, 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 undifferentiated CSS. There are 1,266.9 acres of CSS in the City, of which,
approximately 94.4 acres are Artemisia-dominated scrub, 13.9 acres are Eriogonum-dominated scrub,
26 acres are Salvia-dominated scrub, 8.3 acres are Encelia-dominated scrub, 7.2 acres are Baccharis-
dominated scrub, 234.3 acres are Rhus-dominated scrub, and 647.6 acres are undifferentiated (Table 2-1).
30
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
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
present in this association include foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida), purple needlegrass (Nassella
pulchra), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), wishbone bush (Mirabilis californica var.
californica), and common goldenstar (Bloomeria crocea). Common non-native species in open or
disturbed sage scrub include wild oat (Avena spp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), foxtail chess (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), among others. Disturbed CSS is also
present in the Plan Area. 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 non-native species, low percentage cover of CSS indicator species, and is
fragmented to some degree.
Southern Cactus Scrub
Southern cactus scrub is a low, dense scrub (less than 2 meters \[6.6 feet\]) with succulent shrubs consisting
primarily of prickly pear species (Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) and coastal cholla (O. prolifera) 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 (3,937 feet) elevation (Magney, 1992;
Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Examples of this community occur on the City Hall site and in the
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP project open space. Approximately 99.7 acres of southern cactus scrub
occur in the Plan Area.
Saltbush Scrub
Saltbush scrub is dominated by quailbush (Atriplex lentiformis) and the non-native species Atriplex
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
(1995). The understory consists of ruderal species, such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish
(Raphanus sativus), and cliff aster (Malacothrix saxatile). Approximately 7.3 acres of saltbush scrub was
mapped in the Plan Area.
Southern 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
31
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
buckwheat, ashy-leaf buckwheat, lemonadeberry, coast cholla, and coast prickly pear. Other less-frequent
constituents of this community include boxthorn (Lycium californicum), island green dudleya (Dudleya
virens ssp. insularis), aphanisma, seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), woolly seablite (Suaeda
taxifolia), and bladderpod. Development along the southern California coastline has reduced this
community throughout its range. Coastal bluff scrub occupies 133.2 acres along the steep ocean cliffs in
the Plan Area.
Grassland
Grassland includes both native perennial and non-native annual grasses within the Plan area. Non-native
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 non-native 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 non-native annual forbs (Holland, 1986). The number of natives versus
non-natives is site-specific and varies according to rainfall and other factors (Heady, 1995). Estimates for
the proportion of non-native species in this association range from 29% to 80% (White, 1967; Bentley
and Talbot, 1948; Heady, 1995; Holland and Keil, 1990). Talbot et al. (1939) report that annuals
comprise approximately 94% of the herbaceous cover in annual grassland; Ewing and Menke (1983) state
that annuals comprise 50% to more than 90% of the vegetative cover in annual grassland, and that most of
the annuals are non-native 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 Permit Area. Typical grasses within the Permit Area include wild oat, foxtail chess, ripgut
grass (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon). Characteristic forbs include red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), mustard (Brassica spp.),
tarplant (Centromadia spp.), tocalote, and cliff aster. Within annual grassland, grasses are less than 1
meter (3.3 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. Native grasses in the Plan Area occur in small areas within annual grassland and
CSS habitats. Native grasslands are defined as patches greater than 0.3 acre in areas that support at least
50% cover of grass species and 10% cover of native grassland species. There are approximately 950.2
acres of grasslands in the Plan Area.
32
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Riparian Scrub
Riparian scrub varies from a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous association dominated by several
species of willow to an herbaceous scrub dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) (Holland, 1986).
Typical willow species on site include black willow (S. gooddingii) and arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis).
Understory vegetation in this association is usually composed of non-native, weedy species or is lacking
altogether. Riparian scrub may represent a Federal and/or state jurisdictional habitat comprised of 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 Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP project property. This association occupies approximately 2.5 acres of land in
the Plan Area.
Exotic Woodland
Exotic woodland includes non-native trees and shrubs planted in the Plan Area in the past. Some of these
introduced species are invasive and have dispersed into the adjacent grassland and native habitats. Exotic
species include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),
Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia), black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), and pines (Pinus
spp.). Most of the exotic woodlands occur in the Portuguese Bend and Lower Filiorum areas and occupy
approximately 75.4 acres. Exotic woodlands are not considered a sensitive habitat, but can provide
nesting/perching opportunities for bird and other animal species.
Disturbed 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 which species can thrive here (Holland and Keil, 1990). Typical species associated with
disturbed vegetation include horseweed (Conyza canadensis), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), knotweed
(Polygonum spp.), mallow (Malva spp.), Russian thistle, sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), castor bean
(Ricinus communis), goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.), and tocalote. Other common species that can be
found in disturbed areas, as well as other communities, include mustards, star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), rye grass (Lolium spp.), burclover (Medicago polymorpha), wild radish, milk thistle (Silybum
marianum), and cocklebur (Xanthium 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 which includes ruderal species occupies approximately 86.9 acres in
the Plan Area.
33
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Cliff Faces
Cliff faces are steep, sometimes vertical slopes with little vegetative cover. Cliff faces in the City are
found in the landslide area, west of Coolheights Drive, and north of Forrestal Road. Cliff faces occupy
about 8.8 acres of land in the Plan Area.
Rocky Shores
Rocky shores are areas at the base of cliffs that are characterized by lava flows, sedimentary bedding, and
loose cobbles. Constant erosion from wind and rain prevents vegetation establishment. Typically, there is
little soil available for plants to become established. Rocky shores are found along sea cliffs areas that do
not contain any coastal bluff scrub. Rocky shores occupy about 58.8 acres of land in the Plan Area.
Disturbed 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
species found scattered in disturbed areas include Russian thistle, black mustard, storksbill (Erodium
spp.), and annual grasses, among others. Disturbed areas occupy approximately 164.9 acres in the Plan
Area.
Agriculture
Agriculture includes actively cultivated lands and lands that support nursery operations. Only two
locations in the Plan Area are actively farmed, comprising approximately 17.6 acres. These two areas are
in the western portion of the City near City Hall.
Developed 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 (e.g., Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and Subregion
One/Ocean Front Estates) 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
approximately 5,984.4 acres in the City limits.
2.2.2 Covered Species
The mapped distribution of Covered Species is based on cumulative sighting data compiled during
development of the draft NCCP/HCP, and included assessments for butterfly habitat and focused rare
plant surveys that were conducted in spring 1998 (Figure 2-4). This data is considered the baseline for
calculating impacts from Covered Projects and Activities as well as species presence within the Plan
Area, because it is the most recent survey effort that covers the entire Plan Area. However, more recent
34
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
surveys have been conducted only for Preserve lands and are used as the current baseline for species
management (see Appendix B). All of the Covered Species are associated closely with scrub habitats on
the Peninsula. Sensitive species in the NCCP/HCP Area are described below and the conservation
analyses and conditions for coverage for each are described in Appendix B.
42-4. Covered Species Distributions
35
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Aphanisma blitoides
Aphanisma
USFWS: No Status
CDFW: 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
at elevations up to 305 meters (1,000 feet) and is found from Santa Barbara County to northern Baja
California, Mexico, and it is on all the Channel Islands except San Miguel (CNPS, 2001; Junak et al.,
1995). This fleshy species blooms from March to June. Aphanisma is in steep decline on the mainland
and on the islands (CNPS, 2001). Mainland populations are declining because of recreational use of
beaches and development along the coast (Reiser, 1994). In the Plan Area, Aphanisma occurs in coastal
bluff scrub in Abalone Cove, Portuguese Point, Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and Shoreline Park to
the Rancho Palos Verdes/San Pedro City limit.
Atriplex pacifica
South Coast Saltscale
USFWS: No Status
CDFW: 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.
Historically, this species was known from Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa islands; San Nicholas
Island and coastal Ventura County; Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands; coastal Los Angeles
County; Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties; Arizona, Baja California, and Sonora, Mexico (CNPS,
2001; data from CNDDB 2003). Currently, it is known from only a few occurrences on Santa Cruz and
Anacapa islands (RSA, 1992a, 1992b, 1991, 1996). South coast saltscale is severely declining throughout
its coastal range on the mainland (Reiser, 1994). In the Plan Area, south coast saltscale occurs within the
Preserve (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP, Abalone Cove/Portuguese Point and along the coast
between Halfway Point and Shoreline Park).
Crossosoma californicum
Catalina Crossosoma
USFWS: No status
CDFW: 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 (1,640 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 four locations in
the Plan Area, at Forrestal. One location is north of Pirate Drive; and three locations are in an area west of
Ganado Drive and south of Crest Road, on the ridgeline and in the canyon.
36
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Dudleya virens spp. insularis
Island green dudleya
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-2
Island 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 on Santa Catalina Island and the mainland in the Plan Area at the south
base of San Pedro Hill from Point Vicente to Point Fermin, and San Nicholas Island (CNPS, 2001; data
from CNDDB, 2003; Moran, 1995). San Pedro Hill is a landlocked island that is now connected to the
mainland by the alluvial Los Angeles Plain, but it is historically related to Santa Catalina and San
Clemente islands directly to the south (Smith, 1900 in Moran, 1995). The species is found mostly on the
Pacific slope on sea bluffs and rocky headlands and is less frequent on inland dry rocky slopes. On San
Nicholas Island, it is common in a few scattered locations at low elevations on eastern and southern
slopes (Foreman, 1967 in Moran, 1995). In the Plan Area, island green dudleya occurs within the Preserve
(Pelican Cove and Abalone Cove) and Neutral Lands.
Lycium brevipes var. hassei
Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn
USFWS: No status
CDFW: 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 in the Peninsula in
1976. Historical localities of this species include San Clemente and Santa Catalina islands. In the Plan
Area, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn occurs within the Preserve (Portuguese Point, Abalone Cove, and
Ocean Front Estates).
Suaeda taxifolia
Woolly Seablite
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 4, 1-2-1
Woolly seablite is an 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
evergreen subshrub flowers January-December (CNPS 2001). It 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 the
Plan Area, woolly seablite plants occur along the peninsula shoreline from Torrance Beach to San Pedro.
It is found in Abalone Cove and Pelican Cove, and within Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP, Shoreline
Park, and Ocean Front Estates.
37
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Euphilotes battoides allyni
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
CDFW: No status
The El Segundo Blue (ESB) is a rare subspecies of the square-spotted blue butterfly. The ESB is
restricted to relic and remnant coastal dune habitats at four locations: Ballona Wetlands south of Marina
del Rey, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Dunes, Chevron El Segundo Preserve and adjacent
habitat in El Segundo, and Torrance Beach/Malaga Cove (Mattoni, 1990; USFWS, 1998). Coast
buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) is the larval hostplant 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 (USFWS, 1998). The
Malaga Cove population is small, between 10 and 30 individuals using between 50 and 100 individuals of
coast buckwheat (R. Arnold, pers. comm.). It was discovered in 2007 that this small population expanded
to newly restored habitat at Torrance Beach and Redondo Beach. There is no dune habitat within the
jurisdiction of the Plan Area, 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 the
summer of 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 small population of ESB in coastal
bluff scrub habitat (RBF Consulting, 2001). Focused surveys for the ESB in 2006 resulted in two
confirmed populations (Pratt, 2006). One of the locations is just north of Point Vicente in a large patch of
coast buckwheat where approximately 36 ESB were observed. The other location is southeast of Point
Vicente at the FisherThere was also one
ESB observation found in 2000, and this observation was in the Neutral Lands south of the Pelican Cove
Property. Subsequent surveys between 2006 and 2011 identified ESB in Ocean Front Estates and the
Pelican Cove Property.
Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
CDFW: No status
The 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 locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var.
lonchus) or deerweed (Lotus scoparius), the only known larval hostplants for the PVB (Mattoni, 1992).
Currently, PVB is known to occur only at the Naval Fuel Depot in San Pedro (Mattoni, 1992), at Malaga
Dunes (R. Mattoni and J. George pers. comm. 2001), and was reintroduced at the Chandler Preserve in
the City of Rolling Hills. In the Plan area, PVB are currently not known to be present; however, this
species was historically observed in the Agua Amarga Canyon, the Filiorum Parcel, Portuguese Bend, the
Forrestal Parcel, the Switchbacks, and Neutral Lands near Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. Historical
occurrences of PVB in the Plan Area include locations near the "Switchback" area of Palos Verdes Drive
4, Portuguese Canyon, and
Forrestal \[Klondike\] Canyon), and Agua Amarga (Arnold, 1983, 1987, Mattoni, 1992; USFWS, 1984).
Habitat for PVB is typified by open CSS and ecotone areas between sage scrub and grassland. Locoweed
is the primary larval hostplant present in the Plan Area. Deerweed does not generally occur in the Plan
Area and is restricted mostly to the northeast slope of the Peninsula. Locoweed is an early successional or
disturbance-associated species and will 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
38
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
enthusiasts have contributed to the current endangered status of this species (Arnold, 1987; Mattoni,
1992). Federally designated critical habitat for the PVB includes the "Switchback" area of Palos Verdes
Drive East, Fred Hesse Park, and Agua Amarga Canyon (USFWS, 1980).
Polioptila californica californica
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
USFWS: Threatened
CDFW: SSC, NCCP focal species
The Peninsula supports a remnant population of 26 to 56 pairs of coastal California gnatcatcher
(gnatcatcher) 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
(Atwood, 1993). This speci
ESA sections 10 (HCP processes) and 7 (agency consultations on Federal lands). Federally 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. In the Plan Area, gnatcatchers have been documented in all Preserve areas except Pelican
Cove, Malaga Canyon, and Lower Point Vicente. With the exceptions of Crestridge, the Filiorum Parcel,
and the Donation Parcel, each of these Preserve areas have been consistently occupied in recent surveys
(PVPLC 2013). 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%; juvenile over-winter survival varied from 20% to 43%. Studies of
(Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) are the primary plants used
by gnatcatchers when foraging for insects (Atwood et al., 1995; Impact Sciences, 1990; RECON, 1987;
ERC, 1990; Ogden, 1992a). Breeding gnatcatchers on the Peninsula appear to be noticeably absent from
most sage scrub dominated by lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia).
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
Cactus Wren
USFWS: No status
CDFW: NCCP focal species
Coastal southern California populations of cactus wrens have greatly declined 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
averages about three fledglings per pair, and adult survivorship varies from 57% to 73%; juvenile over-
winter survivorship varies from 9% to 36%. Home range size for Peninsula cactus wrens varies from 1 to
3 acres. In the Plan Area, cactus wrens have been observed in all Preserve areas except Ocean Front
39
SECTION
Description of NCCP/HCP Area
Estates, Pelican Cove, Crestridge, Malaga Canyon, and Lower Point Vicente. With the exception of
Abalone Cove, each of Preserve areas has been consistently occupied in recent surveys (PVPLC 2013).
40
SECTION
Project Alternatives
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Preserve Alternative Analysis
A key step in developing an NCCP/HCP 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) development is directed in less sensitive or already
disturbed habitat. Regionally important habitat areas were identified by the City with the involvement of
workshops and stakeholder meetings. The areas include lands with relatively extensive native vegetation
supporting concentrations of target species. Linkage areas that provide habitat connections between larger
habitat areas were also identified.
The basis for creating the alternatives included information gathered during extensive discussions among
the NCCP working group and evaluations of potential development on the largest properties supporting
natural vegetation. That effort involved numerous meetings of the NCCP working group and discussions
with the Wildlife Agencies representatives. During the time period of May 1996 to January 1999, there
were 25 working group meetings with 20 to 30 interested persons regularly in attendance. During that
time frame there were also 3 special public meetings and 4 meetings with stakeholders (landowners and
City). In addition to the Wildlife Agencies, participants in the NCCP working group included entities
such as the South Coast Chapter of the Native Plant Society, Endangered Habitats League, various
Homeowners Associations, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, Save Our Coastline II, City
Departments, Coastal Conservation Coalition, Sierra Club, various elected representatives, and
developers. The working group meetings continued until September 1999. After the point, the issues were
periodically presented to the City council for direction. The discussion at the numerous working group
meetings focused on identifying/finalizing 3 NCCP Alternatives. Based on these discussions and
development evaluations, the City decided to emphasize acquisition of key private properties and
conservation of existing habitat on City-owned lands as the primary forms of conservation.
As a result, four preserve designs (Table 3-1 and Figures 3-1 to 3-4) were developed to represent a
reasonable range of alternatives; ultimately Alternative D was selected. None of the Preserve alternatives
include the Neutral LSection 4.5 of the Plan or the areas of potentially
additional preserve identified in Section 4.4 of the Plan. However, because the 1,694.2 acres Neutral
Lare currently undevelopable and contain 670.9
acres of natural vegetation including 430.2 acres of CSS, they will add biological value to the Preserve.
41
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
33-1. Summary of Preserve Alternatives
A TAAACSS
LTERNATIVESOTAL CREAGE IN CREAGE OF ALL CREAGE OF
P NVP
THE RESERVE ATURAL EGETATION IN THE RESERVE
C
OMMUNITIES IN THE
P
RESERVE
A 1,559.1 1,414.8 748.1
B 1,220.5 1,127.2 693.8
C 1,413.3 1,302.4 728.5
D 1,402.7 1,302.3 737.1
These alternatives represent a practical range of development levels within the Plan Area that would
affect conservation value for some Covered Species. Alternative A would establish the largest Preserve
with more acreage preserved within the western coastal area than any other alternative, and a commitment
to conserve two linkages between coastal and inland areas centrally. This alternative would maximize
conservation of gnatcatchers and cactus wrens as well as maintain the most potential El Segundo blue
butterfly habitat of any alternative. Alternative B would establish the smallest Preserve of any alternative
with minimal preserved land along the western coast and an active golf course within the central section
of the Preserve. This alternative would severely limit connectivity for gnatcatchers and cactus wrens
between the western coastal area and the central area of the Preserve, and the El Segundo blue butterfly
habitat would be severely restricted in the west. Alternatives C and D would establish a similar Preserve
with reduced habitat preservation in the western coastal area between Alternatives A and B. These
connections would be less robust than Alternative A. Based on currently known locations, the alternatives
would each afford similar levels of conservation for covered plant species as well as potential Palos
Verdes blue habitat.
3.1.1 Alternative A Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative
The NCCP Working Group met in a series of workshops between 1996 and 2000 to develop a Preserve
design alternative. Alternative A (Figure 3-1) assumes little future development and conservation of all
public and private undeveloped open space considered to have high biological value. Alternative A would
establish a 1,559.1-acre Preserve with 1,414.8 acres (59.3%) of the 2,382.1 acres of existing vegetation
communities in the City including 748.1 acres (59%) of the 1,266.9 acres of CSS habitat in the City listed
in Table 2-1. Alternative A is larger than the Proposed Project in terms of proportion of conserved
habitats, and the locations of potential future development are different. This alternative conserves all key
habitat linkages in the City and linkages to adjacent jurisdictions. Relatively isolated habitat areas of
public lands are excluded in Alternative A. This alternative was not pursued due to concerns regarding the
cost of land acquisitions and competing land use interests. Alternative A was not chosen because the
anticipated cost to acquire Preserve lands exceeded projected available funding, and landowners had
competing land use proposals for certain parcels.
42
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
53-1. Preserve Alternative A
3.1.2 Alternative B Landowner Alternative
Alternative B (Figure 3-2) was developed in 1999 by the major landowners and City with modifications
made following comments from the Peninsula NCCP Working Group. This alternative includes
development within the Upper and Lower Point Vicente, Oceanfront, Lower Filiorum, and a golf course
within Portuguese Bend. This alternative would establish a 1,220.5-acre Preserve with 1,127.2 acres
(47.3%) of the 2,382.1 acres of existing vegetation communities in the City including 693.8 acres (54.7%)
of the 1,266.9 acres of CSS habitat in the City listed in Table 2-1. Alternative B was not pursued because
it would greatly fragment the most contiguous habitat areas and constrain habitat linkages between the
larger blocks of CSS and the linkage to habitats in Palos Verdes Estates.
43
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
63-2. Preserve Alternative B
44
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
3.1.3 Alternative C The Citys Alternative
Alternative C (Figure 3-3) was developed as a compromise between Alternatives A and B. Alternative C
is primarily distinguished from Alternative A by development of a portion of Upper Point Vicente,
Gateway Park, and Lower Filiorum. Alternative C would establish a 1,413.3-acre Preserve with 1,302.4
acres (54.6%) of the 2,382.1 acres of existing vegetation communities in the City including 728.5 acres
(57.5%) of the 1,266.9 acres of CSS habitat in the City listed in Table 2-1. In addition, this alternative
conserves the most practicable amount of regionally important habitat areas and provides habitat linkages
between patches of conserved habitat. Alternative C is the proposed project identified in the Draft
NCCP/HCP approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in August 2004. Alternative C was not
pursued because the ownership of the Upper Filiorum property that was identified for acquisition
modified the amount of the property that they were willing to sell for inclusion in the Preserve.
73-3. Preserve Alternative C
45
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
3.1.4 Alternative D The Proposed Alternative
Alternative D (Figure 3-4) results in a Preserve that is identical to Alternative C except that approximately
27 acres of the Upper Filiorum property are not included within the Preserve but rather identified as a
private project (the Plumtree Parcel Project) covered by this NCCP/HCP (Section 5.3 of the Plan) along
with approximately 40 acres of the former City Redevelopment Agency archery range property are
excluded due to landslide and legal constraints. The proposed Preserve design would establish a 1,402.4-
acre Preserve with 1,302.3 acres (54.6%) of the 2,382.1 acres of existing vegetation communities in the
City including 737.1 acres (58.2%) of the 1,266.9 acres of CSS habitat in the City listed in Table 2-1.
83-4. Preserve Alternative D (Proposed Preserve Design)
46
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.0 PROPOSED PRESERVE DESIGN
4.1 Conservation Strategy
The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to provide for the regional conservation of natural wildlife diversity
through preservation of sufficient habitat in an appropriate configuration that provides for comprehensive
management and the conservation of Covered Species, while allowing for compatible and appropriate
development and growth. Consequently, designing the Preserve system involves balancing two major
goals:
Biological conservation
Property development, property rights, and economic development.
As the lead agency of the Palos Verdes Peninsula NCCP, the City developed a Phase I Peninsula NCCP
Program, which included a NCCP Working group and a landscape scale database of biological resource
and land use information that allowed for the City, Wildlife Agencies, scientific advisors, and other
stakeholders to make informed land use and conservation decisions in developing the Plan. The main
purposes of the Phase I Program (guided by the NCCP Working Group) was to summarize the existing
conditions of biological resources within the Plan area; research/answer questions regarding the regional
importance of parcels to a potential biological preserve system; synthesize vegetation mapping, sensitive
species distributions and habitat evaluations; preliminary development/comparison of alternative reserve
designs; and evaluation/prioritization of the restoration potential of degraded lands through the City
within the context of preliminary alternative reserve designs (City of RPV, 1999). The approach taken to
design a functional Preserve was to identify properties where conservation will 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 Preserve. A key step in developing the NCCP/HCP was to prioritize the most critical biological
resource areas for potential conservation. Regionally important habitat areas were identified through the
overlay of vegetation and target species information; they include areas where there is relatively extensive
native vegetation that supports concentrations of target species or can be expected to provide a habitat
linkage between larger habitat areas. A gap analysis was also conducted to identify areas of existing
unprotected land supporting key biological resources to target for conservation.
The recommendations for refining the preliminary reserve designs from the Phase I Program were
incorporated into the final preserve design for the NCCP/HCP and included the following: adding areas
to the preserve such as the southern portion of Shoreline Park, grasslands in the Abalone Cove area due
south of Lower Filiorum; providing a larger core habitat patch within the Upper Filiorum area and a
stepping-stone habitat linkage in the vicinity of the RPV City Hall parcel, and evaluating potential
impacts from golf course development (City of RPV, 1999). Concurrent with the development of this
NCCP/HCP, the City and PVPLC, in cooperation with the Wildlife Agencies, have acquired several key
47
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
lands to be dedicated to the Preserve (identified below) that address the Phase I recommendations for
reserve design and assist in making the Preserve biologically viable for Covered Species and natural
communities in perpetuity (Figure 4-1).
to dedicate 1,402.4 acres of habitat for the NCCP/HCP
Preserve assembly. Of this total, 61.5 acres were acquired in association with a grant to the State of
Another 798 acres of land in Portuguese Bend, Agua Amarga, Upper Filiorum, and Forrestal were
purchased by the City for conservation in support the NCCP/HCP with funds provided by the City,
PVPLC, California Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, City of Rolling Hills, County of
Los Angeles, and California State Dominquez Hills. Of the 798 acres, funding for 236.3 acres was
contributed from non-state sources. An additional 263.6 acres are being dedicated directly by the City.
The remainder of the Preserve is comprised of 20.7 acres owned by PVPLC, and 258.7 acres of City-
owned land, or land that will eventually be owned by the City, which has been previously dedicated for
conservation as mitigation for the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and the Oceanfront Estates projects
(Figure 4-2, Table 4-1). Of the 1,402.4-acre Preserve, 500 acres will be dedicated by the City to mitigate
for all Covered City Projects and Activities. Lands dedicated to the Preserve by the City will be
encumbered by conservation easement held by the PVPLC with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-
party beneficiaries. Lands dedicated to the Preserve by the PVPLC will be encumbered by a conservation
easement (in the same form as Appendix G in the IA) held by the City with the Wildlife Agencies named
as third-party beneficiaries. In addition, the City and PVPLC is required to enhance/restore a minimum of
5 acres per year within the Preserve, emphasizing those areas that will enhance habitat patch size and
habitat linkage function (i.e., areas with moderate to high potential for successful restoration). The City
and PVPLC will also perform other functions as specified in Section 7.0 of the Plan to enhance habitat
value within the Preserve.
Section 4.4 of the Plan identifies other private and public lands that may be dedicated to the Preserve, but
are not necessary for the permit, that would add to the biological value of the Preserve. For various
reasons, these additional lands cannot be guaranteed to be part of the Preserve. The City, PVPLC, and/or
the Wildlife Agencies will pursue the acquisition and/or access agreements for these additional properties.
If funding can be identified for management, the properties will be actively managed by PVPLC as part of
the Preserve system.
PVPLC will manage the Preserve on behalf of the City and with the Citys assistance for the benefit of
the Covered Species and other wildlife. PVPLC will conduct habitat restoration activities in priority areas
of the Preserve annually. Along with the City, the Wildlife Agencies will be responsible for monitoring
NCCP/HCP implementation. The proposed Preserve was designed to be consistent with NCCP standards
and guidelines and the issuance criteria for ESA section 10(a) for species covered by the permit.
48
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
94-1. Preserve Design and Vegetation Mapping
49
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
104-2. Preserve Properties
50
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
In order to facilitate management, the Preserve has been divided into 12 geographical management units
(see Figure 4-4). Also attached are Figures 4-4A through 4-4L which
indicate the Preserve boundary, natural vegetation, Covered Species point locations and any fuel
modification zones for each Reserve Area. The 12 Reserve Areas along with the individual properties that
compose them are listed below.
Vista Del Norte Reserve
Crestridge Property
o
Agua Amarga Reserve
Agua Amarga Canyon
o
Lunada Canyon
o
Ocean Trails Reserve
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property
o
Shoreline Park
o
Portuguese Bend Reserve
Portuguese Bend Property
o
Abalone Cove Reserve
Abalone Cove (Including portions of the State Ecological Reserve Area)
o
Three Sisters Reserve
Barkentine Property
o
San Ramon Reserve
Switchbacks Property
o
Forrestal Reserve
Forrestal Property
o
Vicente Bluffs Reserve
Ocean Front Estates Property
o
Lower Pt. Vicente
o
Pelican Cove (formerly the FishAccess)
o
Alta Vicente Reserve
Upper Point Vicente
o
Filiorum Reserve
Upper Filiorum
o
Del Cerro Buffer
o
Malaga Canyon Reserve
Malaga Canyon Open Space
o
51
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.2 Existing Public Lands to be Dedicated to the Preserve
(1,402.4 acres)
A total of 1,402.4 acres of land will be dedicated to the Preserve. The Existing Public Lands that are
currently owned by the City (1,123 acres) or the PVPLC (20.7 acres) will be dedicated to the Preserve and
perpetually managed by the PVPLC. The remainder of the Preserve will be comprised of 258.7 acres of
City-owned land or land that will eventually be owned by the City which has been previously dedicated
for conservation as mitigation for certain private projects will also be dedicated to the Preserve.
Management of these previously dedicated lands is dictated by pre-existing permits and/or agreements.
All of the lands to be dedicated to the Preserve are identified in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2 and described
below. Within 90 days after Permit issuance, each property listed below will be considered formally
dedicated to the Preserve when a conservation easement in favor of PVPLC (or the City for property
owned by the PVPLC), in a form approved by, and which names the Wildlife Agencies as third-party
beneficiaries, is recorded on the property. When the land is formally dedicated to the Preserve, the lands
will be managed according to this NCCP/HCP. Once the 1,123 acres of City lands have been dedicated to
the Preserve and are being managed for conservation purposes, including the management obligation
during the Permit Term, the City will have fulfilled its Preserve assembly mitigation obligations for the
impacts of all of the Covered Projects and Activities described in Section 5.0 of the Plan. Obligations
regarding conservation for these mitigation lands include perpetual monitoring as identified in Section
8.2.1.1 of the Plan. The 1,143.7 acres of Existing Public Land that are currently owned by the City or
PVPLC that are managed in perpetuity will contribute to the Preserve assembly. The 500 acres of new
lands dedicated by the City will be referred to as City Mitigation Lands.
4.2.1 Lands Dedicated as Previous Mitigation (258.7 acres)
Switchbacks Property
(94.5 acres)
The City obtained this 94.5-acre parcel in 1979 from the developer of the adjacent Seacliff Hills
in accordance with the
Trump National HCP (then known as the Ocean Trails HCP), the City allowed a conservation
easement to be recorded over the entire property and the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP was
allowed to use 21 acres of this property for habitat enhancement/re-vegetation related to the
raised by the City with the introduction of irrigation in
close proximity to a known landslide area, in 2000 the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP was
amended to transfer 10 acres of required habitat re-vegetation from this property
nearby Shoreline Park property, and to allow 11 acres of habitat enhancement on this property.
The 11 acres of habitat enhancement on this parcel that was completed pursuant to the February
15, 2001 Habitat Enhancement Plan will be managed by Trump National (Ocean Trails) pursuant
to their approved HCP until their management responsibility is deemed complete by the Wildlife
Agencies. Although Trump National (Ocean Trails), as the permittee of their HCP, will continue
to be responsible for the ongoing management and monitoring of these 11 acres pursuant to the
Development Agreement with the City, PVPLC may assume the management and monitoring of
52
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
these 11 acres consistent with the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP, only if funding is provided
by Trump National (Ocean Trails).
Shoreline Park
(45.7 acres of the 50.7-acre property)
This property was acquired by the City in 1997 from Los Angeles County. As part of this deal, a
conservation easement was recorded on the northern 20 acres of the property as mitigation for
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. In 2000, in order to mitigate habitat impacts caused by the
1999 Ocean Trails landslide, Ocean Trails paid the City $87,527 for the use of an additional 11.1
acres of the property for re-vegetation. As a result, a conservation easement was recorded on the
remainder of the 50.7-acre property with the exception of a 100-foot wide fuel modification strip
that runs along the boundary with the City of Los Angeles which has been estimated at 4 acres.
As a result, 48.8 acres of the property is associated with previous mitigation. Of these 48.8 acres,
45.7 acres (excluding the area of rocky shore) will be dedicated to the Preserve. The habitat and
trails on this parcel will be managed by Trump National (Ocean Trails) pursuant to their approved
HCP until their management responsibility is deemed complete by the Wildlife Agencies (i.e.,
CCC, CDFW, and USFWS). Once deemed complete, Trump National (Ocean Trails) will
continue to be responsible for the ongoing management and monitoring of this habitat pursuant to
the Development Agreement with the City. PVPLC may assume the management and monitoring
of Covered Species of this habitat if funded by Trump National (Ocean Trails).
Ocean Front Estates
(51.6 acres within the 71.5-acre open space property)
The City obtained 71.5 acres of open space in March 1999 from the developer of the Oceanfront
Estates
Approximately 10.5 acres of the 71.5 acres of open space was set aside for ornamental
preserved through the issuance of an interim take section 4(d) permit in February 1997, which
allowed the residential development to begin construction. In accordance with the take permit,
within the 61.5 acres of dedicated open space, the developer was required to preserve and enhance
2.32 acres of existing CSS, re-vegetate 30 acres with CSS and preserve 26.9 acres of coastal bluff
deemed complete by the Wildlife Agencies in 2006. In May 2007, the City authorized PVPLC to
manage this habitat area for the City at a cost of $15,000/ year (adjusted for annual inflation). The
cost of this management is paid for by monies from a $750,000 non-wasting endowment
previously established by the Oceanfront Estates developer in 2001 and now held and controlled
by the City. The primary management tasks covered by this endowment are fencing, habitat, and
trail maintenance. Of the 51.6 acres of dedicated open space, 52.6 acres are being dedicated to the
Preserve thereby excluding 9.9 acres of rocky shore.
53
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Properties
(66.9 acres)
As a condition of approval for its development permits, Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP is
required to dedicate a total of 78.8 acres of open space to the City. This acreage includes the 3.9
-t be dedicated to the Preserve since it
includes active uses. Of this dedicated open space, 66.9 acres will be maintained by Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP pursuant to a Development Agreement with the City. Of this, 66.9
acres, 0.4 acre of rocky shore is not considered Covered Species habitat. When the required
habitat restoration and enhancement on the 66.9 acres of open space is deemed to be complete by
the Wildlife Agencies in compliance with the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP and the City
takes ownership of the acreage, the following parcels which make up the 66.9 acres of habitat
associated with previous mitigation will be dedicated to the Preserve (excluding the rocky shore):
Tract 50667
Lot G (East Bluff Preserve) - 7.7 acres
o
Lot I (Coastal Bluff) - 10.1 acres
o
Lot K (Bluff Top Activity Corridor) - 4.5 acres
o
Tract 50666
Lot E (West Bluff Preserve) - 7 acres
o
Lot F (Halfway Point Preserve) - 3.3 acres
o
Lot G (Coastal Bluff) - 24.4 acres
o
Lot I (Bluff Top Wildlife Corridor) - 1 acre
o
Lot K (Bluff Top Public Access) - 8.9 acres
o
Although Trump National (Ocean Trails) is responsible for ensuring the ongoing management
and monitoring of these lands pursuant to the Development Agreement with the City, with the
mutual consent of the City and Trump National (Ocean Trails), the Development Agreement may
be amended to allow the PVPLC to assume the monitoring and management of Covered Species
on these Preserve lands, if funded by Trump National (Ocean Trails).
4.2.2 City-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (1,123)
Forrestal Parcel
(158 acres)
Using state and County funds, the City purchased this parcel for habitat preservation in 1996. A
conservation easement has been recorded on the entire property. In 2004, the City approved the
Forrestal Management Plan, which has been guiding the management of this property. With the
dedication of this land to the Preserve, the Forrestal Management Plan will be superseded by the
PUMP and the management requirements of this NCCP/HCP.
Portuguese Bend Parcel
(409.8 of the 425.9 acres)
Using state, County, City, and private monies raised by the PVPLC, the City purchased this
property in December 2005. Conservation easements in accordance with Section 4.0 of the Plan
will be recorded on 409.8 acres of the Portuguese Bend Parcel while 16.1 acres have been kept
54
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
out of the Preserve to serve as a public-access point to the trail network within the Preserve and
possibly an equestrian facility. About 23.6 acres of the 425.9-acre property is an active road that
does not provide habitat for Covered Species. Thus, 386.2 acres of the 409.8 acres dedicated to
the Preserve will provide Covered Species habitat.
Agua Amarga Canyon
(40.3 acres)
Using state, County, City, and private monies raised by the PVPLC, the City purchased this 40.3-
acre property in December 2005 along with the Portuguese Bend parcel. Conservation easements
have been recorded on this parcel.
Upper Filiorum
(189.8 acres)
Using state, City, and private monies raised by the PVPLC, the City purchased 160 acres of this
privately owned property in December 2009. In addition, the seller donated the remaining 30
acres of the property to the City for dedication to the Preserve as mitigation for any potential
upland impacts on biological resources that may occur as a result of developing the adjacent 27-
acre Plumtree property (see Section 5.3.5 of this Plan). Conservation easements have been
recorded on the 189.8 acres.
Abalone Cove Property
(65.2 acres of the 77-acre parcel)
The Abalone Cove pr
Agency (RDA). The property was acquired by the former RDA from the County of Los Angeles
in 1987. A portion of the property contains a State Ecological Reserve. Excluded from the
Preserve are the Abalone Cove upper parking lot and adjacent picnic area, the lower parking lot
and pre-school/lifeguard area and 7.6 acres of rocky shoreline. The proposed Preserve area has
Lower Point Vicente Property
(3.4 acres of the 27.4 acre parcel)
In 2004, the County deeded the 27.4-
Point Vicente Interpretive Center is located on this property. The only portion of this property that
is included in the Preserve is the coastal bluff area, which is the area between the mean high tide
line and the bluff fencing, excluding 1.6 acres of rocky shore. The Preserve area has been
calculated as 3.4
Pelican Cove (formally the FishAccess) Property
(7.5 acres of the 10.5-acre
parcel)
In 2004, the County deeded the 10.5-acre Pelican Cove property to the City. All of this property,
except for the parking lot area located between the coastal bluff and Palos Verdes Drive South
and 1.8 acres of rocky shore will be included in the Preserve. The Preserve area has been
calculated as 7.5 GIS database.
55
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
Barkentine Property
(98.4 acres)
The 98.4-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). The City proposes to dedicate the entire 98.4-acre property into the Preserve to
ensure its conservation in perpetuity.
Malaga Canyon Property
(61.5 acres)
In February 2014, the City purchased open space in Malaga Canyon from private landowners
using WCB and USFWS Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grant funds. The
City proposes to dedicate the entire 61.5 acres of open space into the Preserve.
Del Cerro Buffer Property
(17.4 acres)
The City purchased this 17.4-
Cerro Park. The entire parcel is proposed to be dedicated to the Preserve as it will serve as a
buffer between Del Cerro Park and the adjoining Filiorum Reserve.
Upper Point Vicente Property
(50.9 4-acre property)
-
acre parcel that was deeded to the City by the Federal government in December 1979 and is
subject to a Program of Utilization, approved by the National Park Service, that dictates that the
parcel be used solely for recreational and open space purposes; a 6-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 2.23-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 73.4 acres that are owned and controlled by the City. In addition,
there is a 3.93-acre parcel that is owned by the U.S. Coast Guard and surrounded by the City
parcels. These City and Coast Guard parcels total 77.3
maps, 50.9 4-acre property is proposed to be dedicated to the Preserve.
Excluded from the Preserve are the 3.93-acre Coast Guard parcel (until formally included in the
Preserve by the Federal government) and a 22.45-acre, City-owned area that constitutes the level,
disturbed, developed portion of the property. The 22.45-acre area includes the entirety of the 6-
acre property, the entirety of the 2.23-acre parcel, and 14.22 acres of the 65.12-acre parcel that is
subject to the Program of Utilization.
Crestridge Property
(16.8 acres)
The City purchased a 19.6-acre parcel at the corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard
in 2000 for the purpose of developing an affordable housing project. In March 2009, the City
approved an affordable housing project on the site and in doing so subdivided the property into
56
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
two parcels. The 2.9-acre development parcel accommodates the affordable housing project,
including a fuel modification zone, and the 16.8-acre adjoining parcel will be dedicated to the
Preserve.
Shoreline Park
(4 acres of the 50.7-acre property)
As explained in Section 4.2.1, 45.7 acres of the property are presently conserved as mitigation for
the adjacent Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. The remaining 4 acres of the City property will
also be dedicated to the Preserve.
4.3 PVPLC-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (20.7 acres):
Lunada Canyon
(20.7 acres)
Lunada Canyon was once prime land for development. A gift to the PVPLC in 1992 from the
E.K. Zuckerman family created the Land Conservancys first natural area. Lunada Canyon is
proposed to be dedicated to the Preserve by the PVPLC. PVPLC has implemented habitat
restoration grants, which have resulted in the creation of three acres of coastal sage scrub and a
willow wetland on the property.
4.4 Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication to the
Preserve (170.7 acres)
The following 170.7 acres of publicly and privately owned properties have been identified as Targeted
Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve, but are not considered essential to the proposed
Preserve design (see Figure 4-3). Adding the Targeted Lands properties to the Preserve will require
approval from the underlying fee owner, the recordation of acceptable conservation easements (except for
properties in Federal ownership), and available funding for active management by the PVPLC. A
memorandum of understanding will be sought by the City and PVPLC for management of Targeted
Lands under Federal ownership. Since these contributions are not confirmed with the property owners, the
acreage is not included in the current Preserve design and is not counted as mitigation lands under the
incidental take permits. The City and/or PVPLC, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, may also
apply for a Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grant that would complement the
NCCP/HCP.
57
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
114-3. Properties Identified for Possible Inclusion to the Preserve
4.4.1 Coast Guard Upper Point Vicente Property (3.9 acres)
It is possible that the Federal government may wish to dedicate a portion or the entirety of the 3.9-acre
Coast Guard property to the Preserve. This property has been targeted because it is located in Upper Point
Vicente and is almost completely surrounded by City-owned Preserve land.
4.4.2 Coast Guard Lighthouse Property (19.1 acres)
It is possible that the Federal government may wish to dedicate a portion or the entirety of the 19.1-acre
Coast Guard property to the Preserve. This property has been targeted because it is located on the bluff at
Point Vicente and is bound on two sides by the City-owned bluff property that is to be dedicated to the
Preserve.
58
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.4.3 Terranea Resort Bluff Face (10 acres of the 102.1-acre parcel)
Although not required to do so by any conditions of approval, at some time in the future the owner of the
Terranea Resort Hotel Project may wish to dedicate the bluff areas of the property to the Preserve. The
possible Preserve area has been calculated as 10 GIS database. This land has been
Pelican
Cove Property.
59
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
124-4. Reserve Areas (Management Units) of Preserve
60
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
134-4A. Vista Del Norte Management Unit
61
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
144-4B. Agua Amarga Management Unit
62
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
154-4C. Ocean Trails Management Unit
63
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
164-4D. Portuguese Bend Management Unit
64
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
174-4E. Abalone Cove Management Unit
65
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
184-4F. Three Sisters Management Unit
66
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
194-4G. San Ramon Management Unit
67
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
204-4H. Forrestal Management Unit
68
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
214-4I. Vicente Bluffs Management Unit
69
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
224-4J. Alta Vicente Management Unit
70
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
234-4K. Filiorum Management Unit
71
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
244-4L. Malaga Canyon Management Unit
72
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.4.4 Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP 6.6 acres of the 9.7 acres of
privately owned open space (open space lots not to be owned by the City)
In addition to the 66.9 acres of open space that will be deeded to the City and dedicated to the Preserve as
described in Section 4.3 of the Plan, Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP is required to maintain two open
space lots under private ownership. One is the 5.3-acre Forrestal Draw (Canyon) parcel and the other is
the 4.4-acre Upper La Rotunda Canyon parcel. According to the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP, 6.6
acres of these privately held lots must be maintained by the property owner as protected habitat. Since
these two lots are to remain privately owned they cannot be formally dedicated to the Preserve without
portions of these lots to the Preserve. These lands are targeted due to their close proximity to the habitat
areas within the project site that are proposed to be dedicated to the Preserve.
4.4.5 Lower Filiorum Parcel a minimum of 40 acres within the 94.2-acre
Point View
The inclusion of Lower Filiorum acreage in the Preserve as depicted in Figure 5-3 will be a condition of
approval for any development project subsequently approved for the Lower Filiorum property, as
described in Section 5.3.1 of the NCCP/HCP. If no approvals are obtained, there will be no obligation on
the part of present or future property owner to dedicate these lands to the Preserve. The intent of the 40-
acre dedication required for future development of the Lower Filiorum property is to maintain a viable
wildlife corridor through the Preserve after the development is approved and constructed.
4.4.6 Homeowner Association Contributions (76.1 acres)
The City has identified seven local HOAs that own open space that could add habitat value to the
Preserve. The City has targeted 76.1 acres for dedication to the Preserve of the 140.9 total acres of open
space owned by the seven identified HOAs. Dedication of said open space into the Preserve would be
voluntary unless an HOA proposes a project that will result in habitat impacts, in which case, a dedication
of land may be required. The City may also accept the per acre mitigation fee applied to covered
miscellaneous private projects within the City described in Section 5.3.4 of the Plan in lieu of dedication
to the Preserve for project mitigation. The identified HOAs are listed below with the portion of their
common space acreage that will be sought for inclusion into the Preserve. The available common open
space acreages listed below have been calculated using th
the total amount of common open space that each HOA has since they exclude areas that lack habitat
value and areas that are within 200 feet of a property line or roadway, so as not to interfere with any
future fuel modification that may be required.
Panorama Estates HOA 7.4 acres of a 11.3-acre common open space area
Portuguese Bend Club 5.3 acres of a 19.5-acre common open space area
Sea Breeze HOA 18.9 acres of a 22.8-acre common open space area
73
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
Peninsula Pointe HOA 14.4 acres of a 27.8-acre common open space area
Sunset Ridge HOA 7.8 acres of a 19.5-acre common open space area
Seacliff Hills HOA 6.2 acres of a 12-acre common open space area
RPV Estates HOA 16.1 acres of a 28-acre common open space area.
The City and PVPLC will work with these HOAs to sign agreements to include a portion of their open
space lots within the Preserve to be actively managed by the PVPLC. Because they currently are not
accessible for active habitat management, they are not included in the Preserve. If formal written
agreements can be reached with the property owners to allow management consistent with this
NCCP/HCP, these lands will be added to the Preserve. Until such agreements are obtained; however,
these lands are categorized as Neutral Lands that cannot be developed except for compatible uses
identified in this NCCP/HCP. These lands can be incorporated into the Preserve system through the
"Additions to the Preserve process" (Section 6.8.3 of the Plan).
4.4.7 Private lands adjacent to Agua Amarga Canyon (14 acres)
There are two privately owned open space properties that abut the eastern end of City owned Agua
Amarga Canyon property that could add habitat value to the Preserve. One is a 5.2-acre property referred
to as Windport Canyon South and the other is an 8.8-acre property referred to as Windport Canyon North.
Since both properties are privately owned, inclusion into the Preserve would have to be agreed to by the
respective property owners.
4.4.8 A portion of 3787 Coolheights Drive (1 acre)
As mitigation for CSS impacts resulting from the development of this property with a new single family
residence, the property owner agreed to record a conservation easement on 1.06 acres of the subject
property in October 2003. This conservation easement area has been targeted for inclusion to the Preserve
-4H). Inclusion
of the 1.06-acre portion of this property into the Preserve will have to be agreed upon by the property
owner.
74
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
44-1. Public and Private Lands Contributed to the Preserve
Parcel Acres Being
Acreage*** Contributed to Preserve
Previous Mitigation Lands
Switchbacks parcel (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP related) 94.5 94.5
Shoreline Park (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP related ) 50.7 45.7
Oceanfront Estates (4d) 71.5 51.6
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP related 78.8 66.9
Subtotal 258.7
City Lands
Forrestal 158 158
*Portuguese Bend 425.9 409.8
Agua Amarga 40.3 40.3
**Upper Filiorum 189.8 189.8
Abalone Cove 77 65.2
Lower Point Vicente 27.4 3.4
Pelican Cove 10.5 7.5
Barkentine 98.4 98.4
Malaga Canyon 61.5 61.5
Del Cerro buffer 17.4 17.4
Upper Point Vicente 73.4 50.9
Crestridge 16.8 16.8
Shoreline Park 50.7 4
1,123
Subtotal
PVPLC Lands
Lunada Canyon 20.7 20.7
NCCP Preserve Total 1,402.4
Other Public/Private Lands that may be Contributed
Coast Guard (Upper Pt. Vicente) 3.9 3.9
Coast Guard (Lower Pt. Vicente) 19.1 19.1
Terranea Resort Bluff Face 102.1 10
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP related 9.7 6.6
***Point View 94.2 40
7 Identified HOAs 140.9 76.1
Lands Adjacent to Agua Amarga Canyon 14 14
Portion of 3787 Coolheights Drive 1 1
Subtotal 170.7
NCCP Preserve and Other Lands Total 1,573.1
*386.2 acres of the 409.8 acres dedicated to the Preserve will provide Covered Species habitat (see Section 4.4.2).
**30 acres dedicated as mitigation for the Plumtree private development (see Section 5.3.5).
***40 acres of functional/connected habitat required for any development on the Lower Filiorum site (see Section 5.3.1).
75
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.5 Neutral Lands
Although not a part of the Preserve, Neutral Lands are currently undevelopable lands that add biological
function (e.g., facilitate wildlife movement) and value to the Preserve. Approximately 1,694.2 acres of
Neutral Lands exist outside the Preserve boundary (Figure 4-5). As summarized in Table 4-2, these
Neutral Lands contain 670.9 acres of natural vegetation of which 430.2 acres is CSS habitat. The Neutral
Lands designation has been applied to privately owned properties in the City that contain development
constraints due to existing City zoning code or other restrictions. The designation of these properties as
Neutral Lands is not intended to prohibit development on these properties but only to recognize the
other legal constraint. By definition, Neutral Lands are those areas that are considered to be extreme
slopes (35% or greater slope), are zoned Open Space Hazard, or contain deed-restricted open space. If any
of these three conditions exist on a private property, then the area has been designated Neutral Lands. The
Neutral Lands designation is noted in the NCCP/HCP because these properties will likely remain as open
space, thus contributing to the function of the Preserve. Neutral Lands are not included in the Preserve
and therefore are not subject to the restrictions that apply to properties within the Preserve. The Neutral
Lands are mapped solely to provide an estimation of their area and location relative to the actual Preserve.
As discussed in Section 4.4 of the Plan, the PVPLC and the City will work to obtain conservation
easements over some of these lands and add as many of these parcels to the Preserve as is possible.
These Neutral Lands can be placed into the following three categories: Extreme Slopes on Private
Property, Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard, and Deed-Restricted Lands.
4.5.1 Extreme Slopes on Private Property
The City considers natural or graded slopes with a gradient in excess of 35% to be extreme slopes. The
slopes. Extreme slopes occur mostly in
undeveloped canyons and developed residential tracts scattered throughout the City. Most of the
4.5.2 Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard
designates certain areas of the City with a zoning designation of Open Space
Hazard. Areas with such zoning are characterized by natural slopes exceeding 35%, areas of downslope
movement, areas unstable for development, areas where grading or development may endanger the public
development within this zoning district is strictly prohibited. In order to remove areas from this zoning
district, a zone change application would need to be approved by the City Council upon finding that
evidence exists that any of the characteristics of the zoning district, as described above, no longer exist.
76
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.5.3 Deed-Restricted Lands
Certain private properties in the City contain deed restrictions which prohibit any activity and/or
development. As such, said properties must remain as open space. In most cases, the deed restrictions
stem from physical constraints on the property such as steep slopes or flood hazards. In addition, there are
certain residential developments in the City that were approved with the condition that a certain amount
of open space be set aside and conserved. Such open spaces are typically owned and maintained by the
respective HOA. Most of the HOA lands also contain extreme slopes and lands zoned as open space
hazard.
77
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
254-5. Neutral Lands
78
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
54-2. Acreage in Preserve, Neutral Lands, and City Mitigation Lands by Vegetation Community
Vegetation Category Preserve Neutral Lands Lands Outside Grand
Preserve/Neutral Lands Total
Agriculture 2.9 0.2 14.6 17.6
Cliff Face 7.4 1.3 0.0 8.8
Coastal Sage Scrub 582.2 354.6 89.8 1,026.8
Developed 51.8 967.6 4,964.9 5,984.5
Disturbed Vegetation 30.8 14.9 119.2 164.9
Exotic Woodland 37.5 14.5 23.5 75.4
Grassland 470.9 216.5 262.8 950.2
Riparian Scrub 2.3 0.1 0.2 2.5
Rocky Shore/Intertidal 7.3 39.3 12.1 58.8
Ruderal Habitat 54.5 9.8 22.7 86.9
Saltbrush Scrub 6.6 0.6 0.0 7.3
Southern Cactus Scrub 66.6 28.2 4.9 99.7
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 81.6 46.7 4.8 133.2
Grand Total 1,402.4 1,694.3 5,519.6 8,616.6
*Neutral Lands are not subject to NCCP/HCP management requirements.
79
SECTION
Proposed Preserve Design
4.6 Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential
A significant portion of the undeveloped lands within the Preserve support non-native plant communities.
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 Preserve.
As funding becomes available, these communities will be restored to native plant communities to increase
the local habitat carrying capacity of Covered Species.
Current habitat restoration programs within the proposed Preserve include 30 acres of CSS re-vegetation
on the Oceanfront Estates property and 93.6 acres of CSS re-vegetation
Shoreline Park properties associated with the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. These are pre-existing
programs that do not
habitat acreage. The City and PVPLC are committed to additional enhancement of the Preserve with a
long-term habitat restoration program as detailed in Section 7.5 of the Plan and the Targeted Exotic
Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP) (see Section 7.6 of the Plan).
Additional restoration work, not required under the Plan, may occur as additional grant funds or
mitigation funds become available from projects outside of the Plan Area. Over the life of this
NCCP/HCP, the amount of sage scrub habitats within the Preserve could exceed the current inventory of
CSS within the Plan Area. Within the Preserve, there are 562.8 acres of land consisting of disturbed
vegetation (54.5 acres), non-native grassland (470.9 acres), and exotic woodland (37.5 acres) that have a
high to moderate potential of being successfully restored, and these lands may be restored as funds
become available. The priority for restoration will be to enlarge existing patches of CSS in the larger
blocks of conserved lands within the Preserve that support or have the potential to support Covered
Species and enhance 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.
80
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
5.0 COVERED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
5.1 Summary of Covered Projects and Activities
This NCCP/HCP assumes incidental take coverage for 17 Covered City Projects and Activities (see
Section 5.2), five private projects (see Section 5.3), and other specific activities in the Preserve (see
Section 5.4), provided that the projects and activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact
Avoidance and Minimization Measures described in Section 5.5 of the NCCP/HCP. -
Ations that
occur repeatedly in one location or throughout the Plan Area. dedication and management to
the Preserve of 1,123 acres, including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7
acres of Previous Mitigation Lands, and 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the necessary
mitigation for CSS and grassland for Covered City and Miscellaneous Private Projects and Activities
(both outside and inside the Preserve). Any potential impacts to properties within the Plan Area that were
previously acquired with nontraditional section 6 HCP Land Acquisition grant funding (61.5 acres in
Malaga Canyon) and funding provided the State will be subject to review and approval by the Wildlife
Agencies to confirm consistency with the section 6 grant program and requirements associated with other
State funding. All Covered Activities will be reviewed by the City to ensure their consistency with the
NCCP/HCP. As they are proposed, the projects will be forwarded to and may be reviewed by the Wildlife
Agencies during the applicable CEQA process (or other process) for consistency with this NCCP/HCP.
The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are
anticipated to impact a maximum of 318.7 acres of non-native grassland and 120.5 acres of CSS. Of these
total impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the impacted CSS (52%) and 155.8 acres of the impacted
non-native grassland (49%) will occur within the Preserve. Included in the CSS loss are losses associated
with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be minimal. No
more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub
could be lost within the Preserve associated with Covered City Projects/Activities. The City will mitigate
these impacts by dedicating land to the City lands to the Preserve and providing restoration and
management funding for the Preserve (see Section 8.0). Of the 737 acres of CSS and associated
vegetation communities within the Preserve, a maximum of 62.5 acres (<9%) could be impacted by
Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 674.5 acres (92%) of CSS in the Preserve to be
perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of 155.8 acres
(33%) could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 315.1 acres.
Through Plan implementation non-native grassland within the Preserve may be restored to native habitat.
Impacts to specific vegetation communities within and outside of the Preserve are described in individual
project descriptions (Section 5.2).
The Covered Private Projects are proposed to occur outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a
maximum of 262.8 acres of grassland and 99.5 acres of CSS. These impacts as summarized below and
will be mitigated by each project proponent. Impacts to specific vegetation communities are described in
individual project descriptions (Section 5.3). The total loss of habitat associated with Covered Project and
81
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Activities are quantified above. The effects of the habitat loss to the Covered Species are described in the
conservation analysis in Appendix B of the Plan.
Within the Coastal Zone, permissible impacts and mitigation to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
(ESHA), as defined in Appendix F, will not only be consistent with the NCCP/HCP, but will also be
the Coastal Zone will be mitigated within the Coastal Zone.
The NCCP/HCP area will be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404, and California Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 et seq. permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development.
5.2 Covered City Projects and Activities
The following proposed Covered City Projects are addressed by this NCCP/HCP (see summary on Table
5-1 and Figure 5-2) and will be encumbered by conservation easements which are to be recorded on City-
owned properties within the Preserve pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Plan. All mitigation for Covered City
Projects/Activities will occur within the Preserve.
5.2.1 Altamira Canyon Drainage Project
The City has identified the need for a project within the portion of Altamira Canyon that traverses the
Portuguese Bend landslide area to address drainage and erosion and to prevent water from percolating
result in the loss of 2.5
acres of CSS habitat and 3 acres of non-native grassland. Point locations for one gnatcatcher and one PVB
hostplant occur in the project vicinity. Although this project is not being proposed at this time, it is likely
that the project will be actively pursued during the life of the NCCP/HCP.
5.2.2 Dewatering Wells
The installation of dewatering wells by the City in areas affected by the Portuguese Bend and Abalone
Cove landslides has proven to be an effective method of slowing down landslide movement by removing
groundwater from the slide plane. It is anticipated that new wells will be installed by the City in the future
in or near areas of existing CSS habitat and grassland throughout landslide areas. It is estimated a
maximum of 2.5 acres of CSS and 2.5 acres of non-native grassland will be impacted in the Preserve. A
point location for one gnatcatcher occurs in the project vicinity.
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
When and where required, landslide abatement activities within the Preserve and throughout the City are
sometimes necessary by the City or other public agencies to safeguard existing roads, trails and drainage
systems. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the installation and maintenance of groundwater
monitoring wells and GPS stations (with associated equipment such as pumps, electrical connections,
drainage pipes and access pathways) for the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of
82
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
fissures, the re-contouring of slide debris, the creation and maintenance of emergency access roads, and
geologic investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand (with allowance
for access of any necessary mechanical equipment). Where practicable, areas of temporary CSS
disturbance will be promptly re-vegetated with CSS habitat after completion of abatement activities (see
Section 6.0 of the Plan for details about the restoration plan). It is estimated that such landslide abatement
measures will result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-
native grassland. It is estimated that two-thirds of the impacts will occur within the Preserve. Point
locations for two gnatcatchers and one island green dudleya occur in areas potentially subject to
landslides.
265-1. Brush Management in Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
83
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
275-2. Locations of City Projects Covered by the NCCP/HCP
5.2.4 Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas
The repair of existing drainage systems becomes necessary by the City in landslide areas 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 will result in the combined loss
of a maximum of 10 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that two-
thirds of the impacts will occur within the Preserve. Point locations for two gnatcatchers, two aphanisma,
one south coast saltscale, and one island green dudleya occur in areas potentially subject to landslides.
5.2.5 Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Project
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 (PVDE). To address these drainage
deficiencies, the City proposes to carry out several drainage improvement projects over an extended
84
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
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 will result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of
non-native grassland outside the Preserve. Point locations for Covered species are not currently known
from the proposed project area.
5.2.6 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements
The City anticipates that there will be the need to perform regular maintenance, repairs and upgrades on
drainage systems in the City not located within the landslide areas or the Palos Verdes Drive East
drainage project area. It is anticipated that the repair and improvement of these drainage systems will be
necessary from time to time due to unexpected storm damage or due to the old age of the drainage
systems. It is also anticipated that some of the projects may necessitate the creation and/or maintenance of
retention basins, debris basins, and access roads. It is estimated that such activity could result in the
combined loss of a maximum of 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres of grassland in the Plan area. Of
this total, it is estimated that 6.6 acres of CSS (33%) and 20 acres of grassland (33%) impacts will occur
in the Preserve. Point locations for three gnatcatchers, two cactus wrens, two PVB hostplants, one ESB
hostplant, one aphanisma, one island green dudleya and one woolly seablite occur in the vicinity of the
proposed project(s).
5.2.7 Abalone Cove Beach Project
The City has identified a need to improve public access and beach amenities at the existing Abalone Cove
beach site. The project may involve 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 may cause the loss
of 1 acre of CSS habitat and 2 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve. Any CSS re-vegetation
shall be performed on site within the coastal zone of the Preserve. A point location for one island green
dudleya occurs in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although this project is not being proposed at this
time, it is possible that the project or a similar variation will be actively pursued during the life of this
NCCP/HCP.
5.2.8 Rancho Palos Verdes Trails Plan Implementation
The Network Plan addresses existing and proposed trails outside and within the Preserve.
The portion of the Trails Network Plan that addresses trails within the Preserve is a part of the Public Use
Management Plan (PUMP), which is a Covered City Project described further in Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1
of this Plan. It is anticipated that implementation of the Network Plan, which includes the
Preserve Trails Plan component (see Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1.1), will result in the loss of some CSS and
grassland 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 occur within habitat areas. Although it is anticipated that trail widening could occur as a
85
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
result of trail use over time, trails will be monitored for signs of widening, and managed to remedy the
degradation (see Section 9.2.2.2 of the Plan). It is estimated that such activities will result in the combined
loss of a maximum of 4 acres of CSS habitat and 10 acres of grassland. It is estimated that one-half of
these impacts will occur within the Preserve (2 acres of CSS habitat and 5 acres of grassland). Point
locations for two PVB hostplants, one ESB hostplant, one island green dudleya, and one woolly seablite
occur in the vicinity of the Preserve Trails Plan.
5.2.9 Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair
It is anticipated that the City will undertake a major stormwater project in the Lower San Ramon Canyon
to reverse the effects of erosion on the streambed in an attempt to reduce the active Tarapaca landslide
from blocking water flow. 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. The project will reduce the likelihood of reactivating the South Shores
landslide, which could result in the loss of the Switchbacks on Palos Verdes Drive East. It is estimated
that the project will result in the loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS and 15 acres of grassland. It is
estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur in the Preserve. One point location for one gnatcatcher
occurs in the project vicinity.
5.2.10 Lower Point Vicente
Pursuant to may develop a public recreational/educational
project to augment the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center located on a parcel of City-owned land
referred to as Lower Point Vicente. The property is located between the Point Vicente Lighthouse
property owned by the Coast Guard and the Oceanfront Estates residential development project. It is
anticipated that development of the site may result in a maximum loss of 1.5 acres of CSS and 11.2 acres
of non-native grassland outside of the Preserve. One point location for one ESB hostplant occurs in the
vicinity of the proposed project.
5.2.11 Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair
The City anticipates that due to continual landslide movement in the Portuguese Bend landslide area,
there will be a need to perform repair work on the portion of Palos Verdes Drive South that traverses the
landslide, including but not limited to relocating the roadway if necessary. It is anticipated that such road
repair activity may result in a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat loss and 15 acres of non-native
grassland loss within the Preserve. One point location for one PVB hostplant occurs in the vicinity of the
proposed project.
5.2.12 Upper Point Vicente
civic/cultural/community center at Upper Point Vicente Park. The project may result in a loss of 2 acres
of CSS and 22 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur within
86
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
the Preserve. Point locations for one gnatcatcher and one cactus wren occur in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
5.2.13 Preserve Fuel Modification
The City and PVPLC are required to perform annual fuel modification for fire prevention purposes within
the Preserve by the Weed Abatement Division of the Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural
Commissioner. The location and amount of fuel modification throughout the Preserve has been
determined by the Los Angeles Weed Abatement Division in conjunction with the Los Angeles County
Fire Department (see Figure 5-1) and is based on factors such as proximity of structures, steepness of
slope, and fuel load. The methods for carrying out the required fuel modification are described in Section
9.2.2 of the Plan. The required City fuel modification is anticipated to result in a loss of 12 acres of CSS
and 18 acres of non-native grassland in the Preserve. Changes to fuel modification that would result in
greater impacts than depicted in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 would require additional review by the Wildlife
Agencies and PVPLC, potentially including amending the Plan pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Plan.
5.2.14 Utility Maintenance and Repair
The installation, maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure facilities by the City, other
public agencies and/or utility companies, such as sewers, water, cable, telephone, gas, power, and storm
drains will occur throughout the City on an as-needed basis. Installation of new commercial antenna
towers is not allowed in the Preserve. The installation, maintenance, and repair of these activities are
anticipated to permanently impact up to 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of non-native grassland throughout
the life of the permits. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur within the Preserve.
5.2.15 Unimproved City Park Projects
In addition to its developed parks, the City has a number of unimproved park sites that may be improved
in the future with recreational amenities. These unimproved parks sites include, but are not limited to,
17.5-acre Grandview Park, 18.2-acre Lower Hesse Park, 4.7-acre Vanderlip Park, and 1-acre Martingale
Park. It is anticipated that development of these specific park facilities and any other unimproved City
park facilities will result in loss of a maximum of 10 acres of CSS habitat and 20 acres of non-native
grassland outside of the Preserve.
5.2.16 Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements
The City anticipates that there will be the need to perform regular maintenance, repairs, and upgrades on
the drainage system within the City-owned Malaga Canyon open space. It is anticipated that the repair
and improvement of these drainage systems will be necessary from time to time due to unexpected storm
damage or due to the old age of the drainage systems. It is also anticipated that some of the projects may
necessitate the creation and/or maintenance of retention basins, detention basins, debris basins, and access
roads. It is estimated that such activity could result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS
habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve. Any potential impacts will be offset to
87
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
ensure that the biological values of the properties are maintained consistent with the section 6 grant
funding used to acquire the property and will be subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies.
5.2.17 Other Miscellaneous City Projects
It is foreseeable that during the life of this NCCP/HCP the City will undertake a City project similar in
character and impacts to those listed in Table 5-1 that is not specifically listed here as a Covered
Project/Activity. Such projects shall be considered Covered Projects provided the total loss of CSS habitat
and non-native grassland for said Miscellaneous City Projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat
and 60 acres of non-native grassland as identified in Table 5-1. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts
will occur within the Preserve.
65-1. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities
Total Habitat Loss Habitat Loss In
(Acres) Preserve (Acres)
City Project Name
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0 0
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
5. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 5.0 15.0 0 0
6. Misc. Drainage Improvements 20.0 60.0 6.6 20.0
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
8. *RPV Trails Plan Implementation 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 5.0 15.0 2.5 7.5
10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0 0
11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
12. Upper Pt. Vicente 2.0 22.0 1.0 11.0
13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18 12.0 18
14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0
15. Unimproved City Park Projects 10.0 20.0 0 0
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
17. Other Miscellaneous City projects 20.0 60.0 10.0 30.0
**Total Acreage of Habitat Loss
120.5318.762.5155.8
*Part of the PUMP, a Covered City Project (see Section 9.2 of this Plan)
**Total habitat loss (CSS and Grassland) is 439.2 acres, of which 218.3 acres (50%) would occur in the Preserve. Included in the
CSS loss are losses associated with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be
minimal. No more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost
within the Preserve associated with Covered City Projects and Activities.
5.3 Covered Private Projects and Activities
The following proposed Private Projects and Activities are covered (Covered Private Projects and
Activities) by this NCCP/HCP (see Table 5-2 and Figure 5-4 below).
88
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development
If any type of development project is approved on the 94.2-acre Lower Filorum property, also known as
the Point View property, the owner will be required as a condition of approval to dedicate to the Preserve
a minimum of 40 acres of the 94.22-acre property, including a minimum 300-foot-wide functional
wildlife corridor on the southern edge of the property connecting to the Abalone Cove portion of the
Preserve, as depicted in Figure 5-3, as mitigation for impacts to biological resources. Any required fuel
modification for the proposed project will not encroach into the area dedicated to the Preserve, including
the 300-foot wildlife corridor. The City will work with the landowner to prepare a development
agreement which will include a funding program for management and monitoring the lands to be
dedicated to the Preserve.
The intent of the 40-acre dedication and 300-foot-wide minimum wildlife corridor required for this
project is to maintain a viable wildlife corridor through the Preserve after the proposed project is
approved and constructed. Based on a biology report prepared by NRC in 2003, the Point View property
is comprised of 70 acres of non-native grassland, 2.5 acres of CSS, 9.4 acres of disturbed CSS, 6.9 acres
of exotic woodland, and 5.2 acres of disturbed vegetation. The minimum of 40 acres of dedicated
Preserve shall 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 94.22-
acre Lower Filiorum parcel.
The inclusion of Lower Filiorum acreage in the Preserve will be a condition of approval for any
development project subsequently approved for the Lower Filiorum property. If no approvals are
obtained, there will be no obligation on the part of present or future property owner to dedicate these
lands to the Preserve. Likewise, identifying these lands for potential inclusion in the Preserve in the text
and maps of this NCCP/HCP does not constitute approval of development on the Lower Filiorum
property.
89
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
5-3. Potential Preserve for Lower Filiorum
28
90
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
5-4. Locations of Private Projects Covered by NCCP/HCP
29
5.3.2 Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading
Because of its proximity to the active Klondike Canyon Landslide, the homeowners association of the
gated residential community known as the Portuguese Bend Club may need to perform remedial grading
on its property to prevent damage to its roads and to residents homes. It is anticipated that the remedial
grading activity will take place on property owned by the association, located on the western end of the
community, or on the adjoining City-owned property. It is anticipated that the remedial grading activity
will result in a loss of 3 acres of CSS habitat and 10 acres of grassland. One point location for the cactus
wren occurs in the vicinity of this project. Mitigation for this Covered Private Project is addressed by the
City conveying and managing 1,123 acres to the Preserve. For the Private Projects to be covered under
into
the Cit
for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grassland (as described
in Section 2.2.1 of the Plan) occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. This Covered Private Project may
91
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
mitigate by one of the following two methods: 1) Dedication of additional acreage to the Preserve that
will add to the biological function of the Preserve (the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife
Agencies is required for acreage to be dedicated to the Preserve) and the property owner must provide
management funding for the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar
method; or 2) Payment of a Mitigation Fee to the Cit
8.2.1.1 in an amount of $50,000 per acre for the total mitigation acreage required (e.g., 3 acres of CSS
impact = $150,000.00). The Mitigation Fee must be paid to the City prior to the remedial grading taking
place. The PVPLC and the City have determined that $50,000 (in 2015 dollars) is the cost to restore and
maintain 1 acre of native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed periodically, no less than
every three years, by the City and, if necessary, adjusted to account for inflation and/or higher than
expected restoration and management costs.
5.3.3 Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the City
For new private development projects on vacant land in the City, all fuel modification required by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department and/or Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner
as a result of such new projects will occur outside of the Preserve unless the City and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department and/or Agricultural Commissioner agree that no other options exist. For existing
private development, the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of
Agricultural Commissioner have reviewed the existing private development that abuts the Preserve and
have determined the amount of brush clearance needed within the Preserve to provide the code-required
fuel modification zone for the protection of existing structures outside the Preserve (see Figure 5-1).
In situations where fuel modification must occur in the Preserve, impacts are already addressed by the
City dedicating 1,402.4 acres to the Preserve. For the Private P
vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the project applicant paying a
Mitigation Fee Habitat Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a
0.5:1mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native
grassland (as described in Section 2.2.1 of the Plan) occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. Removal of
cacti and other succulents within any required fuel clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to preserve
habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other Covered Species. The total Mitigation Fee payment required
is calculated by multiplying the total acreage impacted by the required ratio for each habitat type. The
Mitigation Fee payment shall be provided by the property owner benefiting from the fuel modification by
one of the following two methods: 1) Dedication of additional acreage to the Preserve that will add to the
biological function of the Preserve (the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies is
required for acreage to be dedicated to the Preserve) and the property owner must provide management
funding for the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method; or 2)
Payment of a Mitigation Fee to the Habitat Restoration Fund described in section 8.2.1.1 in an
amount of $50,000 per acre for the total mitigation acreage required (e.g., 3 acres of CSS impact =
$150,000.00). The Mitigation Fee must be paid to the City prior to the fuel modification taking place. The
PVPLC and the City have determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the cost to restore and maintain 1
92
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
acre of native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and if necessary
adjusted to account for inflation and/or higher than expected restoration and management costs.
The anticipated loss from fuel modification resulting from Covered Private Projects/Activities within the
Preserve is not expected to exceed 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of grassland. Any loss of CSS beyond 10
acres and 20 acres of grassland is not a NCCP/HCP Covered Project/Activity.
5.3.4 Miscellaneous Private Projects Throughout the City Outside of the
Preserve
The City may issue a permit for any Private Project in the City which impacts CSS habitat and is not
specifically identified in this NCCP/HCP as a Covered Activity provided that the project impacts are
located outside of the Preserve and the impacts are mitigated by the project applicant as described in this
section.
Impacts to CSS shall be mitigated by the project applicant using a 1:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS.
Because fire is a natural component of the CSS vegetation community, under normal circumstances
natural re-growth of habitat is expected, and any land that once had CSS will be considered CSS for the
purposes of this Covered Activity. The mitigation shall be provided by the project applicant by the
payment of a Mitigation Fee to the Habitat Restoration Fund discussed in section 8.2.1.1 in the
amount of $50,000 per acre based on the total mitigation acreage required. The Mitigation Fee must be
paid to the City prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever comes first. The PVPLC
and the City have determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the amount that is needed to restore and
maintain 1 acre of native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and,
if necessary, adjusted to account for inflation and/or higher-than-expected restoration and management
costs.
There are 23.6 acres of exotic woodland, 22.6 acres of disturbed vegetation and 262.8 acres of grassland
located outside of the Preserve or Neutral Lands that will be impacted by potential development with no
mitigation required by individual property owners under this NCCP/HCP because the loss of such lands
would not affect any of the Covered Species. Furthermore, there are 99.5 acres of CSS habitat outside of
both the Preserve and Neutral Lands which include the 27.7 acres of CSS that would be impacted by the
other four specific private projects discussed in this Section 5.3 of the Plan. This would result in the
potential for a total of 71.8 acres of CSS habitat outside the Preserve and Neutral Lands to be lost as a
result of these miscellaneous private projects throughout the City. Since this CSS and grassland exist
outside the Preserve and Neutral Lands and is not targeted for conservation, this Plan is assumes that all
of this habitat could be lost over the life of this Plan as a result of miscellaneous private projects without
affecting preserve design and/or species persistence.
5.3.5 Plumtree Development
If a development project is approved on the 27-acre Plumtree property and the owner opts to rely on this
NCCP/HCP to mitigate any impacts to biological resources caused by the proposed development project,
93
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
all impacts to biological resources addressed under this Plan on the 27-acre Plumtree property will be
considered adequately mitigated by the conveyance of 30 acres of functional and connected habitat on the
Upper Filiorum property (190 total acres) in 2009, as described in Section 4.2.1 of the Plan, which has
been dedicated to the Preserve with the appropriate conservation easement (see Appendix G to this Plan).
Any required fuel modification for a proposed project on the Plumtree parcel will not encroach into the
area dedicated to the Preserve. Based on a biology report prepared by NRC on August 14, 2007, the 27-
acre Plumtree Parcel contains 19.7 acres of non-native grassland and 2.8 acres of disturbed CSS. In
addition, one pair of gnatcatchers was observed.
The donation of the 30-acre parcel by the property owner and its subsequent dedication to the Preserve as
mitigation for any future upland biological impacts does not constitute nor imply approval of any
subsequent development project on the Plumtree property by the City or determination of consistency
with the NCCP/HCP by the Wildlife Agencies.
75-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities
HL()
ABITAT OSS ACRES
CPP CSS G
OVERED RIVATE ROJECTRASSLAND
1. Lower Filiorum Development 11.9 70.0
2. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading 3.0 10.0
3. Fuel Modification for Private Projects 10.0 20.0
4. Miscellaneous Private Projects throughout the City 71.8 143.1
5. Plumtree Development 2.8 19.7
Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 99.5 262.8
5.4 Other Covered Activities
The following Covered Activities are expected to occur in the Preserve due to short- and long-term
operation and maintenance requirements or emergency situations conducted by the City, other public
agencies, or utility companies seeking Third-Party Participant status. These activities are not expected to
involve the permanent loss of habitat. All of these activities listed below may not occur without first
notifying the City. Any activity not identified below as a Covered Activity may not be initiated in the
Preserve without prior notification to the PVPLC and concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. The
following Covered Activities shall adhere to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures
for Covered Activities outlined in Section 5.5 of the Plan as part of all operations and authorizations to
precede work, where applicable:
5.4.1 Operation and Maintenance
Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of Covered
Species and/or habitat. The regular maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities and
existing access roads within the Preserve that does not result in the loss of Covered Species
and/or habitat.
94
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
The maintenance of existing access roads in the Preserve provided there is no loss of Covered
Species and/or habitat.
Geologic testing and monitoring for public health and safety reasons, provided there is no
loss of Covered Species and/or habitat.
Installation, maintenance, and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) that are necessary
to serve the Covered Private Projects identified in Section 5.2 of the Plan provided there is no
loss of Covered Species and/or habitat.
Maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) provided there is no loss of
Covered Species and/or habitat.
The maintenance and repair of existing water quality basins, retention basins, detention
basins, and debris basins, provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or habitat.
Photography and filming, provided a City permit is obtained, no grading is involved, no new
access road or trails are created, and impacts to Covered Species and/or habitat are avoided.
City and Los Angeles County law enforcement activities, including vehicular access.
5.4.2 Public Use
Public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed 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
ive
recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan
(PUMP) has been developed jointly by the City, the public, and PVPLC to address public access issues.
The PUMP is a proposed City-Covered Project incorporated into the Plan; therefore, it must be approved
by the Wildlife Agencies as part of the NCCP/HCP before the activities, including the Preserve Trails
Plans, will be allowed. The following public uses and activities are considered conditionally Covered
Activities in the Preserve if they conform to the PUMP:
Public use and implementation of the Preserve Trails Plan (PTP) contained in the Wildlife
Agency-approved PUMP. Section 9.2.1.1 of this Plan provides the design criteria and
guidelines that will be used for the PTP.
Closure of existing trails within the Preserve that are not included in the PTP, as approved by
the City Council and Wildlife Agencies.
Passive recreational activities (e.g., horse riding, hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing) as
described in the PUMP and approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies.
Subject to the PUMP, the creation and maintenance of passive overlook or vista areas with
seating benches and trail markers may be located at key vista points near existing trails in the
95
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Preserve, provided no existing habitat will be lost. The location of these overlooks shall be
located to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. The location
of these overlooks will be approved by City Council.
Installation and maintenance of benches, picnic tables, tie rails, portable toilets, and trash
cans within the Preserve and near Preserve boundaries, provided no existing habitat will be
lost. The location of these facilities shall be sited to avoid or minimize direct and indirect
impacts to habitat and Covered Species. Location of overlooks shall be reviewed for
consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City Council prior to initiation
of any implementation work.
Installation of trailhead signage/kiosks within the Preserve adjacent to existing roads or other
access ways and away from sensitive resource areas. The location of trailhead signage/kiosks
shall be reviewed for consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City
prior to initiation of any implementation work.
Operation and maintenance of the existing archery range in its current location and acreage
(approximately 8 acres) within the Preserve, provided the appropriate City permits are
maintained and the facility is not expanded.
Operation of the existing agricultural use at Upper Point Vicente of approximately 5 acres in
size provided the appropriate City approval is maintained and all agricultural practices and
improvements remain consistent with this NCCP/HCP. No other agricultural activities are
allowed in the Preserve.
Night use of the Preserve provided use is limited, controlled, monitored, and managed
consistent with the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Night Hike Regulations. The City will issue
a permit for night use and any night use of the Preserve shall be consistent with the
requirements of this Plan. A summary of night use in the Preserve will be included in the
Annual Report.
5.4.3 Preserve Management
Management of the Preserve in accordance with the provisions described in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the
Plan is a Covered Activity. Specific management Covered Activities anticipated to occur in the Preserve
include the following:
Monitoring of Covered Species
Vehicular access
Habitat restoration
Invasive species control
Predator control
Reintroduction of Covered Species
Photo documentation
Installation of signage
96
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Trail maintenance
Maintenance of fire/fuel buffers
Field research and studies designed to contribute to the long-term protection of habitats and
species and other basic research of habitats and species included in the Preserve.
5.5 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for
Covered Projects and Activities
The City will ensure implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures as
enforceable conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects
and Activities listed in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 of this Plan:
1. The City will review proposed plans for Covered Project and Activities within and abutting the
Preserve (e.g., access routes, staging areas) to ensure proposed Covered Activities are consistent
with this NCCP/HCP.
2. The City and its Preserve Habitat Manager (i.e., PVPLC) will ensure that access to the Preserve
to carry out Covered Activities is consistent with the approved Preserve Access Protocol (PAP)
that is required to be created pursuant to Section 6.5.2 of this Plan. When accessing the Preserve,
utility agencies and
minimize, to the maximum extent possible, environmental damage, including damage to habitat
and Covered Species. Existing access roads in the Preserve should be used wherever practical.
Any unavoidable access routes outside existing roads or construction areas should be clearly
marked. Any new roads, trails, and utility corridors will be located in areas that avoid/minimize
impacts to Covered Species, habitat fragmentation and edge effects. The width of construction
corridors and easements will be minimized.
3. The City and/or responsible private project applicants will be responsible for ensuring that an
Erosion Control Plan is developed and implemented for any Covered Activities in the Preserve or
abutting the Preserve that might result in erosion as determined by the City. Potential erosion
control measures include siltation fencing, straw bales, sand bags, etc.
4. When stockpiling topsoil in the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, it will be placed
only in areas that minimize the damage to habitat. If fill or topsoil is imported into the Preserve,
the fill will be certified weed-free soil.
5. For any new development on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, construction staging areas will be
located at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Preserve boundary and natural drainages. No-
fueling zones will extend a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from all drainages and away
from the Preserve boundary.
6. Construction footprints for Covered Projects and Activities in the Preserve or abutting the
Preserve will be clearly defined with flagging and/or fencing and will be removed upon
completion of the Covered Activities.
97
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
7. Cut/fill slopes outside of fuel modification zones within the Preserve will be re-vegetated with
native species, or in the case of fuel modification zones, native plants recommended by Los
Angeles County for fuel modification zones. Impacts to cacti and other succulents within any
required fuel clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to conserve habitat for the coastal cactus
wren and other Covered Species. Sidecasting of materials during trails, road, and utility
construction and maintenance within the Preserve will be avoided.
8. Where feasible and appropriate, dust generated by the construction for Covered Activities within
the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be controlled via watering of
earthmoving areas and non-paved roads and an off-highway speed limit restriction to 20 miles per
hour (mph).
9. Any temporary safety or security night lighting for Covered Activities in the Preserve or on
vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from all
native vegetative communities.
10. Prior to implementation of Covered Activities within the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the
Preserve (see Section 5.6) that may impact Covered Species or their habitat, the City will provide
an education program to all personnel associated with project activities. The education program
will describe 1) the potential presence of Covered Species and their habitats, 2) the requirements
and boundaries of the project (e.g., areas delineated on maps and by flags or fencing), 3) the
importance of complying with avoidance and minimization measures, 4) environmentally
responsible construction practices, 5) identification of sensitive resource areas in the field, and 6)
problem reporting and resolution methods.
11. Any biologist used for the implementation of this NCCP/HCP, including implementing these
résumé, and three references (i.e., the names and
contact information of people familiar with the relevant qualifications of the proposed biologist)
at least 10 working days prior to initiating work. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within
this 10-day period, the City will assume that the biologists are approved.
12. For bird species that are not federally listed or Covered by the NCCP/HCP, if vegetation clearing
must occur in the Preserve during the bird breeding season under the circumstances described in
Sections 5.6.9 and 5.6.10 below (defined here as February 15-August 31), a pre-construction nest
survey will be conducted and a 100-feet avoidance/exclusion zone or a buffer/barrier zone to
attenuate noise deemed appropriate by the Wildlife Agencies will be placed around all active
nests (i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. Further, no
take of Fully Protected Species is allowed under this Plan (see Section 1.2.2 of the Plan).
13. Covered Plant Species and cacti may be removed from impact areas and relocated to an adjacent
or suitable location within the Preserve, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. The City and
its Habitat Manager shall be notified at least ten (10) working days prior to impacts for potential
salvaging and relocation opportunities.
98
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
14. No new lighting shall be allowed in the Preserve except where essential for roadway, facility use,
and safety and security purposes. New light sources abutting the Preserve will be oriented
downward and away from habitat areas, and shielded, if necessary, so that the lighting does not
impact wildlife and native vegetation.
15. Construction surveys for herpetofauna shall be conducted prior to and during the first days of
initial grading in areas within the Preserve where significant populations are known to exist. The
City, its Preserve Habitat Manager, and the Wildlife Agencies shall be notified of all findings and
relocation efforts at least ten (10) working days after grading has occurred. Any relocation efforts
shall also be reported Annual Report.
16. Pre-construction surveys for raptor during the breeding season (January 31-September 30), where
evidence of suitable nesting habitat is present, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no later
than four days prior to any project vegetation removal or grading activities within or on vacant
lots abutting the Preserve. If nesting raptors are present, a 500-foot avoidance/exclusion zone or a
buffer/barrier zone to prevent disturbance and attenuate noise will be placed around all active
nests (i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) and monitored until the nestlings fledge or the nest
fails. If requested by the City or other entity, the qualified biologist may evaluate site conditions
and determine that nest-specific buffers which vary from the avoidance/exclusion zone above are
warranted based on topography, vegetation, type and duration of activity, and other factors. The
Wildlife Agencies, in coordination with the City and qualified biologist, will be notified of the
status of all raptor surveying and monitoring, including if less than 500-foot avoidance/exclusion
zone or buffer/barrier zone is proposed for the raptor species and what additional
measures/monitoring are necessary. No take of Fully Protected Species is allowed under this Plan
(see Section 1.2.2).
17. All project landscaping, erosion control and re-vegetation efforts within the Preserve shall use
locally collected native vegetation/landscaping to the extent practicable and avoid those species
-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section
5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). All project landscaping, erosion control and re-vegetation
efforts on vacant land abutting the Preserve are permitted to use non-native plants but shall be
-IPC)
Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section 5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). This requirement shall
be incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City permits, operations, and authorizations to
proceed with work.
18. Any proposed new or re-located trail within or abutting the Preserve shall comply with the
requirements of the approved PUMP and this Plan. The design criteria and guidelines in Section
9.2.1.1 of this Plan shall be used by the City and its Preserve Habitat Manager in implementing
the PUMP, including the Preserve Trail Plan component. These guidelines place an emphasis on
avoiding or minimizing impacts to CSS habitat and Covered Species, including: 1) providing a
25-foot setback to coastal bluffs; 2) using existing access roads wherever practical; 3) any new
trails, shall be located in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge effects (e.g.,
99
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
maximum of 4 foot-wide in core areas); 4) seasonally rotating or limiting use to minimize
degradation; and 5) providing a 30-foot upland buffer along major drainages.
19. For Covered Projects/Activities within the Preserve, the impact area (see Table 5-1, Total Loss of
Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities) shall be located on the least sensitive portions of
the site as determined by existing site-specific biological and supporting information, and guided
by the following (in order of increasing sensitivity):
a) Areas devoid of vegetation, including developed areas, previously graded areas, disturbed
and ruderal areas, and active agricultural fields;
b) Areas of non-native vegetation, disturbed habitats, manufactured slopes, landscaped areas and
eucalyptus/exotic woodlands (provided impacts to nesting birds are avoided);
c) Areas of grasslands (excluding native grassland);
d) Areas containing coastal scrub and saltbush scrub communities and all wetlands, including
riparian scrub;
e) Areas containing southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, cliff face, rock shore
and native grassland communities;
f) Occupied habitat for Covered Species and hostplants for the Covered butterfly Species;
current surveys will be conducted throughout potential Covered Species habitat prior to any
Covered Projects or Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and
minimization measures; and,
g) Areas necessary to maintain the viability of wildlife corridors.
5.6 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species
The City will ensure implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures as
enforceable conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects
and Activities listed in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 of this Plan. Species-specific conservation measures for
covered species are described in detail in Appendix B and summarized here. These measures are required
to maintain permit coverage for each species.
5.6.1 Aphanisma
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations (PVPLC 2013),
and the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities as part
of routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants
adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and seeding for aphanisma will be included in the
PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential aphanisma habitat prior to approving Covered
Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and minimization measures. If an existing
population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve
Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be
100
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of aphanisma within the
population. Habitat restoration will include use of seed collected from the project site or from previously
collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations throughout the Plan Area will be
offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than two populations will be impacted unless
additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City,
PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the
species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled
to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.2 South Coast Saltscale
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations (PVPLC 2013),
and the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities as part
of routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants
adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and seeding for south coast saltscale will be included
in the PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential south coast saltscale habitat prior to approving
Covered Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and minimization measures.
If an existing population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will
engage the Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat
restoration plan, to be approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of south
coast saltscale within the population. Habitat restoration will include use of seed collected from the
project site or from previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations
throughout the Plan Area will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population
will be impacted unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the
impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document
that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained,
posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.3 Catalina Crossosoma
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve by the Preserve manager to
monitor trends in population dynamics. Potential for habitat restoration actions that may benefit this
species will be evaluated during routine habitat management. There are no Covered Projects/Activities
with the potential to impact existing populations. If the large population in the Forrestal Reserve expands
into an existing trail, routine trail maintenance as contemplated in the PUMP may require trimming or
selective removal of some Catalina crossosoma individuals, only to the extent that it will maintain the
existing width of an existing trail; impacts from the widening of an existing trail or a new trail would be
subject to the conditions below.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in potential Catalina crossosoma habitat prior to any Covered
Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization measures. If an
101
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
existing population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the
Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration
plan, to be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of Catalina
crossosoma within the population. Habitat restoration will include transplantation or use of seedlings
propagated from previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations
throughout the Plan Area will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population
will be impacted unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the
impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document
that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained,
posted, and patrolled to prevent/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.4 Island Green Dudleya
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within established locations to monitor trends in
population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species will be
evaluated during routine habitat management.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential island green dudleya habitat prior to any Covered
Project or Activity to assess occupancy, and to determine avoidance and minimization measures. If this
species is detected during surveys, impacts to this plant are expected to be avoided. Where avoidance of
island green dudleya is not feasible, the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work
with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the
City and Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure the impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration.
No more than 0.25 acre of occupied dudleya habitat will be impacted and no more than one impact per
Reserve, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact,
and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the
status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. The PVPLC has a successful
propagation program for this species at the PVPLC nursery, and this program will continue as part of the
NCCP/HCP. This species can be successfully planted in suitable habitat. Trails will be maintained,
posted, and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.5 Santa Catalina Island Desert-Thorn
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within established locations to monitor trends in
population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species will be
evaluated during routine habitat management.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat prior to
any Covered Project or Activity to assess occupancy, and to determine avoidance and minimization
measures. If this species is detected during surveys, impacts to this plant are expected to be avoided. If an
existing population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the
Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration
102
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
plan, to be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of Santa Catalina
Island desert-thorn within the population. Habitat restoration will include transplantation or use of
seedlings propagated from previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established
populations throughout the Plan Area will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one
population will be impacted, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in
advance of the impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination
meetings, document that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. The
PVPLC has a successful propagation program for this species at the PVPLC nursery, and this program
will continue as part of the NCCP/HCP. This species can be successfully planted in suitable habitat.
Trails will be maintained, posted, and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.6 Wooly Seablite
Surveys will continue to be conducted at fixed locations every 3 years within the Preserve by the Preserve
Manager to monitor trends in population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may
benefit this species will be evaluated during routine habitat management activities. Pre-project surveys
will be conducted within potential woolly seablite habitat for any Covered Project to assess occupancy
and determine avoidance and minimization measures. For Covered Projects/Activities, this species will be
avoided from areas to be impacted, if feasible. The project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager
and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved
by the Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure the impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration.
No more than 0.25 acre of occupied woolly seablite habitat will be impacted, and no more than one
impact per Reserve, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the
impact, and/or the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document
that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained,
posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.7 El Segundo Blue Butterfly
Surveys will be conducted by the Preserve Manager every 3 years within the existing populations (Figure
2) to monitor trends in population dynamics. The Preserve Manager shall evaluate potential opportunities
for this species will be included in the seed mix for
restoration (active planting) within the Preserve in suitable areas, particularly in areas similar to the
existing known ESB locations.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout the project area in potential ESB habitat, defined by
presence of coast buckwheat, prior to any Covered Activity to assess occupancy and determine avoidance
and minimization measures. Occupied ESB habitat will be defined by the extent of host plants in an area
known to be occupied by ESB (i.e., any coast buckwheat within 50 feet of a shrub where ESB were
observed), and impacts to occupied habitat will be avoided if possible. Where ESB is detected and
impacts are unavoidable, the Wildlife Agencies will be provided the opportunity (with sufficient
advanced notice) to relocate any and all larvae, pupae, or adults. Survey data will be used to assess the
103
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
distribution of ESB within the host plant patch, and the City will work with the Wildlife Agencies to
minimize impacts to ESB. No more than 5% of any existing ESB occurrence polygon will be impacted.
Impacts to newly discovered or established occupied habitat patches will not exceed 10% of their
distribution at the time of impact based on a habitat evaluation conducted within 1 year of the anticipated
impact. For any impact to occupied habitat, host plants will be established onsite to offset the number of
host plants lost during the project. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize
encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.8 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
plant for this species will be included in the seed mix for restoration (active planting) within the Preserve
in suitable areas within coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat, particularly in historic areas. Pre-project
host plant surveys will be conducted in potential PVB habitat prior to any Covered Project/Activities to
assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization measures. If host plants are identified, a 5-
foot buffer around host plants will be avoided if feasible. If avoidance of host plants is not feasible,
focused PVB surveys will be conducted. If PVB is discovered during surveys, the Wildlife Agencies will
be provided the opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice) to relocate any and all larvae, pupae, or
adults. Occupied PVB host plants will be avoided when possible. Occupied habitat will be defined as host
plants, including a 5-foot buffer, within a 50-foot buffer around any PVB observation. Trails will be
maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat. Because PVB
host plants readily establish in disturbed areas, they may become established in trails and dirt roads
throughout the Plan Area. Routine trail and road maintenance may impact host plants and potentially
PVB individuals, and there will be no additional restrictions placed on trail or road maintenance based on
presence of PVB.
5.6.9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Surveys will be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve to monitor trends in population dynamics
and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions to benefit this species. The Preserve Manager shall
regularly evaluate potential opportunities to expand and enhance gnatcatcher habitat, and the Plan will
provide a net increase in gnatcatcher habitat within the Preserve. Implementation of species-specific
management actions as part of the PHMP (e.g., invasive species removal) will also occur under the Plan.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential gnatcatcher habitat. Construction for
Covered Projects and Activities that may impact gnatcatchers will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding
season (February 15-August 31). If, due to an urgent or emergency public health or safety concern
determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must occur from February 15-August 31
within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-project surveys will be conducted to
determine nesting activity. Survey results will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review. If nesting
activity is detected, then all construction activity must occur outside of a 300-foot buffer surrounding each
nest. Reductions in the nest buffer may be possible depending on site-specific factors (e.g., topography,
104
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
screening vegetation, ambient noise levels, etc.), in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Construction
noise levels should not exceed 60 dBA Leq within the 300-foot buffer zone unless authorized by the
Wildlife Agencies. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the
nest fails. Status of the nest will be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. If grubbing or other
construction related activities associated with Miscellaneous Drain Repair, Palos Verdes Drive South
Road Repair, or Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente) must occur from February 15-August 31
within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-project surveys will be conducted to
determine nesting activity. If nesting activity is detected, all construction activity must occur outside of a
50-foot buffer surrounding each nest. Construction noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the
50-foot buffer zone. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or
the nest fails. Status of the nest will be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted to
Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. Trails will be
maintained, posted, and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into suitable habitat.
5.6.10 Cactus Wren
Surveys will be conducted every 3 years by the Preserve Manager within the Preserve to monitor trends in
population dynamics and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species.
The Preserve Manager shall evaluate potential opportunities to expand and enhance cactus wren habitat,
and the expectation is that the Plan will increase cactus wren habitat within the Preserve. Implementation
of species-specific management actions as part of the PHMP (e.g., invasive species removal, cactus
planting) will also occur under the Plan, which will protect and enhance existing habitat.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential habitat for the cactus wren.
Construction or constructions related activities for Covered Projects and Activities that may impact cactus
wrens will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding season (February 15-August 31) and to avoid or
minimize direct impacts to mature cactus (i.e., greater than 1 foot in height), and preferentially avoid the
most mature cactus in a particular stand). If, due to an urgent or emergency public health or safety
concern determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must occur from February 15-
August 31 and within 100 feet of any coastal sage scrub and cactus wren pre-project surveys will be
conducted to determine nesting activity. Pre-project surveys will consist of 3 survey days over a one-week
period, including one survey within 3 days of construction. Survey results will be submitted to the City,
PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies. If nesting activity is detected, then all construction activity must occur
outside of a 100-foot avoidance buffer/barrier zone to attenuate noise surrounding each nest. No birds
shall be disturbed or taken. Construction noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the buffer
zone. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge. The status of the
nest will be monitored, and a report with recommendations will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for
review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers.
105
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Other measures in the Plan to conserve populations of cactus wren include the following:
Trails will be posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied cactus wren
habitat;
Locate new public access points and operational/maintenance activities to minimize/avoid areas
occupied by cactus wren and where large stands of mature cactus (at least 1-3 feet tall) exist
within the Preserve; and,
Impacts to cacti and other succulents within any required fuel clearing areas shall be minimized
to maintain habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other species. Taller (1-3 feet) cactus that
cannot be avoided should be salvaged where feasible and transplanted to suitable areas within the
Preserve.
5.7 Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities
Abutting and Adjacent to the Preserve
5.7.1 Abutting Development Project Review
In reviewing a proposed new development project that will impact potential Covered Species habitat
abutting the Preserve, avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources and retention of
native habitats will be addressed as part of plan design review. The site design review process will
consider the locations of access and staging areas, fire and fuel modification zones, predator and exotic
species control, fencing, signage, lighting, increased stormwater and urban runoff, increased erosion,
increased noise levels, and public access to habitats supporting Covered Species in developing measures
to avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources. Avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or
eliminate impacts to biological resources will be incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City
permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with work.
5.7.2 Fencing and Lighting
The following practices shall apply to new development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve:
Fencing, Barriers, and Edge Treatment
1. Fencing, barriers, or functional edge treatment will be required for all new projects developed on
existing vacant lots abutting the Preserve and shall be designed to prevent intrusion of domestic
animals into the Preserve. This requirement may be waived with written approval from the
Wildlife Agencies.
2. Prohibiting the use of gates, openings, or other entry means in project fencing, barriers and edge
treatment that would allow direct human access to the Preserve, which would degrade the natural
habitat. This requirement may be waived with written approval from the Wildlife Agencies.
106
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Lighting
1. All light sources abutting the Preserve shall be designed and constructed to be oriented downward
and away from habitat areas and shielded, if necessary, to ensure there are no impacts to wildlife
and native vegetation.
2. Lighting in new developments on vacant lots abutting the Preserve shall be avoided and/or
minimized as appropriate through appropriate placement and shielding of light sources in
e requirements for exterior lighting.
5.7.3 Equestrian Use
Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are parasitic, nonnative species in California that contribute to
the decline of many native bird species. This transient bird species originally followed bison herds and
has adapted to follow domestic European livestock. As a result, any new corral or equestrian facility within
the City that requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Large Domestic Animal Permit by the City
and is located within 500 feet of the Preserve must have a qualified biologist monitor for cowbirds for three
years, and every third year thereafter, to determine their presence. If cowbirds are present, a cowbird trapping
program and/or other effective measures will be funded and implemented by the applicant.
5.7.4 Landscaping
Landscaping can create conflicts with biological objectives of the Preserve by increasing the potential for
introduction of non-native and invasive plant species in natural areas. These non-native species can
displace native species in natural communities. Horticultural regimes can alter site conditions in the
Preserve adjacent to landscaping by increased runoff, fertilization, pesticides, and other factors, all of
which promote a shift from native to non-native flora. Additionally, the use of native cultivars not
collected on site or in the proximity of the site can create genetic contamination through hybridization.
Therefore, the following practices shall apply to all activities within the Preserve, including new
development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, and shall be incorporated as enforceable
conditions in all City permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with work.
1. -IPC)
Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section 5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan).
2. Irrigation shall be designed and maintained to avoid overspray or runoff into the Preserve.
5.7.5 Stormwater and Urban Runoff
New development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve approved by the City will include
mitigation measures or other conditions, as appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that a flood would
adversely impact Covered Species and the conserved habitat. As a co-permittee of the RWQCB National
107
SECTION
Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, the City is required to adopt a Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The large majority of new development projects and significant
redevelopment projects must meet SUSMP requirements to reduce pollution and runoff flows. The C
SUSMP includes a list of recommended source control and structural treatment Best Management
Practices (BMPs). Additionally, City land use policies ensure that land use regulations and public
improvements accommodate flood events that approximate the rate, magnitude, and duration of natural
flood flows.
108
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
6.0 LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
6.1 City Implementation Process
Upon approval of this NCCP/HCP and signing of the IA, the City will use its land-use authority to
implement the provisions of this NCCP/HCP. The City will guarantee implementation of this NCCP/HCP
through interim and permanent regulatory measures, including codes, ordinances, and policies contained
in the CSection 6.3 of the Plan. The actions
described in this section will ensure consistent implementation of this NCCP/HCP through City policy,
private, and public project review and approval, and guidelines for operations and management of public
lands. In addition, the City will provide interim protection to habitat lands addressed in the Take
Authorizations through the process described herein. Subsequent entitlements will not be provided
without c
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
6.2 Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code
As a regulatory document
protection (either directly or indirectly) to lands located in the Preserve. Each relevant section of the
Appendix F with an explanation of
how the code protects the Preserve. In summary, the Preserve is directly protected by certain provisions of
the Municipal Code, such as the grading regulations (Section 17.76.040), the natural overlay control
district regulations (Section 17.40.040) and the Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management
Ordinance (Chapter 17.41). These City regulations require most grading and vegetation removal to be
reviewed for compliance with established regulations and controls, including natural habitat protection.
Thus, any applications for new development on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, which involve grading
that contain coastal sage scrub habitat,
met, thus providing some habitat protection in the Preserve.
Likewise, the Preserve is indirectly protected by other City ordinances, such as the stormwater discharge
ordinance; the off-road vehicle ordinance; and the streets, parks, and recreational facilities ordinance. The
stormwater discharge ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.10) indirectly protects the Preserve by
establishing standards and procedures for reducing pollutants in stormwater discharge for major projects
throughout the City, thus reducing the likelihood of contaminated stormwater entering the Preserve. The
off-road vehicle ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.24) indirectly protects the Preserve by prohibiting
off-road vehicles from driving in the Preserve. The recreational facilities ordinance (Municipal code
chapter 12.16) prohibits trail use in the Preserve not authorized by the City.
6.3 City Implementation Actions and Process
Pursuant to the sequence of events timing described in Section 6.5 of the Plan, the City shall amend the
Municipal Code, Zoning Map and CEQA Guidelines to provide protection of the
109
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
land use authority. The specific amendments are described below.
6.3.1 Municipal Code Amendments
Grading Ordinance
The City shall amend the Grading Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.40.040) to ensure that any
grading associated with Covered Projects and/or Activities within the NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant
lot abutting the Preserve, or on a vacant lot outside the Preserve that supports CSS or Covered Species
conforms to the provisions of this NCCP/HCP. If a grading application is not consistent with the revised
ordinance, the proposed activity will have to be modified or the application will be denied by the City. If
mitigation is required, said mitigation shall be provided prior to issuance of any grading authorization/permit
in accordance to Section 5.3.4 of the Plan.
Fire Code
At no time will NCCP/HCP provisions take precedence over the requirements of public health, safety,
and welfare as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The City has consulted with the
Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner
to ensure that proposed fuel modification zone widths within the Preserve are adequate to meet fire
department requirements. The fuel modification areas within the Preserve have been approved by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department and Agricultural Commissioner and have been mapped by the City (see
Figure 5-1), and included as a covered activity as described in Section 5.2 of this Plan.
Code will be amended to reflect the fuel modification practices and zones within the Preserve, as well as
to make any parties found responsible for fires which burn in the Preserve financially responsible for the
cost of any necessary planned responses described in Section 6.10.2.1 of the Plan, thus providing direct
protection of the Preserve.
Site Plan Review Process
The City shall amend the Site Plan Review Process (Municipal Code Section 17.70.020 et seq.) to ensure
that the provisions of this NCCP/HCP are incorporated into the Site Plan Review evaluation process for
any Covered Activity within the NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant lot abutting the Preserve, or on a
vacant lot outside the Preserve that supports coastal sage scrub. The modified Site Plan review process
will provide direct protection of the Preserve as any proposed construction on vacant lots abutting the
Preserve will need to be consistent with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. If not consistent, the proposed
Covered Activity will have to be modified or denied by the City. If mitigation is required, it shall be
provided in accordance with Section 5.3.4 of the Plan. Lots with coastal sage scrub that are not within or
adjacent to the Preserve will mitigate impacts consistent with the NCCP/HCP.
110
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance
The City shall amend its existing Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance
(Municipal Code Chapter 17.41 et seq.) to ensure that the provisions of this NCCP/HCP are incorporated
into said ordinance. More specifically, the ordinance will be amended to allow CSS loss associated with
the projects and activities covered by this NCCP/HCP and to incorporate the mitigation requirements
discussed in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of the Plan.
Subdivision Ordinance
The City will amend its Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) to ensure any future proposed subdivisions
involving vacant lots abutting the Preserve conform to this NCCP/HCP. The new ordinance will provide
direct protection of the Preserve as any proposed subdivisions abutting the Preserve will need to be
consistent with the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. If not consistent, the proposed subdivision will have to
be modified or denied by the City.
Coastal Permits
The City shall amend the Coastal Permit Process (Municipal Code Section 17.70.020 et seq.) to ensure that
all Coastal Permits for Covered Activities within the NCCP/HCP Preserve, on a vacant lot abutting the
Preserve, or on a vacant lot outside the Preserve that supports coastal sage scrub will comply with the
provisions of this NCCP/HCP. If Coastal Permit applications are not consistent, they will have to be
modified or denied by the City. The modified ordinance will provide direct protection of the Preserve as
any proposed activities within the coastal zone will be reviewed by the City for compliance with the
NCCP/HCP.
6.3.2 Other Amendments
Zoning Map
boundaries of the Preserve by creating a new Open Space Preservation zoning designation for all
Preserve areas. The Zoning Map will also be amended to remove the existing Natural Overlay Control
District designation on any Preserve properties as the more restrictive NCCP regulations associated with
the Preserve will replace the Natural Overlay Controls for the Preserve properties. This will provide
indirect protection of the Preserve by making the residents and the public aware of the Preserve
boundaries.
City CEQA Guidelines
The City shall amend its local CEQA guidelines to ensure that development projects that are subject to
CEQA review, which are not determined to be categorically or statutorily exempt, are analyzed and
provide mitigation to ensure that they are consistent with the applicable provisions of this NCCP/HCP.
111
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
This will provide indirect protection of the Preserve by ensuring that adverse project-specific and
cumulative environmental impacts to the Preserve are avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated.
General Plan Amendment
The City shall amend relevant sections of the General Plan to accomplish the following:
Identify all Preserve lands and their attendant land-use restrictions.
Incorporate the goals and objectives of this NCCP/HCP as described in Section 4.0 of the
Plan as part of the General Plan and CSP goals and objectives.
Incorporate the mitigation responsibilities identified in Section 4.0 of the Plan to enable the
City to implement the NCCP/HCP.
This will provide indirect protection of the Preserve by ensuring the goals and objectives of the
NCCP/HCP are upheld by the City.
6.3.3 City 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 IA and the issuance of Permits, and City
action to adopt the amendments described in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Plan that will incorporate the
habitat protections of the NCCP/HCP. Upon issuance of the Permits the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council will approve an Urgency Ordinance (City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance) establishing
new regulations and ordinances that must be adopted to implement the NCCP/HCP go into effect (Section
6.5.2 of the Plan).
Specifically, the Urgency Ordinance will require that no new proposed development projects on vacant
lots abutting the Preserve requiring discretionary approval within the City be approved by the City
without a determination of conformance to this NCCP/HCP. In addition, no grading within the Preserve
or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve that requires City approval will be approved by the City without a
determination of conformance to this NCCP/HCP by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement or his designee. Furthermore, no vegetation clearing or grubbing, on lands within the
Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, or conversion of non-agricultural lands to active
agriculture within the Preserve shall be done without a determination of conformance to this NCCP/HCP
by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement or his designee.
6.4 City Approval of the Implementing Agreement
Pursuant to the sequence of events timing described in Section 6.5 of the Plan, the City will execute an
Implementing Agreement (IA) with the Wildlife Agencies that will identify the roles and responsibilities
of the Parties (USFWS, CDFW, City, and PVPLC) in implementation of the NCCP/HCP in accordance
112
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
with the Permits. Key regulatory assurances for all Parties described in this NCCP/HCP will be identified
in the IA. After signing the IA, the USFWS and CDFW will issue the Federal incidental take permit and
state NCCP Permit/Authorization (collectively, Permits) to the City for the Covered Species under this
Plan for all Covered Activities identified in Section 5.0 of the Plan.
6.5 Sequence of Events
6.5.1
Upon execution of the IA and issuance of the Incidental Take Permits, the Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council will adopt the Urgency Ordinance (City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance) described
in Section 6.3.3 of the Plan, which will establish the protections contained in the NCCP/HCP to the
Covered Species on an interim basis until permanent revisions or amendments to the General Plan,
Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and CEQA Guidelines identified in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Plan are
enacted. The City Council will extend the Urgency Ordinance to the maximum extent permitted by law so
that it remains in effect until the permanent ordinances have been approved and are in effect. The Permits
will not be effective to authorize take until the City has enacted the interim Urgency Ordinance consistent
with the requirements of the NCCP/HCP. Any lapse in the effectiveness of the Urgency Ordinance
pending enactment of permanent revisions or amendments to the General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning
Map and CEQA Guidelines identified in Section 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Plan shall trigger an automatic
suspension of the Permits, without regard to otherwise applicable Federal and state regulatory
requirements. The City shall immediately notify the Wildlife Agencies in the case of any such lapse in
the permanent revisions or amendments to the General Plan,
Municipal Code, Zoning Map and CEQA Guidelines identified in Section 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of the Plan that
are consistent with the requirements of the NCCP/HCP, the Permits shall be promptly reinstated by the
Wildlife Agencies.
6.5.2
After the Permits are issued, the following must take place:
1. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Permits, the City will place Wildlife Agency-approved
conservation easements following the template in Appendix G in the IA on all proposed City-
owned Preserve lands described in Section 4.2 of the Plan. The conservation easements will
formally dedicate the lands to the Preserve. Concurrently, PVPLC will place a conservation
easement approved by the Wildlife Agencies in favor of City, with the Wildlife Agencies
named as third-party beneficiaries on the PVPLC-owned 20-acre Lunada Canyon property.
2. The City will commence the amendments to the General Plan and Municipal Code described
in Section 6.3 of the Plan in the following manner:
Within 90 days of issuance of the Permits, City Staff will submit the proposed amendments to
the City Council for initiation.
Within 90 days of City Council initiation, the draft amendment language will be submitted to
the Wildlife Agencies for review and concurrence that the language is consistent with the
NCCP/HCP. The Wildlife Agencies will complete their review to the maximum extent
practicable within 45 days.
113
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Once the written concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies is received, the Planning Commission
will review the proposed amendments and then forward its recommendations to the City
Council for formal adoption within 60 days.
3. The City Council will complete the adoption process within six months of receiving the
recommendations from the Planning Commission.
4. The PVPLC will continue to perform the management activities for the Covered Species on
the Preserve that were initiated in January 2006, consistent with the NCCP/HCP and the IA.
5. Within 90 days of the issuance of the Permits, the City and PVPLC will develop and submit
to the Wildlife Agencies a Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) to facilitate access by utility
agencies and Preserve
access protocol will contain measures, including those in Section 5.5 of the Plan, to avoid
and minimize, to the maximum extent possible, environmental damage, including direct and
indirect impacts to habitat and Covered Species. Until said access protocol is approved by the
Wildlife Agencies, the City and its Land Manager (i.e., PVPLC) shall ensure all access to the
Preserve is consistent with the minimization measures described in Section 5.5 of the Plan.
6. The PUMP has been review and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
6.5.3
Any time concurrent with the above processes the following events may occur:
Immediately upon transfer of fee ownership of any of the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP
habitat parcels described in Section 4.3 of the Plan to the City and a determination by the Wildlife
Agencies that the required habitat restoration and enhancement on said parcels is complete, the
City will dedicate these parcels to the Preserve and the following will occur:
1. The PVPLC will accept the existing offers to dedicate conservation easements in a form
approved by the Wildlife Agencies for the City-owned Shoreline Park (Ocean Trails Reserve)
and Switchbacks parcel (San Ramon Reserve) with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-
party beneficiaries, or a new conservation easement in the form contained in Appendix G in
the IA will be granted by the City.
2. The PVPLC will accept the existing offers to dedicate conservation easements in a form
approved by the Wildlife Agencies for the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP habitat parcels
or a new conservation easement as contained in Appendix G in the IA will be granted by the
City with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-party beneficiaries.
3. The City will ensure that the properties are managed by the landowner (currently Trump
National), or other entity approved by the Wildlife Agencies, as required by the Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP and the existing Development Agreement for the properties.
114
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
6.6 Wildlife Agency and City Coordination
The Wildlife Agencies will receive notification of projects in the City through the CEQA notification (or
other) process and may request a voluntary consultation within the normal public or CEQA review period.
Likewise, the City is free to request Wildlife Agency involvement in a project where consultation will
help address key issues or help to streamline the process. All projects processed by the City will
document their consistency with this NCCP/HCP during appropriate CEQA review and will be
summarized each year in the annual report.
All take authorized by the City under the Permits will be documented by the City by maintaining a list of
all approvals under this NCCP/HCP, which is included in the NCCP/HCP Annual Report to the Wildlife
Agencies. The list will describe the project, including the total habitat lost, total habitat conserved, or
disturbed by the Covered Activities. It will also describe the physical location of the tentative map or
other record or project (or CEQA) approval produced by the City. All project approvals issued over the
course of a year will be documented and discussed at the required annual meeting described in Section 9.4
of the Plan. The primary exception to this general procedure will be if a project requires an amendment to
this NCCP/HCP as described herein.
6.7 Compliance with Existing Federal and State Wetland
Regulations
Impacts to state and/or Federal jurisdictional wetlands are not covered under this NCCP/HCP. 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 Section 1600 et seq. provide protection to wetland habitats through Federal and state regulatory
permits and agreements. Where applicable, project proponents must submit an application for and receive
Federal Section 404, Section 401, and state Section 1600 permits prior to impacting any jurisdictional
wetlands. Applicants must also apply to the 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 bodies of water, including wetlands.
For Covered Activities that are subject to California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., separate
authorization for impacts to jurisdictional streambed habitat would be required. If any impacts to Covered
Species would occur associated with the 1600 process, the Plan will be used to evaluate any state take
associated with the subject project. If the species is not a Covered Species under the Plan, the proponent
should seek appropriate take authorization for impacts to state-listed species.
Projects that are regulated by Federal agencies will continue to be subject to section 7 consultations under
the ESA where federally listed species, both Covered by the NCCP/HCP and uncovered listed species,
may be affected. Those projects that are subject to a section 7 consultation will be evaluated in
accordance with the requirements of the ESA and to ensure that the project is consistent with this
115
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
NCCP/HCP. The level of conservation afforded by this NCCP/HCP to Covered Species has been
established through extensive consultation with, and review by, the Wildlife Agencies. Therefore, the
City anticipates that project applicants that propose projects that are covered by and consistent with the
provisions of this NCCP/HCP as determined by USFWS will receive streamlined section 7 consultations.
To the maximum extent appropriate, the terms and conditions imposed through the section 7 consultation
process will be consistent with the NCCP/HCP.
Within the Coastal Zone, the City intends that the most current LCP shall define permissible impacts and
mitigation for wetlands and ESHA habitats (Appendix F).
6.8 Amendments
6.8.1 Minor Amendments Preserve Boundary Adjustments and Equivalency
Adjustments to the approved Preserve boundaries may be desirable under some circumstances that do not
require a Major 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 Preserve boundary.
A landowner may request that a portion of or all of his property be included within the
Preserve boundary.
Minor changes to Plan maps to show actual precise boundaries of conserved habitat, and
which do not reduce the acreage or quality of the habitat.
Adjustments to Preserve boundaries can be made by Minor Amendment to the NCCP/HCP, if the
adjustment will result in equal or higher acreage and biological value to the Preserve. The determination
of biological value of the proposed change is made by the City and must have the prior 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 the Preserve (the exchange results in similar or
improved habitat connectivity, wildlife movement corridor function, management efficiency
and/or protection of biological resources)
116
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Effects on ecotones or other conditions affecting species diversity (the exchange maintains
topographic and structural diversity and habitat interfaces or the Preserve)
Effects to species of concern not on the Covered Species list (the exchange does not
significantly increase the likelihood that a species not covered under the NCCP/HCP will
meet the criteria for listing under either the ESA or CESA).
The City may make additions to the approved Preserve that as addressed in Section 4.4 of the Plan
without a Major Plan Amendment by providing the Wildlife Agencies with the following:
A letter from the City agreeing to the addition and specifying the status of the property (e.g.,
City parkland, HOA property).
An accurate map of the area to be added, showing the total acreage and current vegetation
coverage.
An assessment provided by the City and PVPC demonstrating that adequate funding is
available for managing the new preserve lands. PVPLC will coordinate with the City and
Wildlife Agencies for approval of each property proposed for inclusion into the Preserve.
Any proposed adjustments to the Preserve boundary will be disclosed in the associated environmental
document (as part of the project description) prepared for the specific project which prompts the minor
boundary adjustment and all approved adjustments will be documented in the Annual Report described in
Section 9.3.3 of the Plan. If a specific project prompts the need for a Preserve boundary adjustment, an
evaluation of the effects of the proposed adjustment will be provided in the biological technical report
provided to the Wildlife Agencies and summarized in the land-use and/or biological section of the
Minor changes to the NCCP/HCP that do not result in coverage for new activities or impacts to the
Covered Species or their habitats, may be made through Minor Amendment. A Minor Amendment shall
not require an amendment to the Take Authorizations. The City shall provide written notice of any
proposed Minor Amendment to the Wildlife Agencies at least sixty (60) days prior to scheduling the
action and/or project for any public hearing, and disclose the amendment in the appropriate City CEQA
documentation. Such notice shall include a statement of the reason for the proposed Minor Amendment
and an analysis of its environmental effects, including its effects on operations under the Plan and on the
Covered Species. The City shall provide the Wildlife Agencies with written notice of each proposed
Minor Amendment along with rele
modification as a Minor Amendment. The Wildlife Agencies shall use their reasonable efforts to
complete their review of the proposed Minor Amendment within 60 days of receipt of a complete request
from the City. If the Wildlife Agencies do not concur in writing that the proposed modification may be
processed as Minor Amendment, the City must propose the modification as a Major Amendment.
Examples of potential Minor Amendments to this Plan include the following:
117
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Corrections of typographic, grammatical, and similar editing errors in the Plan documents or
Permits that do not change the intended meaning. Annual Reports shall include a summary of
clerical changes made to the Plan in the preceding calendar year.
Correction of any maps or exhibits to correct errors in mapping or to reflect previously
approved changes in the Plan or Permits. Annual Reports shall include a summary of
corrections to maps or exhibits made to the Plan in the preceding calendar year.
Minor changes to survey, monitoring, or reporting protocols. Annual Reports shall include a
summary of changes made to survey, monitoring, or reporting protocols in the preceding
calendar year.
Preserve boundary adjustments with equivalency findings as described in Section 6.8 of the
Plan, which may apply to projects where: 1) new biological information is obtained through
site-specific studies; 2) unforeseen engineering design opportunities or constraints not of the
Cityare identified during the siting or design of projects that require
modification of the Preserve boundary; 3) a landowner requests that a portion of or all of his
property be included within the Preserve boundary, and 4) minor changes to Plan maps to
show actual precise boundaries of conserved habitat, and which do not reduce the acreage or
quality of the habitat. All Preserve boundary line adjustments must be disclosed in the
appropriate City CEQA document, require advance written approval from the Wildlife
Agencies, and must be accounted for in the Cityity will provide
written notice of the proposed Preserve boundary adjustment and equivalency findings to the
Wildlife Agencies at least sixty (60) days prior to scheduling the project for any public
hearing consistent with Section 6.8.1 of the Plan. Adjustments to Preserve boundary can be
made by Minor Amendment to the NCCP/HCP, if the adjustment will result in equal or
higher acreage and biological value to the Preserve. The determination of biological value of
the proposed change is made by the City and must have the prior written concurrence of the
Wildlife Agencies. If necessary, the City will meet and confer with the Wildlife Agencies
prior to scheduling the project for any public hearing to resolve any issues.
6.8.2 Major Plan Amendments
Certain events may require a Major Amendment to this Plan as described below. Although Major
Amendments are not anticipated regularly, such amendments may be necessary to accommodate major
changes in conservation levels or reserve design, or large annexations of land. Any habitat losses that
propose to exceed the maximum habitat loss acreages noted for each Covered City Project or Private
Project can only be approved through an amendment. Such amendments must be approved in writing by
the Wildlife Agencies and the City. Coordination with the Wildlife Agencies is required for a Major
Amendment, and the Wildlife Agencies must be notified as soon as the local jurisdiction confirms that an
amendment is warranted. The City will provide written notice of any proposed Major Amendment to the
Wildlife Agencies at least sixty (60) days prior to scheduling the action and/or project for any public
hearing. Such notice will include a copy of any required application for the proposed amendment, a
118
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
statement of the reason for the amendment and an analysis of its environmental effects, if any, including
any effects on Covered Species. Major Amendments include, but are not limited to, changes to the Plan
that result in a higher level of take, greater or different impacts to the Covered Species and their habitats
or to the environment generally, than were analyzed in the NEPA and CEQA documents prepared for the
Plan as approved and by the Wildlife Agencies in reviewing the plans under ESA and the NCCP Act.
Major Amendments will also require an amendment to the Take Authorizations in accordance with all
applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including ESA, NCCPA, NEPA and CEQA. Examples
of potential Major Amendments to this Plan include the following:
An annexation of land that requires Take Authorizations for development, and is not covered
by an existing NCCP/HCP and associated Take Authorizations; or a substantive variation in
design or implementation from an existing NCCP/HCP.
Land excluded from a Plan at the time of approval, and therefore not covered by Take
Authorizations, but is later planned for development purposes.
A substantive deviation in the proposed mitigation for Covered Projects or Activities
described in Section 5.3 of the Plan, including but not limited to deviations in the identified
area and dimensions of potentially dedicated Preserve that is not equivalent to the proposed
Plan mitigation as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
An increase in habitat impacts from any Covered Activity described in Section 5.0 and Tables
5-1 and 5-2 of this Plan.
Major changes in conservation levels or Preserve design.
Removal of lands from conserved areas.
Reconfiguration of the Preserve system resulting in a decrease of acreage or quality of habitat
as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
Substantial changes to the implementing regulations upon which this NCCP/HCP is based on
including, CEQA, the General Plan, local zoning ordinances, etc.
6.8.2.1 Process for Adding Species to Covered Species List
If a species not on the Covered Species list is proposed for listing pursuant to the ESA or CESA or a
listed species not on the Covered Species list is discovered in the NCCP/HCP Area, the Wildlife Agencies
will determine whether Additional Conservation Measures, beyond those prescribed by the NCCP/HCP,
are necessary to adequately protect the species. If no such measures are necessary, the species will be
added to the Permits, following application by the City for a Major Amendment.
If the conservation measures already contained in the Plan are not sufficient to meet Permit issuance
standards under ESA and NCCP, then upon written request by the City, the USFWS and CDFW will use
119
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
their reasonable efforts to provide technical assistance to the City to identify Additional Conservation
Measures necessary to add such species to the list of Covered Species. In developing Additional
Conservation Measures, the Parties will first look to habitat management practices and enhancement
opportunities within the Preserve using existing management resources, provided the redirection of such
resources would not adversely affect any Covered Species.
will provide technical assistance to the City in developing additional measures necessary to add the
species to the Covered Species list. 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 NCCP/HCP) and the PVPLC shall follow the planned
response to Changed Circumstances identified in Section 6.10.2 of the Plan, but will not be required to
approve or implement these conservation measures until such time as the species is listed.
6.8.3 Annexations
For annexations where no take authorization is required because the lands do not contain listed species or
habitat:
The City will ensure that the any proposed annexations are consistent with the NCCP/HCP requirements
and that the project design will not result in impacts to the Preserve. Proposed annexation projects will be
reviewed and approved by the City. No consultation with the Wildlife Agencies is required for this
Take Authorizations.
In the case of annexations of land that require Take Authorizations of Covered Species, one of the two
following processes shall be required depending on whether the lands to be annexed are covered by an
existing, operative NCCP/HCP and Federal and state permits:
A Major Amendment to the Plan and amendment of the Take Authorizations to cover the
annexed lands.
If the lands proposed for annexation are covered by another approved NCCP/HCP and
Federal and state permits, transfer of that portion of the Take Authorizations applicable to the
annexation lands to the City and PVPLC accompanied by a written commitment by the City
and PVPLC to fund and implement the same or equivalent take avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures applicable to the lands to be annexed under the original Take
Authorizations. This process could apply to de-annexation from another jurisdiction has an
existing, operative NCCP/HCP and Federal and state permits.
If the lands to be annexed will require Take Authorizations for any species that is not covered
under the original plan or under the C Major A
NCCP/HCP and Permits shall be required.
120
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
6.9 Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances
The "No Surprises" Rule of the United States Department of the Interior, (50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5) and
17.32(b)(5), 1998) generally provides that as long as the Permit is being properly implemented, the
Federal government will not require additional land or money from the City beyond that provided under
nt in the event of Unforeseen Circumstances. Unforeseen
Circumstances are defined in 50 C.F.R. § 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a Covered Species or
geographic area covered by the Plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the City or
Wildlife Agencies at the time of Plan negotiation and development and that results in a substantial and
adverse change in the status of a Covered Species. Changed Circumstances are defined in 50 C.F.R. §
17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan
that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and USFWS and that can be planned for (e.g., the
listing of new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophe in areas prone to such events). The No
Surprises Rule requires that Changed Circumstances, and planned responses to those Changed
Circumstances be incorporated into an HCP. (see 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32 (b)(5)).
6.9.1 Unforeseen Circumstances
Assurances under the ESA
Pursuant to the No Surprises Rule at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), and provided that the
Permittees are properly implementing the Plan, the USFWS shall not require the Permittees to provide
additional land, water or other natural resources, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on
the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level provided for under the Plan, the IA and
the section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit with respect to Covered Projects and Covered Activities without the
consent of the Permittees. Adaptive Management modifications and plan responses to Changed
Circumstances are provided for under the Plan and are not subject to the mitigation assurances in the No
Surprises Rule.
The regulatory assurances provided to the City by the No Surprises Rule are contained in 50 C.F.R. §§
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5) and are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area
covered by the Plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the City, PVPLC, or Wildlife
adverse change in the status of a Covered Species.
Assurances Under the NCCP Act
Provided the CITY and PVPLC are implementing the Plan, the Permits, and the IA, CDFW shall not
require additional land, water or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land,
water, or other natural resources for the life of the NCCP permit without the consent of CITY, unless
CDFW determines that continued implementation of the Plan would jeopardize the continued existence of
121
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
a Covered Species. Adaptive Management modifications and Plan responses to Changed Circumstances
are provided for under the Plan. Accordingly, the resources identified to support such modifications and
planned responses, together with the other resources commitments of the Permittees reflected in the Plan,
constitute the extent of the obligations of the Permittees pursuant to the NCCP Act assurances.
Process to Respond to Unforeseen Circumstances
If the USFWS, CDFW, or the Permittees believe that an Unforeseen Circumstance exists, it shall
immediately provide written notice of its proposed finding of Unforeseen Circumstances to the Parties.
Within 30 days of such notice, USFWS in coordination with CDFW shall clearly document the basis for
the proposed finding regarding the existence of Unforeseen Circumstances pursuant to the requirements
of 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C). Within fifteen (15) days of receiving such
notice, the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies shall meet and confer to consider the facts cited in the
notice and potential changes to the Plan or management and operation of the Preserve lands. Pursuant to
50 C.F.R §§ 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C), USFWS in coordination with CDFW shall make
an Unforeseen Circumstances finding based on the best available scientific information, after considering
any responses submitted by the City and PVPLC pursuant to this section and as described in Section 6.10
of the Plan, and the USFWS in coordination with CDFW shall have the burden of demonstrating that
Unforeseen Circumstances exist.
Interim Obligations Upon a Finding of Unforeseen Circumstances
If USFWS in coordination with CDFW makes a finding of Unforeseen Circumstances, during the period
necessary to determine the nature and extent of additional measures required and available, if any, to
address the unforeseen circumstances, the City and PVPLC shall avoid contributing to appreciably
reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected Covered Species and the City shall
accordingly exercise its enforcement autho
jurisdiction and control that are carrying out Covered Activities.
6.9.2 Changed Circumstances
Changed Circumstances he
Plan generally provides that most Changed Circumstances will be mitigated via the ongoing monitoring
and Adaptive Management program developed in Section 7.0 of the Plan. If additional conservation or
mitigation measures beyond the ongoing monitoring and Adaptive Management are deemed necessary to
respond to the changes in circumstances described in this section, the City and PVPLC will implement the
planned responses specified in this section. If Changed Circumstances listed in this section of the Plan
occur, the City and/or PVPLC will immediately notify the Wildlife Agencies, and will provide written
notice to the Wildlife Agencies within seven (7) working days. Within thirty (30) working days, the City
shall modify its activities and shall require affected third persons under its direct control to modify their
activities in accordance with this section of the Plan, as appropriate, to the extent necessary to minimize
and mitigate the effects of the Changed Circumstances. The City and/or PVPLC shall report to the
122
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Wildlife Agencies on its actions. Such modifications will be initiated without awaiting notice from the
Wildlife Agencies.
Because the Preserve contains the majority of available native habitat capable of supporting Covered
Species, planned responses to most Changed Circumstances involve reprioritizing and, when necessary,
modifying the Preserve management program in place at the time and/or subsequent to the event. Any
required planned response will be funded equally by the two entities responsible for the implementation
of this Plan, the City and the PVPLC, as described below. In February 2006, the Board of Directors of the
PVPLC approved the establishment of a special fund to benefit and manage all of its properties, including
the Preserve. The April 2009 value of the PVPLC fund was approximately $470,000. Additionally,
PVPLC have reserves of about $477,000. These are contingency funds wherein a portion of these funds
may be used as necessary for Preserve Management or to respond to Changed Circumstances as described
in Section 8.2.1.2 of the Plan. The City has a Habitat Restoration Fund as part of the approved City
budget, which would be used to fund its share of the planned responses as described in Section 8.2.1.1 of
the Plan
for inflation by the City using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) index), to provide the necessary funding
for the planned responses described below. Based on the cost analysis for responses to Changed
Circumstances summarized below, the total shared cost of a planned response by the City and PVPLC is
not anticipated to exceed $25,000 (adjusted annually for inflation by the City using the CPI) per
occurrence.
A description of potential Changed Circumstances, an assessment of the potential for these circumstances
to occur, and the preventative measures and planned responses for these circumstances are provided
below. Circumstances that exceed the thresholds identified below are not considered reasonably
foreseeable during the 50-year term of the Plan and are therefore considered "Unforeseen Circumstances."
6.9.2.1 Fire
Much of the land covered by the Plan is located in arid areas that are susceptible to wildfires, which can
adversely affect or impact habitat communities and ecosystems. It is important to acknowledge that fire is
a natural phenomenon in southern California and CSS is a fire-adapted plant community. In implementing
the Plan, the City will use best management practices and coordinate with local fire departments to
minimize adverse impacts associated with fire, and to monitor and respond to potential adverse biological
impacts when they occur.
According to statistics provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and research of the
Peninsula News archives, the City has determined that in the 20 years between 1989 and 2009, there have
been 11 fires within the Preserve properties identified in Section 4.2 of the Plan. This averages out to
approximately 0.55 fire per year. In addition, the fire size for fires within these properties has ranged from
1 acre to 194 acres with an average fire size of 56 acres.
123
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Because fire is a natural feature of the region, under normal circumstances natural re-growth of habitat is
expected. However, extensive fires (covering a large area) or repeated fires (in the same area) in the same
location of the Preserve may adversely affect the Covered Species conserved by the Plan because habitat
type conversion from existing habitat(s) to invasive or non-native weeds can occur. Based on the existing
data, a fire greater than 200 acres is not anticipated to occur within the Preserve during the Permit Term,
and such a fire will be considered an Unforeseen Circumstance. Similarly, we do not anticipate any area
greater than 5 acres to burn two or more time within any 5-year period, and that situation will be
considered an Unforeseen Circumstance.
Preventative Measures for Fire
In order to reduce the likelihood of or harm from fire in the Preserve, the following preventative measures
will be followed by the City and PVPLC to prevent or respond to the effects of fire on Covered Species
and/or habitats.
In order to reduce the risk of fire, the City and PVPLC will perform the Los Angeles County Fire
Department/Agricultural Commissioner approved fire and fuel modification described in Section 5.2.15
along with the management described in Section 9.2.2 of the Plan.
as soon as feasible after the onset of the fire.
The City may restrict public access, as necessary, to the Preserve following fires and in times when fire
hazard may be very high.
Planned Responses for Fire
If a fire less than 200 acres occurs in the Preserve or a repeat fire less than 5 acres occurs, the PVPLC will
monitor the natural re-growth of the fire area for a period of no less than 3 years to determine if the
habitat is recovering. If negative impacts on Covered Species are identified from the monitoring of burned
area (e.g., habitat type conversion), PVPLC will notify the Wildlife Agencies and the City, and an
expedited analysis of the Preserve areas impacted by the fire will occur. Measures determined necessary
by the Wildlife Agencies, after full consultation with the City and PVPLC, to address impacts caused by
the fires will be implemented by the City and PVPLC. These measures may include erosion control,
noxious species control, reseeding, or other measures identified during the analysis. Ongoing projects and
Covered Activities within the Preserve may continue in the Preserve while the new measures resulting
from the analysis are developed provided they do not significantly worsen the impacts to the Preserve
caused by the fires.
The City may seek reimbursement from the party it determines is responsible for the fire for the funds
expended by the City and/or PVPLC in implementing the planned response. If no responsible party is
identified, the City and PVPLC shall share equally the costs of implementing the planned response. The
124
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
cost is expected to be $500 per acre of burn area for weed abatement and $800 per acre of burn area for
reseeding for areas requiring restoration due to habitat type conversion.
6.9.2.2 Flood
For purposes of defining a Changed Circumstance, a flood is defined as an event occurring within the
Preserve 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 Department of Public Works. Due to the
narrow and steep configuration of the drainage courses within the NCCP/HCP Plan Area, it is very
unlikely that a flood will damage existing or restored habitat within the NCCP/HCP Plan Area.
Preventative Measures for Flood
Most major development projects approved by the City will include implementation of BMPs for
stormwater and surface runoff pursuant to the standards promulgated by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For all discretionary projects involving new development projects
abutting the Preserve approved by the City, the City will include mitigation measures or other conditions,
as appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that a flood would adversely impact Covered Species and the
conserved habitat. As a co-permittee of the RWQCB NPDES Permit, the City is required to adopt a
SUSMP. The large majority of new development projects and significant redevelopment projects must
meet SUSMP requirements to reduce pollution and runoff flows. T
recommended source control and structural treatment BMPs. Additionally, City land use policies ensure
that land use regulations and public improvements accommodate flood events that approximate the rate,
magnitude, and duration of natural flood flows.
Planned Response
If flood damage within the Preserve requires repair and/or remediation of public facilities, the repair work
os Angeles County Department of
Public Works in consultation with the PVPLC. Any loss of CSS resulting from flood response work is a
Covered Activity under this NCCP/HCP up to the acreage total identified in Table 5-1 (Total Loss of
Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities). Any on-site restoration deemed necessary by the
Wildlife Agencies after full consultation with the City and PVPLC will be performed and funded equally
by the City and PVPLC. The City will obtain all necessary wetland permits for planned response to flood
damage.
6.9.2.3 Landslide
As there has not been a history of sudden landslide events in the Preserve but rather the relatively steady
movement of the Portuguese Bend landslide complex, for purposes of defining a changed circumstance, a
landslide is the relatively steady movement of the existing Portuguese Bend landslide complex. Impacts
and activities associated with other landslides have been identified as Covered Activities in Section 5.2 of
the Plan.
125
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
Preventative Measures for Landslide
The preventative measures for landslide are minimization of the water intrusion into the slide plane and
avoiding the redistribution of earth in a manner that would adversely affect the dynamics of the landslide
complex.
Planned Response
If landslide damage within the Preserve requires repair and/or remediation of public facilities, the repair
loss of CSS resulting from landslide response work is a Covered Activity under this NCCP/HCP. Any
on-site restoration necessary will be performed and funded equally by the City and PVPLC.
6.9.2.4 Drought
Drought is a natural part of a Mediterranean climate system to which species and natural communities
have adapted. However, prolonged drought could cause serious damage to the Preserve, especially to
newly restored and enhanced habitat areas that have yet to become established. Drought is not uncommon
in southern California, and it is a phenomenon to which local natural habitats and species have of
necessity adapted over time. Drought conditions may adversely affect the Covered Species and their
associated vegetation communities. Covered Species may be at greater risk than other species if their
habitat needs or population numbers are already compromised. As Covered Species and habitats begin to
react to a prolonged reduction in rainfall, carry-over supplies in reservoirs are depleted and water levels in
groundwater basins also decline, making imported water resources less available for non-potable uses.
To estimate how many drought years might be expected to occur during the Permit Term, annual rainfall
records from downtown Los Angeles were reviewed from 1912 to 2011 by water year (July 1 to June 30)
(Western Regional Climate Center website http:wrcc.dri.edu). We define drought as two or more
successive water years with 75% or less of the average rainfall (mean seasonal precipitation or MSP).
These data show that, on average, droughts of 2 years or more occurred 1.5 times over any 50-year
period, droughts of 3 years occurred once in any 50-year period, and droughts of 4 years or more occurred
less than once (0.5 times) over the same interval. Therefore, during the 40-year Permit Term, a drought
of 4 or more years in length has an approximately 50% chance of occurring. The average number of
droughts (2 years or more) within a 50 year interval was 3 droughts. Based on the historical rainfall data,
we consider more than 3 droughts of 2 or more years in duration during the Permit Term or any drought
for more than 4 successive years unlikely, and such a drought will be treated as an Unforeseen
Circumstance. While climate change is anticipated to result in increased drought potential, the extent of
such change is not fully understood, and we are unaware of any viable models of the impact of climate
change on drought frequency or severity at a relevant local scale. Therefore, we are relying on historic
data to inform our response to drought.
Based on these historic rainfall data, remedial actions to address predictable drought impacts are likely to
be necessary over the Permit Term and will be funded. Over the course of Plan implementation, actions
126
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
to remediate drought impacts will be funded through the contingency fund for up to 3 droughts during the
Permit Term. Of the 3 droughts, only one is anticipated to be 4 or more years in duration. Droughts that
occur within this expected frequency are considered a Changed Circumstance (see Section 6.10). More
than 3 droughts during the Permit Term or any one drought exceeding 4 years in duration are considered
Unforeseen Circumstances (see Section 6.10.1) and are not funded by the Plan.
Planned Response
The City and PVPLC, from the funding sources designated above, will share the costs of any planned
response to drought deemed necessary by the Wildlife Agencies following coordination with the City and
PVCLC.Because vegetation communities within the NCCP/HCP Area are drought-tolerant, short-term
drought may not result in negative impacts on the existing habitat within the NCCP/HCP Plan Area.
The NCCP/HCP includes a Habitat Restoration Plan (see Section 7.5) for restoration and enhancement of
habitat with in the Preserve that supports the Covered Species. The restoration and enhancement habitat
areas will also be subject to the maintenance program and monitoring along with Adaptive Management.
Implementation of the Habitat Restoration Plan will minimize the risks to the restored/enhanced habitat
areas associated with drought. If drought conditions seem likely, measures will be incorporated into the
monitoring and management program and implemented by the City and PVPLC to ameliorate the effects
to restored habitat and Covered Species associated with drought. Some or all of the measures listed
below are to be implemented in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies and will be documented in a
report/damage assessment submitted to the City and Wildlife Agencies.
Monitor Los Angeles County rain data in the area to determine if the seasonal rainfall at the end
of March and April indicate a drought (near 75% of MSP).
Monitor the Preserve to determine if the drought is adversely affecting the Preserve (i.e.,
decreasing seedling recruitment, promoting invasive species). Provide a report with the findings
to the City and Wildlife Agencies.
Monitor restoration/enhancement sites that are beyond their establishment periods (i.e., no longer
sustained by irrigation) but that have not achieved their success goals potentially due to low soil
moisture or high evapotranspiration rates.
If possible, within restoration areas, the irrigation system provided during the initial planting
phases may have to be prolonged in a drought to achieve restoration success goals, or the
irrigation system may have to be limited to targeted priority areas.
If necessary, temporarily reprioritize areas targeted for restoration and enhancement to focus on
habitat areas that include more drought tolerant species such as plants comprising cactus wren
habitat.
127
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
If necessary, temporarily adjust the success goals (criteria/performance standards) associated with
restoration and enhancement sites. For example, increasing the length of time a restored/enhanced
habitat area has to fully achieve the success goals or the percent of anticipated cover of the plant
species within the restored/enhanced habitat area could be adjusted until the drought has
subsided. Final success criteria/performance standards should not generally be reduced in order
for a restoration site to be considered complete; however, the Wildlife Agencies may deem
restoration complete that lacks some of the anticipated success criteria by considering overall
habitat function, including its use by Covered Species.
If drought results in limited or no ability to provide supplemental water to restoration areas, then Adaptive
Management strategies and remedial measures (which may include some listed above or below) will be
employed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Should habitat damage or losses occur due to
drought, the PVPLC will assess the drought damage and initiate the following remedial measures within
one year of damage or loss and document the information a report submitted to the City and Wildlife
Agencies. These strategies and measures are listed below.
Prepare a damage assessment.
Identify Adaptive Management actions to mitigate the effects of the drought on Covered Species
and vegetation within the Preserve, including habitat areas that have been enhanced or restored
that have not achieved their success goals \[e.g., provision of temporary or supplemental artificial
water sources (subject to water availability)\]. These may include:
Temporarily adjust the success goals (criteria/performance standards) and practices for
o
restoration sites to maximize planting survival during periods of reduced water
availability/drought. This may include increasing the length of time a restoration site has
to achieve its success goals.
Revise the methods for monitoring of vegetation conditions to identify areas that may
o
require additional management.
Conduct additional weed abatement in restored/enhanced habitat areas. Temporarily
o
redirect habitat restoration/enhancement efforts towards invasive species removal until
drought conditions subside.
Postponing habitat restoration/enhancement until irrigation or rainfall resumes.
o
Redirecting habitat restoration/enhancement efforts during drought conditions towards
o
trail management of habitat areas damaged by off trail uses.
6.9.2.5 Invasive Species
For the purpose of defining changed circumstance, invasion of exotic species is defined as an increase of
invasive species within the Preserve to the extent that, as determined by the Wildlife Agencies following
128
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
consultation with the City and PVPLC, such increase is of sufficient magnitude to significantly, adversely
affect any Covered Species.
Although invasive, exotic, or pest species of plants and/or animals may currently be present within the
Preserve, an unexpected and/or sudden increase in certain invasive species (i.e., cowbirds) may have a
significant adverse effect on one or more of the Covered Species within the conserved habitat.
Opportunities for increases in invasive species could occur as urban development expands in areas
surrounding the conserved habitat, or if new invasive species not currently in the area are introduced.
Additionally, certain events, including fire and other changed circumstances, may precipitate sudden
increases of invasive species. Planned responses to those events include measures to reduce the
opportunity for invasion by exotic species.
Preventative Measures
The landscaping guidelines described in Section 5.6.4 of the Plan contain measures to prevent the use of
invasive plants adjacent to the Preserve. Additionally, the Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants
(TERPP) described further in Section 7.6 of the Plan contains measures to remove invasive plants, which
will help prevent the spread. Invasive species will, under normal circumstances, be discovered prior to
becoming a threat to Covered Species.
This 2012 Predator Control Plan (PCP) for the PVPLC outlines appropriate provisions and measures to
adequately comply with the Preserve Management requirements of the NCCP/HCP. This PCP provides
the framework for the pet/feral animal education program and the native predator education program, and
establishes the need for monitoring for feral or domestic animals, native large predators, and
mesopredators.The PVPLC will plan for predator control as follows: 1) Note observations and impacts of
potential predators within the Preserve as a part of its regularly monitoring schedule; 2) Provide education
programs regarding the impacts of predators on natural open spaces and habitat; 3) Consult with the
Wildlife Agencies or establish a trapping program for brown-headed cowbirds if necessary; 4) Consult
with the Wildlife Agencies or control predators such as feral cats and mesopredators if necessary.
Planned Response
A key component of Preserve management is the TERPP. If invasive species begin to adversely affect
any Covered Species in a given area, this area will be prioritized for invasive species control in the
TERPP and potentially as part of the 5-acre annual restoration (Section 7.5 of the Plan) requirement. If
more than the 5 acres of targeted exotic removal is required as determined by the Wildlife Agencies
following consultation with the City and PVPLC, the costs will be shared by the City and PVPLC, from
the funding sources designated above.
If the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies collectively determine that an increase in invasive plant
species has occurred within the Preserve that cannot be adequately addressed by the TERPP, the City in
consultation with the Wildlife Agencies and PVPLC, will assess and implement changes to the Adaptive
Management program, which may be necessary to control the invasive species.
129
SECTION
Local Plan Review and Approval Process
If cowbirds become a problem in the Preserve, through increased numbers, incidental observations of
cowbird parasitism on a gnatcatcher nest, or other issues, a cowbird trapping program may be initiated by
PVPLC, following coordination with Wildlife Agencies. Similarly, if evidence indicates that key predator
species are extirpated, and there is an increase in non-native mesopredators adversely affecting Covered
6.9.2.6 Future Listing of Non-Covered Species or Designation of Critical
Habitat for Covered or Non-Covered Species
For purposes of defining a changed circumstance, future listing of non-covered species is defined as the
state or Federal listing under CESA or ESA, respectively, of any non-covered species with the potential to
occur or historically occurring within the City. Although NCCPs and HCPs contribute to the conservation
of habitat for species and are aimed to prevent the listing and contribute to the recovery of species, for
several reasons (including factors outside of the control of the City) it is still reasonably foreseeable that a
species occurring within the City may become listed; therefore, there is no Unforeseeable Circumstance
related to this category. Additionally, it is foreseeable that critical habitat could be designated under the
ESA within the Plan Area for a Covered Species or a non-covered species.
Planned Response
Currently non-listed species that are not addressed as Covered Species in this NCCP/HCP will not be
included in the Permits and will not automatically receive Permit coverage in the event of listing. To the
extent that the Wildlife Agencies determine that any such species would likely be taken, jeopardized, or
the critical habitat of such species be adversely modified or destroyed as a result of the Covered
Activities, the City and PVPLC will implement the no jeopardy/no take/no adverse modification
measures, if any, identified by Wildlife Agencies until there is a Major Amendment for the NCCP/HCP
permits as an option for the City to obtain permit coverage for the species by providing additional
conservation measures or until the Wildlife Agencies notify the City and its Preserve Habitat Manager
(PVPLC) that such measures are no longer needed to avoid jeopardy to, take of, or adverse modification
to the critical habitat of the non-covered Species. It is reasonable to expect that the management activities
of the NCCP/HCP would benefit the newly listed species. If critical habitat is designated for a Covered
Species,
by the USFWS until the USFWS notifies the City and PVPLC that such measures are no longer needed to
avoid adverse modification of the habitat of the Covered Species. Based on currently available
information, the City believes that the land within the Preserve, and the associated management provided
under the Plan for the Preserve lands, provides the necessary management and protection for the habitat
features on those lands that are essential for the conservation of the Covered Species within the Plan Area.
6.10 Coordination with Other NCCPs
No other jurisdiction within the Los Angeles County subregion is currently participating in the NCCP
program. Should new NCCP Planning programs be initiated throughout other subregions, the City will
coordinate with those jurisdictions, as appropriate.
130
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
7.0 BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
7.1 Biological Objectives
The NCCP/HCP is a comprehensive habitat protection program that addresses multiple species habitat
needs and the conservation of natural communities in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. In addition to
identifying areas for preservation and conditionally compatible land uses within and adjacent to the
Preserve, this NCCP/HCP also seeks to maintain biological values of the Preserve over time by reducing
human-related impacts to Covered Species and their habitats. The overall objective of the NCCP/HCP is
to ensure that the biological values of natural resources, where land is preserved as part of the NCCP/HCP
through acquisition, regulation, mitigation or other means, are maintained over time. Biological
monitoring will allow the City, its Preserve Habitat Manager (i.e., PVPLC), and the Wildlife Agencies to
evaluate whether the Preserve 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. The City, PVPLC, and the
Wildlife Agencies will have detailed maps providing locations of habitats and Covered Species
populations included in the Preserve and/or targeted for conservation. Land located in the Preserve will be
managed and maintained in accordance with specific biological objectives as follows:
1. Maintain or increase populations of Covered Species to ensure the long-term viability and
sustainability of native ecosystem function and natural processes throughout the Preserve.
Document changes in the presence of conserved populations of Covered Species. This will be
accomplished through monitoring Covered Species within conserved habitats.
2. Maintain or increase the acreage of habitat for Covered Species within the Preserve. To enhance
and restore, where feasible, appropriate native plant associations and wildlife connections to
adjoining habitat in order to provide viable wildlife and sensitive species habitat.
3. Document the loss of and the protection of habitats and Covered Species in the annual Habitat
Tracking Report and Covered Species Report as specified in this NCCP/HCP and IA. This will be
accomplished as the City tracks habitat impacts and take of Covered Species.
4. Manage the populations of non-native invasive plant species in the Preserve via the Targeted
Exotic Removal Plan for Plants.
5. 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.
6. Apply Adaptive Management when necessary as described below.
131
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
7.2 Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management is a key element of implementing effective conservation programs. Adaptive
Management combines data from monitoring species and natural systems with new information from
management and targeted studies to continually assess the effectiveness and adjust conservation actions.
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., 10-20 years) the frequency of monitoring may be reduced,
species may require more intensive monitoring because of declining trends. The remediation and
Adaptive Management program will achieve the objectives of providing corrective actions where (1)
resources are threatened by land uses in and adjacent to the Preserve, (2) current management activities
are not adequate or effective, or (3) enforcement difficulties are identified.
The highest priority monitoring tasks will be those (1) that provide direct evidence of changes in key
biological resources and (2) for which corrective or remedial management actions are possible.
The Wildlife Agencies will work cooperatively with the City and its Preserve Habitat Manager to set any
potential new priorities that can be identified from results of Annual and/or Comprehensive Reports.
Moreover, the City will consider the input from the Wildlife Agencies, science advisors, other land
management agencies, and the public. Any major changes in the Adaptive Management program will
require the approval of the Wildlife Agencies prior to implementation, including, but not limited to, any
proposed actions that would be inconsistent with the Plan or detrimental to a Covered Species introducing
new and untested management techniques, discontinuing and replacing ineffective management
techniques that are recommended in the Conservation Strategy, or applying management techniques on a
much larger or smaller scale than envisioned in the Plan.
7.3 Covered Species Surveys Methodologies
This section outlines the necessary monitoring tasks, including methodologies, data collection, and
analysis. Section 7.8 of the Plan provides more information on additional research that may be
implemented as funds and/or researchers become available. 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, (2) longer-term trends that may suggest
declining populations, and (3) proposed measures to improve species viability. In each case, active
management may be required. The Covered Species monitoring effort will achieve NCCP/HCP objectives
of documenting the protection of Covered Species and changes in conserved populations of Covered
Species as well as collecting new biological data. The PVPLC has developed an initial Preserve Habitat
Management Plan (PHMP) (Appendix H) for the Preserve as described in Section 9.0 of the Plan that
132
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
consists of the following four plans: 1) Initial Management and Monitoring Plan; 2) Predator Control
Plan; 3) Habitat Restoration Plan; and 4) TERPP. In an Adaptive Management context, the PHMP may
require new management directives if changes in population size of Covered Species are identified as a
result of this monitoring (Dudek, 2007). The Wildlife Agencies will work cooperatively with the City and
its Preserve Habitat Manager (i.e., PVPLC) to set any potential new priorities that can be identified from
results of Annual and/or Comprehensive Reports. Any new priorities identified in the PHMP will be
7.3.1 Plant Species Monitoring
Six target Covered Plant Species occur within the Citylimits. These are aphanisma, South
Coast saltscale, island green dudleya, woolly seablite, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and Catalina
crossosoma. The first four species occur in southern bluff scrub, whereas the latter two species occur in
CSS. An additional two sensitive species have not been observed in the City limits, but may occur on the
-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) and state-listed
(Pentachaeta lyonii). The following discussion of plant species monitoring focuses only on Covered Plant
Species currently known from the Plan Area.
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, invasive species, plant competition, and
erosion) and will be measured through visual assessments. PVPLC will identify any new infestations on
an ongoing basis from information gathered when working in the Preserve during species surveys and on
trail and restoration projects and include these observations for appropriate management actions in the
TERPP. Natural events that temporarily affect plant populations 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 of 2006 by PVPLC, a reconnaissance survey was conducted for all
populations included in the field-monitoring program. The purpose of this survey was to refine existing
information and establish baseline conditions. Specific objectives of this survey were to define population
limits, estimate population sizes, and map populations onto base maps. The reconnaissance survey was a
one-time effort, and there will be no formal effort to identify additional populations. Field monitoring
includes a qualitative assessment of disturbance factors that may threaten the populations. 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.
Each known occurrence of Covered Plant Species will be completely censused during each sample season
with the exception of island green dudleya, which occurs in relatively large, inaccessible populations that
133
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
are difficult to census. For island green dudleya populations, abundance and density are assessed by direct
counts or estimates in sample plots using binoculars from vantage points or by photo documentation, as
discussed below and in the Preserve Habitat Management Plan.
Photo Documentation
Permanent photo documentation points have been 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., island green dudleya). Photo documentation points will be established for at least three
vantage points adjacent to the subject population(s). Digital photographs will be taken concurrent with
monitoring according to the schedule described in the Monitoring Frequency section below. Additionally,
cameras will maintain the same orientation and focal length from year to year. Photographs should be
taken during each monitoring effort.
Climatic Data
Climatic information (e.g., precipitation and temperature) will be collected and 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. Established
weather stations are located throughout the Peninsula.
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 island green dudleya, June for Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and between February and
May for Catalina crossosoma.
Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring frequency for Covered Plant S
perennial). Other considerations in monitoring frequency may include population trends noted over time.
As stated above, annuals and herbaceous perennials will be monitored once every three years in the spring
in years where rains on the Peninsula exceed 75% of the long-term average annual precipitation, as
measured during the JulyJune rain year. 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.
134
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
Population Parameters
Long-term monitoring. 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., 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 field monitoring program.
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 will 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, island green dudleya, Santa
Catalina Island desert-thorn, woolly seablite, 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 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 potential 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 dynamic population.
Conversely, populations characterized by minimal or no seedling recruitment are typically
considered stable, 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).
135
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
The presence of age classes within a population will be monitored for herbaceous perennials (e.g.,
island 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 island 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 recruitment in a population.
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. The data will be presented for each plant population and
summarized for the entire Plan Area. Once multiple sample years are available, the data will be presented
in simple graphs to help visualize potential trends. Data will be included in the Annual Reports to the
Wildlife Agencies to determine future management actions. The raw data will be made available to
regional databases and the Wildlife Agencies as requested for additional statistical analyses.
7.3.2 Animal Species Monitoring
The goal of population monitoring is to implement a monitoring program sufficient to demonstrate
presence or absence of animals from various locations, develop a database that can help assess population
trends, and identify important threats of Covered Species within the Preserve system. The three Covered
Species to be monitored are gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and ESB. A complete survey of all occupied and
potential habitats within the Preserve will be conducted every three years for populations of the
gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and ESB. If the PVB is rediscovered or reintroduced within the Preserve, this
species will be added to the monitoring program. Federally listed animal species surveys will be
conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the target species. Qualified biologists will either possess
ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for the target species or be approved by the USFWS, in coordination
with the CDFW, prior to conducting surveys. Any incidental take of federally listed species that may
section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. It is expected that gnatcatcher and cactus wren surveys will be done
concurrently. This survey protocol for the NCCP/HCP is detailed below:
Coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren surveys
1. Survey Frequency. Gnatcatchers/cactus wrens are difficult to detect and can easily be missed with
just one site visit. Every three years, CSS within the Preserve will be surveyed twice per year
with at least a seven-day interval between site visits during February through May.
2. Time of Day. Surveys will be conducted from 6:00 a.m. to noon. Surveys will begin later in the
morning when ambient morning temperatures are less than 40°F.
136
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
3. Coverage of Survey. The calling rate of 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/cactus wrens.
4. Survey Weather Conditions. Gnatcatchers/cactus 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.
5. 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 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., 5-10 minutes) before playing the tape again. Do not induce
detected birds to follow the taped call, thereby minimizing potential double counting.
6. 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. Note the location of territorial behavior, if observed.
7. Detailed Recording of Sighting Information. Gnatcatcher/cactus wren sightings will be recorded
on a standard field data form, 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 CDFW 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 (if feasible) of individual(s)
Are any of the birds detected color-banded? Record the color code, if present.
Habitat type, dominant plant species, and vegetative condition (i.e., extent of
disturbance/invasive plant species) will be documented and photographed
Is the sighting a single bird, a pair, or a family group?
Is there any evidence of breeding activity (e.g., nesting behavior, carrying of prey items)?
Are there any other sensitive CSS species or Species of Special Concern near the sighting?
Any observations of brown-headed cowbirds
El Segundo blue butterfly and Palos Verdes blue butterfly surveys
Every three years, qualified biologist will survey occupied and potential habitat within the Preserve for
ESB and PVB (if discovered or reintroduced with the NCCP/HCP Plan Area) during the peak flight
137
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
period of these species (ESB = June 20-August 20 \[Mattoni et al. 2001\]; PVB = February 25-April 25
\[Mattoni and Longcore 2002\]). For both species, during six consecutive weeks of the peak flight period,
each occupied or potential habitat area will be surveyed once per week for a total of six surveys. Numbers
of adults detected, sex, behavior, weather, and condition of the larval habitat, including hostplant
abundance and condition, will be assessed and reported after each survey season. An estimate of the
number of hostplants will be conducted in conjunction with the butterfly surveys. Hostplants established
as a part of a restoration project will have baseline populations set after the fifth year of monitoring, or as
noted in the restoration plan. As new areas with occupied or potential habitat are discovered for the
butterflies, they will be incorporated into the survey areas.
Animal Species Data Analysis
Following each survey period, data for each species will be presented for individual locations (as defined
in the Preserve Habitat Management Plan) and summarized for the entire Plan Area. These data will
include, at a minimum, the number of observations per location, estimated number of individuals per
location, and sex ratios. In addition, qualitative observations on behavior, habitat conditions and other
potentially important variables (as determined by surveyors) will be presented. Once multiple sample
years are available, the data will be presented in simple graphs to help visualize potential trends. The raw
data will be made available to the Wildlife Agencies as requested for additional statistical analyses.
7.3.3 Data Collection for Plant and Animal Species
Implementation of the monitoring program is the responsibility of the City and conducted by the PVPLC,
with the monitoring assistance from the City, the USFWS, and CDFW, as available. A critical factor in
the success of the 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 issued every three years. A centralized data storage system 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 CDFW 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.
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 CDFW and others to allow for NCCP and other monitoring data to be stored consistently. Data
collected will be stored in PVPLC offices in an Access database. From this database PVPLC can export
data in the format specified by the statewide monitoring program, once it is developed. 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.
138
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
Monitoring documentation will include the following: hard copy or electronic data collection field forms,
data reduction forms, and final summary forms. Establishing these forms in advance of the field effort
will ensure that all aspects of the monitoring effort are examined, and will focus the effort on the stated
objective(s). Additionally, maps will be provided (as needed) that depict individual site disturbances and
other indicators/evidence of change.
Collected data will be input into the PVPLC database for eventual electronic submission to the statewide
monitoring database. Data will be summarized to develop statistical estimates of population sizes (e.g.,
means, variances, standard deviations) and population trends. In addition, data should be assessed to
determine spatial and temporal trends for each species. Summaries of the assessment data will be
presented in the monitoring reports.
7.4 Non-Native Animal Species Management Plans
Native species are often at a disadvantage after exotic species or non-native predators are introduced, so
special management measures may be needed to control these invading species. Non-native 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 can adversely affect native songbird breeding (e.g., gnatcatcher) populations if
not adequately monitoring/managed.
7.4.1 Feral and Domestic Animal Control
These measures shall be considered for inclusion in the management of the Preserve.
1. Document evidence of feral or domestic animal use in the Preserve.
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 Preserves; (5) discouraging release of unwanted pets into the wild; and (6) prohibiting the
feeding of feral animals.
7.4.2 Cowbird Trapping Program
1. Brown-headed cowbirds can adversely affect native songbird breeding (e.g., gnatcatcher) if
populations are not adequately monitoring/managed. Observations of cowbird presence and
numbers within the Preserve will be provided every three years during the gnatcatcher and cactus
139
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
wren surveys. Additionally, all incidental sightings of cowbird during restoration activities or
other time spent in the Preserve will be reported in the Annual Report.
2. If cowbirds become a problem in the Preserve, through increased numbers, incidental
observations of cowbird parasitism on a gnatcatcher nest, or other issues, a cowbird trapping
program may be initiated by PVPLC, associated with Changed Circumstances (Section 6.10.2.5),
following consultation with Wildlife Agencies (see Section 5.6.3, Equestrian Use).
7.4.3 Other Predator Control
1. 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.
2. If evidence indicates that key predator species are extirpated, and there is an increase in non-
native mesopredators adversely affecting Covered Species, initiate a program to control
mesopredators .
7.5 Habitat Restoration Plan
Restoration is the process of re-establishing or enhancing historical biological functions and values to
degraded habitats. The City shall be required to restore a minimum of 250 acres of habitat over the Permit
Term within the Preserve. A minimum of 5 acres of habitat shall be restored each year, or a total of 15
acres every three years if exigencies prevent restoration of 5 acres each year. Restoration within the
Preserve will consist of actively establishing native habitat in areas currently dominated by non-native
habitat or disturbed lands, based on a three-year Restoration Plan to be developed by the PVPLC in
coordination with the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The plan will include recommendations for
restoration sites beyond the three-year period, and will be updated and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies
every three years to incorporate changes in priorities, conditions, or unique situations while maintaining
long-range planning perspective. Restoration will proceed as detailed in the NCCP/HCP unless changes
are requested by the PVPLC or by the Wildlife Agencies.
Active restoration and enhancement of non-native habitats and disturbed lands will require removal of
existing non-native vegetation, seeding and/or planting with native species, and monitoring the restoration
effort. The habitat restoration program will focus on the creation of habitat for target species with the
objective of increasing the overall habitat carrying capacity and functionality of the Preserve for the
Covered Species populations. Key habitats for restoration are CSS, cactus scrub, PVB butterfly habitat,
and ESB butterfly habitat.
The PVPLC maintains a native plant nursery and seed bank at the Defense Fuel Supply Point (DFSP) in
San Pedro, California. The approximately 2-acre nursery site contains a small greenhouse, shade tables,
automated irrigation, and office space with a dry seed storage room. The facility averages 30,000
container plants and an additional rotating supply of seedling germination flats. On average, 73 species
are grown as container plants and 83 species of seeds (including Covered Species) are collected and
140
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
stored for direct seeding and propagation. PVPLC staff maintains monthly inventory of the container
plants, germination flats, and seed storage.
In interest of preserving local plant genetic diversity, seed collection within the Plan Area is considered a
Covered Management Activity under this Plan. Seed collection protocol for PVPLC staff and volunteers
states the collector must collect from a range of different plants of the same species when collection in
bulk, only collect 10% or less material from any given plant, and must make a positive identification of
the plant prior to collecting. Any staff or volunteer must be trained in this protocol and be confident in
plant phenology to correctly identify mature seeds on the species they are collecting from. Once seeds are
collected and cleaned, they are propagated in germination flats then transplanted into individual
containers grown for specific restoration projects. Container plants and direct seeding are used in
restoration and enhancement projects throughout PVPLC's managed lands.
7.5.1 Management Recommendations
Restoration is necessary to increase the quantity and quality of native habitat in the Preserve and is
considered a Covered Management Activity under this Plan. Habitat-specific restoration should occur
only on sites assessed as suitable for that habitat type. Once the site and size of the restoration effort is
determined, a project-specific restoration program will be prepared according to the following guidelines.
7.5.2 Develop a Detailed Habitat Restoration Plan
The PVPLC developed a three-year Habitat Restoration Plan in 2006 and has continued to update the
Habitat Restoration Plan every three years with review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies. This
Habitat Restoration Plan describes the location, project goals, restoration guidelines, and habitat
restoration or enhancement methods for 15 acres (5 acres per year). The restoration shall:
1. Prepare a 5-acre area(s) each year by removing exotics;
2. Revegetate or enhance that same 5-acre area(s) with native species in the subsequent year; and
3. Include design, installation procedures, maintenance and monitoring success goals.
Every three years, PVPLC will update the Habitat Restoration Plan.
Every effort will be made to obtain funding for additional restoration within the Preserve beyond the 250
acres required under the NCCP/HCP. Additional work may be included in the Habitat Restoration Plan,
with site-specific monitoring requirements for each area. In situations where supplemental sites are added to
those included in the Habitat Restoration Plan, a site-specific Habitat Restoration Plan will be developed
with monitoring requirements appropriate to the situation.
141
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
7.5.3 Restoration Design
The following will be included in the habitat restoration design criteria:
1. Specified plant and seed palettes that will be used in the restoration effort. Tables 8-1 through 8-3
of the Plan are recommended seed lists for use in the Preserve. These seed mixes should be
modified by PVPLC or their restoration biologist to make them more site-specific and correspond
to site-specific restoration goals. Transplantation of appropriate salvaged plants from impacted
sites (e.g., cacti) is encouraged to be incorporated into the restoration design.
2. The types of erosion control that will be used and how they will be applied shall be outlined in
the detailed Habitat 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 (seeding and container plants) into the restoration
program wherever possible and appropriate to the site conditions. Plan ahead when adding a
sensitive species to the Habitat Restoration Plan to be able to obtain enough seed to have a viable
restoration effort (Section 6.2.7 of the Plan).
4. No irrigation systems sh
The following will be included in the preparation criteria:
Prepare the site by restoring it to existing grade, fixing any erosion that may have occurred,
and scarifying any compacted areas.
Weed control shall begin in the winter before installation of the restoration. Treatment should
continue during the winter and spring months as needed. After the weeds have been
controlled, the site shall be raked to remove above ground biomass and remain fallow until
the appropriate time to begin re-vegetation.
PVPLC shall oversee any use of herbicide to control weeds, following the recommendations of a
licensed Pest Control Advisor and shall be supervised by a Qualified Applicator provided
however that use of herbicides is not a Covered Activity under the NCCP/HCP.
142
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
87-1. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix
Percent Pure Live
Scientific Name Common Name Pound per Acre
Seed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush 5 7.5
Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus Ocean locoweed 2
Encelia californica California sunflower 2 24
Eriogonum cinereum Ashy-leaf buckwheat 2
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat 5 6.5
Eriogonum parvifolium Coast buckwheat 5
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden-yarrow 2 18
Lotus scoparius Deerweed 2 54
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo lupine 2 83
Malosma laurina Laurel sumac 1
Nassella lepida Foothill needle-grass 2 36
Nassella pulchra Purple needle-grass 2 42
Salvia leucophylla Purple sage 2 49
Salvia mellifera Black sage 3 35
Total 37
97-2. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Cactus Scrub Seed Mix
Scientific Name Common Name Pounds per Acre Percent Pure Live Seed
Seeds
Artemisia californica California sagebrush 4 7.5
Encelia californica California sunflower 2 24
Eriogonum cinereum Ashy-leaf buckwheat 2
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat 5 6.5
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden-yarrow 2 18
Peritoma arborea Bladderpod 2 58.5
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo lupine 2 83
Nassella lepida Foothill needle-grass 2 36
Total 21
Cuttings Plants per Acre
Opuntia littoralis** Coast prickly pear 200
Opuntia prolifera** Coast cholla 160
Opuntia oricola** Prickly pear 75
Total 435*
* Three meters (10 feet) on center
** Transplantation of appropriate salvaged cacti is encouraged for this community. Incorporating larger (1-3 feet
tall) cacti arranged in clusters to provide vertical structure for cactus wren is also recommended.
143
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
*
107-3. Potential Rancho Palos Verdes Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix
Percent Pure Live
Scientific Name Common Name Pounds per Acre
Seed
Artemisia californica California sagebrush 4 7.5
Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus Ocean locoweed 4
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat 4 6.5
Eriogonum parvifolium Coast buckwheat 4
Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden-yarrow 2 18
Guiterrezia californica California matchweed 3 2
Lotus scoparius Deerweed 2 54
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo lupine 2 83
Mirabilis californica Wishbone bush 2
Nassella lepida Foothill needle-grass 2 36
Nassella pulchra Purple needle-grass 2 42
Total 31
* Seed mix selection will vary according to site location and historic information to minimize type conversion from
butterfly habitat to dense coastal sage scrub.
7.5.4 Maintenance Program
Maintain the restoration site for five years following installation.
Perform maintenance on an as-needed basis, as recommended by the PVPLC.
Perform the following maintenance activities to facilitate restoration success: weed control,
erosion control, and access control.
1. Remove or control invasive exotic species. Weed control will require diligence by the
maintenance personnel. Invasive exotic species, such as pepper trees (Schinus spp.), pampus grass
(Cortaderia selloana), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), castor
bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), will
be removed wherever they occur within the restoration area. Annual weeds such as mustard
(Brassica spp.), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and annual grasses may also need to be
controlled. The City and PVPLC will determine what annual weeds need to be controlled to
ensure restoration success.
2. Control erosion as necessary. Potential erosion-control measures include hay bales, sandbags, silt
fencing, and/or erosion-control jute matting. PVPLC will identify the need for erosion control
during regular site visits.
Control access to restoration sites. Access to restoration sites should be on existing dirt roads. All vehicles
should remain outside the restoration areas. If off-road vehicle or human activities become a problem in
the restoration area, PVPLC will recommend remedial measures.
144
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
7.5.5 Restoration Site Monitoring and Reporting
The PVPLC will monitor and report on the restoration work underway in the Preserve. Each site will be
monitored for five years, with reports prepared in years one through three, and five. Monitoring should
document restoration progress and provide direction and maintenance recommendations. Monitoring will
include both horticultural and botanical components. PVPLC or their agents shall:
1. Conduct horticultural monitoring to determine plant composition, plant health, performance of
maintenance personnel, and recommended maintenance activities.
2. Conduct botanical monitoring to quantitatively measure the progress of the restoration effort by
measuring plant cover, plant composition, and weed cover. Botanical monitoring shall follow the
California Native Plant Society field sampling protocol (CNPS 2011).
3. Take photographs of the restoration site viewing the site from different locations. Photographs
shall be taken at the same locations each year.
7.5.6 Restoration Site Success Goals
The success of each restoration project will be specific to its location and design. Success goals will vary
depending on it the degree of restoration implemented such as an enhancement of a more native
ecosystem versus complete re-vegetation of a disturbed landscape. Goals will incorporate metrics for
survivorship, diversity, and cover. Another site specific factor affecting success goals is the ability to
irrigate, which may be limited in portions of the landslide moratorium area. The following criteria shall be
used as examples to measure the success of a habitat restoration project:
1. Soil at the site is stable and shows no significant erosion.
2. After five years, non-native plant cover is less than 25% with less than 15% cover of invasive
perennial species. After five years, there will be no presence of species on Cal-IPC List A with
the possible exception of Cal-IPC List A non-native annual grasses.
3. Native plant cover after three years in the CSS community should be greater than 40% with at
least 30% cover from perennial species. At five years, total native cover should be greater than
50% percent with appropriate species diversity.
4. Native plant cover after three years in the cactus scrub community should be greater than 30%
with at least 20% cover from perennial species and 5% cover from cactus species. Native plant
cover after five years in the cactus scrub community should be greater than 40% with at least
10% cover from cactus.
5. Native plant cover after three years in PVB habitat should be greater than 30%, but not more than
70%. The remainder should be bare ground. Perennial (shrub) species should be maintained at
between 10% and 50% cover. Ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) or
deerweed (Lotus scoparius) should constitute at least 10% cover. Some replacement of ocean
locoweed by deerweed is acceptable, particularly in the northern portions of the Preserve.
145
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
6. Recommendations for Adaptive Management of restoration sites will be incorporated into Annual
Reports.
7.6 Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP)
In addition to its obligation to restore 250 acres of land within the Preserve to native habitat in accordance
with Section 7.5 of the Plan, the City is required to conduct weed control activities to remove exotic
species. PVPLC will conduct weed control a
TEPRP. Annually, the PVPLC, in coordination with the City and the Wildlife Agencies shall identify and
evaluate locations where exotic species are prevalent as described in the Preserve Habitat Management
Plan. PVPLC will identify any new infestations on an ongoing basis from information gathered when
working in the Preserve, during species surveys, and on trail and restoration projects and include these
observations for appropriate management actions in the TERPP. Five acres or 20 small sites will be
selected for treatment each year during the Permit Term. This weed control requirement is in
addition to the 5 acres each year under the habitat restoration
program. The Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants will:
1. Prioritize areas for exotic species control based on aggressiveness of invasive species and degree
of threat to the native vegetation. (see Appendix D for a list of exotic plant species that could
threaten native habitats in the Plan Area). 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. Use of herbicides is not a Covered Activity under the
NCCP/HCP.
4. Properly dispose of all exotic plant materials removed from Preserve lands (e.g., in off-site
facilities).
5. A summary of targeted exotic removal efforts, with before and after photographs of the work
done, along with an analysis of their effectiveness and recommendations for follow-up work, will
be provided in the Annual Report.
7.7 Covered Species Reintroduction
This section describes reintroduction of Covered Species within the Plan area. 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 shall be addressed by the City and PVPLC in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies before initiating a reintroduction effort: (1) does the reintroduction effort benefit the species or
146
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
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.
7.7.1 Management 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. Reintroduction is not a requirement under the NCCP/HCP or Permits.
Current information on target species in the Plan Area 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 7.3.1 of the Plan) 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:
1. High priority species (e.g., listed as Federal- or state-endangered).
2. Such release will further the conservation of the species.
3. Species biology is known or is being researched (some research may be conducted as part of the
reintroduction effort).
4. The site is ecologically appropriate.
5. Suitable donor populations/propagule sources exist.
6. The site is in the Preserve and threats to its establishment and long-term viability have been
minimized.
7. 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.
8. 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 will 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).
147
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
9. state-listed
butterfly are candidates for reintroduction (Lipman et al., 1999). The El Segundo blue butterfly
may also meet the above criteria. Once sufficient butterfly habitat is restored, a reintroduction
program may be attempted by the Wildlife Agencies.
10. Before reintroduction, biological, physical, logistical, and evolutionary factors should be
evaluated. 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; species competition; 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.
11. As sufficient funding becomes available, the City and PVPLC may conduct studies to determine
the feasibility of reintroduction, as necessary (e.g., propagation studies, propagule viability
studies).
7.7.2 Use an Experimental Approach
Any attempted reintroductions could 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.
7.7.3 Develop 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:
1. Specify design criteria, including a scientifically valid experimental design.
2. Indicate the appropriate time of year for reintroduction, based on species phenology and/or life
history.
3. Indicate reintroduction methods, including any specialized equipment that may be needed.
4. Specify type and source of source material, and provide a schedule for procuring source materials
in a timely fashion.
5. Outline preliminary evaluation criteria.
6. Specify the process for implementing remedial measures.
148
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
The Reintroduction Plan shall also specify project management and implementation responsibilities. The
City and PVPLC may be responsible for implementation of this plan provided sufficient funding is
available.
1. Develop formal 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, necessary permits, 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% 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., island 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 off-site 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.
7.7.4 Include Reintroduction Sites in a Population Monitoring Program
1. Reintroduction sites shall be monitored, and monitoring shall 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
149
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
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.
2. In accordance with guidelines issued by the California Botanical Society (1998), reintroduction-
monitoring efforts shall be conducted for at least seven years. Horticultural monitoring and
management will consist primarily of weed control and site protection. It may also include
recommendations for supplemental fertilization, irrigation, and pruning, where appropriate. Weed
control shall 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.
3. Off-site monitoring procedures shall be established to the degree feasible. The off-site
populations shall be close enough to the reintroduction site that they are subject to the same
climatic conditions as those found on site. Monitoring off-site 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
yearly assessment of success criteria.
7.7.5 Establish 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 off-site 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.
7.7.6 Reporting
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
7.8 Research Recommendations
The following is a summary of recommendations for future studies as part of the Adaptive Management
of the Preserve by the City and PVPLC that will advance knowledge and improve the ability to manage
Covered Species and their habitats in the Preserve. Some of these studies may be conducted as part of
future Preserve management and monitoring efforts, whereas others may be the focus of longer-term
150
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
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
the monitoring program and/or findings of the studies recommended below.
PVPLC promotes scientific investigation to inform restoration, conservation, education and stewardship
programs, and to address the interface of the natural and human systems of the urban environment. To
achieve this, collaborative research projects involving PVPLC staff, middle school, high school,
university students, classes and professors, and professional researchers are encouraged to take place in
the Preserve. When appropriate, PVPLC will provide links to posters and articles on their website
(www.pvplc.org).
PVPLC maintains a Science Advisory Panel consisting of science researchers from universities and
organizations having a diversity of expertise for the purpose of supporting its research activities.
Typically, research projects are driven by the interests and funding of individual professors, their students
and classes. However, whenever possible, PVPLC will seek projects that directly support its habitat
restoration efforts and special status species concerns as well as questions provided below.
Habitat and Life History Studies
Determine the ecological requirements and life histories of Covered Plant Species. This information will
complement the long-term status monitoring of key covered plant species, and will provide the practical
information necessary to enhance or establish populations. Specific studies might focus on the following:
1. Microhabitat requirements
2. Reproductive, pollination, and dispersal strategies
3. Seed and pollen viability studies
4. Germination requirements
5. Seedbank ecology
6. Seedling mortality studies
Population Biology and Genetic Studies
1. On a species-specific basis, determine (1) the minimum size for viable self-sustaining plant
populations, (2) the minimum effective population size; and (3) the minimum and optimum
densities of stable plant populations (Messick, 1986).
151
SECTION
Biological Objectives and Methodology
2. Monitor a representative sample of individuals of focal target animal species (gnatcatcher, cactus
wren, PVB, and ESB) to refine the variance estimate in demographic parameters and dispersal
capability.
3. Conduct genetic studies of populations of the cactus wren and 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.
4. Conduct inter- and intra-population genetic analyses of representative populations of covered
plant species.
5. Habitat Restoration and/or Population Enhancement/Reintroduction Studies
6. Using results of studies identified above, conduct and monitor small-scale habitat restoration
studies within the Preserve.
7. Conduct reintroduction studies for the PVB and potentially the ESB.
8.
population enhancement or reintroduction studies. Conduct and monitor transplantation or
reintroduction studies.
9. Establish and maintain seedbanks in conjunction with recognized institutions for certain covered
plant species as a possible source of research and enhancement/reintroduction material.
Management Studies
Conduct and monitor small-scale experiments that use alternative methods to restore or enhance native
habitat. These experiments may include but are not limited to alternatives to irrigation, planting
techniques, and methods to simulate the effects of natural disturbances (e.g., fire). The scale and locations
of these experiments will be appropriate to avoid impacts to Covered Species. Experiments that will
impact more than 1 acre will be reviewed and approved by the Wildlife Agencies. Results of any
management studies will be included in Annual Reports.
152
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
8.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING OF NCCP/HCP
8.1 Estimated Implementation Cost
Implementation of the NCCP/HCP will require funding to provide services and management and conduct
habitat restoration, invasive species control, monitoring, Adaptive Management, and post-permit
perpetual management of the Preserve. Within the Preserve, the City will be responsible for services such
as storm drain maintenance and control, public security, trash disposal, fuel modification for fire
prevention purposes on lands owned by the City, utility services, and maintenance of some signs, fences,
and trails in perpetuity. PVPLC, as the Preserve Manager, will be responsible for carrying out the
biological objectives and methodology described in Section 7.0 of the Plan for monitoring of the
Preserve. Surveys for Covered Species, control of invasive species, fuel modification for fire prevention
purposes on lands owned by the PVPLC (Lunada Canyon), and some basic trail maintenance (see Section
9.0 of the Plan for Preserve Management) will be the responsibility of PVPLC in perpetuity. These
management related activities will be provided in the form of in-kind services, or funded by cash, as
appropriate for each item, as described below.
8.1.1 Management Budget Analysis
The City and the PVPLC developed a Management Budget Analysis for the proposed Preserve (see
Appendix C). In November 2011, the City and the PVPLC entered into a comprehensive Preserve
Management Agreement and as a result the collective annual cost to manage the Preserve was calculated.
Based on the updated Preserve Management budget, the total cost of managing the Preserve is estimated
at $654,072. The methodology used in this analysis is similar to the methodology of the Center for
the properties are analyzed to derive the management requirements on a yearly basis. Management tasks
were specified and their costs estimated, as well as the necessary administrative costs to provide the full
cost of yearly management. The cost of habitat management and biological monitoring varies according
to habitat type, condition, and specific tasks needed to maintain biological value. The budget (Appendix
C) is presented by line item costs for services such as biological surveys, habitat restoration (site
construction/maintenance, habitat restoration, and habitat maintenance), invasive plant control, reporting,
fuel modification, sanitation, signage, patrolling, etc. Even though some tasks, such as gnatcatcher
surveys, are required every three years, the budget annualizes these costs.
Some of the factors that affect the Management Budget Analysis include:
The costs will increase if acres beyond the 1,402.4 identified under the Plan are added to the
Preserve.
-kind services costs include the cost of providing public safety to the Preserve.
Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2010-11 to provide ranger services in the
Preserve, this cost has been estimated at $75,000 per year and is used for the Management
Budget Analysis.
153
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
Habitat Restoration Plan: The Habitat Restoration Plan defined in Section 7.5 of the Plan will
be implemented. There will be no additional costs for habitat installation; these costs are
included in the management cost estimates of the Management Budget Analysis.
Targeted Exotic Removal Program for Plants (TERPP): In addition to the Restoration
Program, each year the TERPP will remove invasive plant species from 20 small sites or 5
acres within the Preserve. The TERPP does not include seeding or planting.
Covered Species Monitoring: The costs of Preserve monitoring were charged in full when the
initial surveys were completed in 2006. Subsequent surveys are required every third year.
Fuel Modification: Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2010-11 to provide the
mandated fuel modification work in the Preserve, this cost has been estimated at $108,000
per year and is used for the Management Budget Analysis.
Aside from public safety and fuel modification, the cost of the
in-kind services is estimated at $178,089. This
2010-11 to perform waste removal, install/repair City signage, and maintain Burma Road
through the Preserve. This amount is reflected in the City Public Works Department budget
and will be provided by the City annually. The City has committed to performing these in-
kind services in perpetuity, and the cost of the services will be adjusted as necessary.
8.2 Funding Sources
The following funding sources will be used to implement this NCCP/HCP:
8.2.1 Summary of Habitat Management Funding
The NCCP/HCP relies on dedicated funding sources to fulfill its requirements for the permit duration and
associated perpetual management of the Preserve. The requirements for funding have been detailed in the
Budget Management Analysis (Appendix C). The annual funding commitments for Preserve management
during the 40-year Permit Term are identified in Table 8-1 of the Plan. The funding amounts shown in
Table 8-1 are based on costs expended during the fiscal year 2010-2011 and are adjusted annually for
inflation or as needed to cover the cost of the activities. No additional funding from the City or the
PVPLC other than what is described here is anticipated to be required to implement the NCCP/HCP. To
supplement this funding, the City and PVPLC will actively pursue public and private funding sources on
an annual basis. This may enable both parties to undertake projects above those required by the Plan, such
as implementing more habitat restoration. The Permittees may also use or establish other local funding
measures, including, but not limited to, utility surcharges, special taxes or assessments, or bonds, to the
extent allowed by law.
154
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
118-1. Annual Funding for Plan Implementation During the Permit
S *A F
OURCEMOUNT ROM
City $ 126,411 Cash from City to the PVPLC
City $ 277,082 In-kind services (see below in Section 8.2.1.1)
PVPLC $ 250,579 Volunteer time and/or in-kind services
Total $654,072
*Includes habitat restoration and Preserve management based on FY 2010-2011 costs
*Excludes the separate $10,000/year non-wasting endowment for life of the Permit (see Section 8.2.1.1)
*Excludes the $50,000 Dedicated Habitat Restoration Fund
8.2.1.1
The City began its funding commitments for lands that are to be included in the Preserve system in
January 2006, which was when the City began implementation of the management and monitoring under
the Plan. Specifically, the City committed to provide PVPLC $100,000 per year for general Preserve
and to adjust these
payments for inflation. As noted in Table 8-1 above
combined payment to the PVPLC amounted to $126,411 by fiscal year 2010-2011. The City will also
commit in-kind services valued at approximated at $277,082 per year based on fiscal year 2010-2011
costs. In-kind services from the City will include road maintenance, sign maintenance, public safety,
enforcement, waste removal, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on City-owned lands, staff
time (e.g., Planning and Public Works), and maintenance as shown in the Budget Management Analysis
in Appendix C. The City has funded these Plan obligations since 2006 and will continue to allocate funds
annually at the costs necessary to implement the tasks identified in Table 8-1 of the Plan.
In addition to its annual funding commitments described above, the City will maintain a dedicated Habitat
Restoration Fund as part of the approved City budget, with at least $50,000 (adjusted annually for
inflation) to be used to fund its share of planned responses to Change Circumstances pursuant to Section
6.10.2 of the Plan. The Habitat Restoration Fund was established in 2006 and may be periodically
augmented by Mitigation Fees paid by applicants of Covered Private Projects identified in Section 5.3 of
the Plan. Mitigation Fees will be used by the City to manage the Preserve, including the 500 acres the
City has dedicated as mitigation for Covered Projects/Activities.
Fund, above the $50,000 balance noted above, may be used by the City for habitat
conservation/restoration purposes including but not limited to the following:
1. As payment to the PVPLC to meet the obligation for Preserve management;
and/or
2. non-wasting endowment fund discussed below which is
necessary to assure maintenance of the Preserve once the NCCP/HCP Permit expires; and/or
3. As a contribution to the PVPLC to perform habitat conservation activities beyond the
requirements of this Plan; and
155
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
4. The City understands and acknowledges that its obligation to fully fund the Habitat
Restoration Fund and to fully fund each of its other obligations under the NCCP/HCP,
including, its habitat management, monitoring, and restoration requirements, which are
independent of and do not depend on the existence of periodic payments from private project
applicants or from Third-Party Participants.
To assure maintenance of the Preserve once the NCCP/HCP Permit expires, the City also established a
separate non-wasting endowment fund in 2006, beginning with a minimum of $10,000, adjusted annually
. Currently, there is approximately $78,000 within the account. A
minimum of $10,000 (as described above) will be added to this fund by the City every year, and
continuing for the Permit Term. Principal, interest, dividends and/earnings will remain in the fund until
the Permit expires. These funds Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF), a very conservative municipal investment fund based on U.S. Treasury notes. A Fiscal
Report on the status of the fund will be included in the Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies (see
Section 9.3). Assuming an Internal Rate of Return of 5% per year, after the 40 year-Permit Term, the
endowment fund will have a balance of $863,000 after the 40 year-Permit Term. The investment
objective for Endowment funds of the PVPLC is to generate a total return equal to the annual distribution
rate plus the long term rate of inflation in order to maintain the purchasing power of the Endowment. The
Endowment. In order to support the 5% distribution rate plus inflation, the investment policy requires a
very high percentage of Endowment assets to be invested in higher risk, higher return assets such as
equity funds. The Investment Committee maintains a diversified, global portfolio of publicly traded
securities, primarily mutual funds and ETFs, and evaluates prudent asset allocation and asset rebalancing
at quarterly meetings. In short to medium time spans, the Endowment value may decline, but over the
long term, this diversified rebalancing policy is expected to build the Endowment value, support
distributions, and maintain purchasing power. The interest and dividends on these funds, but no part of
the principal, will be available to the City, to provide to the PVPLC, for conservation easement
management when the Permit Term expires. Management of the conservation easement by the PVPLC
will include monitoring the lands in accordance with the conservation easements, providing monitoring
reports and any needed follow up, communication with the landowner (City), communication with City
staff and utility companies as needed with regard to conservation easement requirements, reviewing
permitted rights and approvals for activities, dealing with minor violation incidents, and coordinating the
resolution. The estimated annual cost for such post-Permit activities is $22,030
experience monitoring the lands under conservation easement (Summary of Estimated Post-Permit Costs,
Appendix C). PVPLC will also provide basic land stewardship, including monitoring, sign and trail
maintenance, and invasive species control on City-owned lands post Permit expiration. Assuming a return
rate of 5% (based on an average annual rate of return less inflation rate 2%), the provided City
endowment will be enough to cover these post-Permit costs. The City will perpetually provide in-kind
services for road maintenance, sign maintenance, public safety, enforcement, waste removal, landslide
abatement district assessment, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes, staff time (e.g., Planning
and Public Works), and maintenance for allowable activities in the Preserve apart from the long-term
156
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
conservation easement endowment post the Permit Term. The City will also encourage and promote
additional habitat maintenance or restoration to be conducted.
Long-term management of the Preserve will require funding to provide services, and conduct invasive
species control, monitoring, and Adaptive Management. Within the Preserve, the City will continue to be
responsible for the maintenance and repair of City-owned public infrastructure such as sewer and storm
control, ranger patrols and public security, road maintenance, trash disposal, fuel modification for fire
prevention purposes on lands owned by the City, and maintenance of signs, fences, and trails stipulated in
the agreement between the City and PVPLC. Implementation of these and other activities may require a
Federal and state permit, as necessary, after the Permits expire if take of Covered Species is anticipated.
8.2.1.2
To fulfill the Preserve management obligations, the PVPLC will commit $175,000 per year (to be
adjusted annually for inflation), consisting of in-kind services or cash to fund services required to meet
permit requirements. In addition, PVPLC will commit the equivalent of $75,579 per year in volunteer
time (approximately 2,800 volunteer hours) dedicated to the Preserve to complete its obligations for
management and maintenance activities in the Preserve as described in Section 9.0 of the Plan and as
required under the permitupport is discussed in Section 8.2.2 of the
Plan and has been factored into the Plan. In-kind services from the PVPLC will consist of staff time from
its stewardship and restoration technicians for the maintenance and restoration of the Preserve, staff time
from conservation staff to perform biological monitoring, and staff time to organize and lead volunteer
work days that bring the community onto the land to experience hands-on stewardship related tasks, such
as weeding, planting, etc. PVPLC in-kind services also provide the use of equipment and fuel
modification for fire prevention purposes on PVPLC-owned lands (Table 8-1).
PVPLC has a record of significant and increasing support from the Peninsula and the areas nearby.
Revenue from direct mail and other fundraising has risen steadily as the organization has grown.
Figure 8-1 of the Plan revenue from 2000-2012. In addition, PVPLC has long-term
investments which had a balance of $1,437,316 as of December 2013. With authorization from the Board
of Directors, the long-term investments may be used for Preserve Management or to respond to Changed
Circumstances. While these funds may be available for use on the NCCP/HCP, they have not been
specifically designated for use in this Plan and thus are not included in Table 8-1 as annual funding for
plan implementation during the Permit. When appropriate, PVPLC will solicit donations to augment the
special fund and/or long-term investments. The organization also has a planned giving program and
expects to receive legacies from several supporters; however, these sources are also not included in the
annual funding for plan implementation.
Post-Permit expiration, PVPLC, as the Preserve Manager, will be responsible for ensuring the
preservation of habitat, which will in part be achieved through the monitoring of the conservation
easements on the Preserve lands. PVPLC will also provide basic land stewardship, including monitoring,
fencing, sign and trail maintenance, and invasive species control on City-owned lands post Permit
157
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
expiration. The interest and dividends generated from the non-wasting endowment fund will have a
balance of $863,000 after the 40 year-Permit Term. -Permit activities is
to be about $23,636 (Summary of Estimated Post-Permit Costs, Appendix C). Through these conservation
easements, the PVPLC has committed to perpetual stewardship. This means that the PVPLC has an
ongoing obligation to regularly monitor the land under conservation easement, as well a basic invasive
species control, document the monitoring, maintain contact with the landowner (City), and enforce
conservation easement terms, if they are violated. The PVPLC maintains a policy with Terrafirma, a
charitable risk pool owned by participating land trusts that insures its members against the legal costs of
defending conservation.
Other management activities such as fuel modification will be addresses by PVPLC independent of the
post-Permit Term endowment funding source. PVPLC will also be responsible for fuel modification for
fire prevention purposes on lands owned by the PVPLC. These management-related activities will be
provided in the form of in--wasting endowment, as appropriate
for each item. PVPLC will continue to provide in-kind support for Preserve management and monitoring
in the form of volunteer time and will continue to seek outside sources of funding through grants and
donor support.
308-1. PVPLC Fundraising History (Fiscal Year 19982006)
158
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
8.2.2 PVPLC Land Management
The PVPLC was founded in 1988 by a group of concerned area residents to preserve open space on the
Peninsula. The organization is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, with the mission to preserve land and
restore habitat on the Peninsula for the education and enjoyment of all. The PVPLC has been very
successful through the years, preserving open space by working with cities and property owners to locate
funds for purchasing land, to provide tax benefits for land donation, and to encourage preservation of
publicly owned land. The organization provides an educational program consisting of monthly nature
walks for adults and a third-grade program that brings students to natural open space near the schools.
Habitat restoration is an important priority, with work underway on many of the properties managed by
the PVPLC. In 2005, the PVPLC succeeded in obtaining the private funds necessary to allow the City to
purchase and preserve 463 acres of open space in Portuguese Bend.
The PVPLC currently has a 16-person board of directors. Its members come from all the Peninsula cities,
and bring varied backgrounds and experiences to the oversight of the organization. Professions on the
board in 2008 were diverse: aerospace engineer, retired banker, real estate investor, architect, attorney,
community volunteer, chief financial officer, investment banker, retired marketing and sales executives,
accountant, and college professor. The organization sets up advisory boards for the properties it manages,
involving the neighbors and interested parties in its preservation and restoration work.
The PVPLC has a dedicated biological staff skilled in such areas as habitat restoration planning and
implementation, conservation ecology, botanical identification, and scientific research and
documentation. The PVPLC staff drafts habitat restoration plans, implements habitat restoration projects,
and performs monitoring. Restoration ecologists are also contracted to provide restoration plans,
monitoring support, and peer review if needed. In addition, PVPLC staff members have the appropriate
permits for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly and will submit applications for monitoring permits for the
California gnatcatcher. PVPLC also maintains a Science Advisory Panel consisting of science researchers
from universities and organizations having a diversity of expertise for the purpose of supporting its
research activities (see Section 7.8).
In January 2006, the City entered into an interim contract with the PVPLC to manage and monitor all of
the conserved land in the /HCP Preserve. A formal long-term contract was entered into by
the City and PVPLC in November 2011. Consistent with the contract, PVPLC has written and submitted
the initial management and monitoring plan, undertaken an annual program of TERPP, CSS habitat
restoration, and Covered Species monitoring in advance of the Federal and state permits being issued by
the Wildlife Agencies. The monitoring and management plan began in 2006.
The PVPLC is an active participant in the stewardship of the properties that it manages. PVPLC has been
successful in obtaining many grants for habitat restoration, invasive-plant management, interpretive
signage and trail construction, and environmental education. The funding sources for PVPLC projects are
varied and include contributions from private foundations and corporations, as well as various grants from
the Wildlife Conservation Board, California Coastal Conservancy, Center for Invasive Plant
159
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
Management, USFWS, Weed Management Area, and State Parks. Some of these projects are described in
the following list of lands that are managed by the PVPLC:
Forrestal Nature Preserve
The Forrestal Nature Preserve totals 157.9 acres and has some of the best remaining native
wildlife habitat and hiking trails, this preserve is within City and a key component of the
pNCCP/HCP Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve.
The PVPLC entered into an agreement with the City in 2001 to manage the recreational and
wildlife values on this property.
A 2003 grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project (Coastal Conservancy) allowed the
PVPLC to restore a wetland on the property.
Regularly scheduled volunteer days and scout projects provide assistance with habitat
restoration, trail repair, and other tasks.
Lunada Canyon Preserve
This 20-acre canyon within City was once prime land for development. A gift to the PVPLC
in 1992 from the E.K. Zuckerman fam
A grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project Small Grants Program (Coastal Conservancy)
enabled the PVPLC to restore a riparian area within this canyon.
A grant from the USFWS Endangered Species Act Landowner Incentives Program enabled
the PVPLC to restore 3 acres of CSS.
A partnership with the Environmental Science classes at the local high school provides
approximately 150 students with the opportunity to plant and weed at various times during
the year; scout projects have also made major contributions to the Preserve.
Linden H. Chandler Preserve
An island of habitat, this 28.5-acre property is a critical part of the natural environment in
Rolling Hills Estates.
The Preserve is owned jointly by the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the PVPLC and
managed by the PVPLC.
Funds from the Wildlife Conservation Board and a USFWS Recovery Implementation Grant
allowed the restoration of habitat for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly on the site; two
reintroduction efforts have been made.
The PVPLC has performed wetlands mitigation work for the City on this Preserve.
160
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
The PVPLC is implementing 5 acres of habitat restoration in support of a Wildlife Extension
Agreement with USFWS.
Navy Defense Fuel Supply Depot
While the primary use of this site is as storage for U.S. Navy fuel reserves, it also is home to the
rediscovered and endangered PVB.
PVPLC has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Navy to conduct habitat restoration and
monitoring, and to propagate the food plant for the endangered PVB in support of the captive rearing
project. The PVPLC maintains a native plant nursery and seed bank at the Defense Fuel Supply Point
(DFSP) in San Pedro, California. The approximately 2-acre nursery site contains a small greenhouse,
shade tables, automated irrigation, and office space with a dry seed storage room. The facility averages
30,000 container plants and an additional rotating supply of seedling germination flats. On average, 73
species are grown as container plants and 83 species of seeds are collected and stored for direct seeding
and propagation. PVPLC staff maintains monthly inventory of the container plants, germination flats, and
seed storage.
White Point Nature Preserve
This scenic 102-acre parcel in San Pedro is owned by the City of Los Angeles. The PVPLC
has a 25-year management agreement for the property, which is now being restored as a
nature preserve.
The PVPLC secured and implemented a $1,000,000 from the Wildlife Conservation Board to
restore CSS and native grassland habitats. This project has demonstrated successes as
gnatcatchers have nested in the restored habitat.
The work at White Point has involved extensive community participation, including
volunteer days, a yearly fundraiser, and an active community committee.
The PVPLC assisted in securing and successfully implemented the Habitat Trails grant from
the State of California for the construction of trails, including a handicapped accessible loop.
The PVPLC assisted in securing and successfully implemented an Urban Recreational and
Cultural Facilities grant for public restrooms, interpretive signage, and a native plant
demonstration garden.
The PVPLC obtained and implemented a grant awarded from the Coastal Conservancy to
rehabilitate a former military building into a nature/education center with public restrooms.
PVPLC secured corporate funding to design, fabricate, and install educational exhibits in this
building.
George F. Canyon Nature Center and Preserve
161
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
The 36-acre George F. Canyon Nature Center is owned by the City of Rolling Hills Estates
and operated by the PVPLC. The trail passes through one of the most pristine and beautiful of
the many canyons on the peninsula. Visitors can walk or ride on horseback through willow-
riparian and CSS habitats, culminating in a view of the Los Angeles Basin.
The PVPLC implemented a habitat restoration grant awarded to the City of Rolling Hills
Estates. This grant for $258,500 is providing funding for approximately 16 acres of riparian,
coastal sage, and native grassland habitat/enhancement through a Riparian and Riverine
Grant funded by the state of California Parks and Recreation Department.
In addition to the diverse and extensive grants that have been awarded to the PVPLC for habitat
restoration and management as displayed above, PVPLC has demonstrated the ability to generate
significant amounts of volunteer support. Figure 8-
services. Volunteer stewardship hours are separated from other types of volunteer support such as office
assistance, special event assistance, and committee service hours. Volunteer stewardship hours may
include site preparation, planting, weeding, plant propagation, and other direct assistance in habitat
restoration and maintenance. The volunteer stewardship hours are primarily generated from work
conducted during outdoor volunteer work days. The hours dedicated to stewardship activities from 2006
to 2013 are all valued well above $75,000. Based on Figure 8-2, PVPLC has demonstrated that the
75,000 (2,800 volunteer hours)
annual level. PVPLC maintains records of volunteer time which will be summarized in the Annual Report
to the Wildlife Agencies.
162
SECTION
Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
tt\[/ ƚƌǒƓƷĻĻƩ źƒĻ
ЋЉЉЊ ΏЋЉЊЌ
Stewarship
Total
5ƚƌƌğƩğƒƚǒƓƷ ƭŷƚǞƭ ǝğƌǒĻ
ƚŅ ǝƚƌǒƓƷĻĻƩ ƷźƒĻ ğƷ
υЊБ͵ААΉŷƩ͵ ŅƩƚƒ ЋЉЉЊΏЉАͲ
υЋЌ͵ЋВΉŷƩ͵ ŅƩƚƒ ЉБΏЊЉͲ
υЋЌ͵ЍЋΉŷƩ źƓ ЋЉЊЊͲ
υЋЍ͵ЊБΉŷƩ źƓ ЋЉЊЋͲ ğƓķ
υЋЍ͵АЎΉŷƩ źƓ ЋЉЊЌ͵
318-2. PVPLC Volunteer Support 20012007
163
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
9.0 PRESERVE MONITORING, MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING
and provide the City with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving, maintaining and
erving viable populations of Covered Species and their
habitats.
Preserve monitoring and management is essential for maintaining net habitat value on a long-term basis.
The PVPLC has developed an initial Preserve Habitat Management Plan (PHMP) (Appendix H) for the
Preserve that consists of the following four plans: 1) Initial Management and Monitoring Plan; 2)
Predator Control Plan; 3) Habitat Restoration Plan; and, 4) Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants.
Through the PHMP reporting program, there is an opportunity for an assessment of the effectiveness of
specific management to occur through the habitat and Covered Species-monitoring. In collaboration with
the City, PVPLC will discuss management and enforcement issues in the reporting program, along with
remediation or Adaptive Management strategies, as necessary. There will also be an evaluation of 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 NCCP/HCP and IAs.
9.1 Preserve Habitat Manager
The City has selected the PVPLC as the designated Preserve Habitat Manager to carry out the
management and monitoring specified in Sections 7.0 of the NCCP/HCP. The PVPLC will facilitate
implementation of an effective management program through implementation of the PHMP and this Plan.
Some conserved habitat areas addressed by this NCCP/HCP are currently managed by other organizations
contracted by the private landowners (e.g., Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP). Management of these
private lands may be transferred to the PVPLC provided adequate funding is provided by the private
property owner.
9.2 Preserve Management
9.2.1 Preserve Habitat Management Plan
The PVPLC has developed an initial Preserve Habitat Management Plan (PHMP) for the Preserve. The
PHMP consists of four plans (described below):
Initial Management and Monitoring Plan
1. . This plan includes the results of the focused
baseline surveys for covered plant and wildlife species.
Predator Control Plan.
2. Based on the focused baseline surveys, this plan describes potential
provisions for control of predators to wildlife within the Preserve and provides framework for
164
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
education programs and monitoring for feral or domestic animals, native large predators, and
mesopredators. It will be revised every three years or if additional controls are needed.
Habitat Restoration Plan.
3. This plan identifies habitat restoration projects consisting of a
minimum of 5 acres of habitat, or a total of 15-acres over three years, in suitable locations in the
Preserve and will be updated/revised every three years.
Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants.
4. This plan provides details regarding prioritizing
exotic plant control within the Preserve. It describes the methodology of the proposed targeted
exotic plant removals, wherein each year exotic plants on 5 acres or 20 individual sites are to be
removed.
9.2.2 The Public Use Master Plan
the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) (Appendix I) was developed jointly by the City and
PVPLC to address public access issues. The PUMP includes the Preserve Trails Plan, which is described
Public use
further in Section 5.2.8 of this Plan. The PUMP received approval from the Wildlife Agencies.
and trail routes/configurations will be compatible with the Preserve by avoiding disruption of any
native vegetation (e.g., CSS), habitat, or wildlife to the maximum extent practicable consistent with
the Plan.
The public uses and activities in the PUMP are considered conditionally compatible uses under
the NCCP/HCP, provided they are consistent with the following guidelines:
9.2.2.1 Public Use Master Plan Guidelines
The following guidelines shall be used by the City and PVPLC when implementing the PUMP and when
considering any future amendments to the PUMP:
1. Development of the Preserve Trail Plan placed an emphasis on avoiding or minimizing impacts to
CSS habitat and Covered Species. Future modifications to the approved Preserve Trails Plan that
will result in additional impacts to the Covered Species or Preserve habitat will require the prior
written concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies. Existing trails within the Preserve that are not
included in the approved Preserve Trails Plan will be closed to foster habitat recovery.
2. Development of a Preserve Trails Plan proposes new trail construction that avoids direct access to
sensitive resource areas and major biological features (e.g., 7.6-meter \[25-foot\] setback to coastal
bluffs) and the following measures are taken into consideration:
Limit public 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.
Limit trails for shoreline access to prevent extensive trampling and compaction.
Locate new trails away from sensitive resources or restrict their use.
165
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
Provide a 30-foot upland buffer along major drainages for new trails sited adjacent to
drainages.
3. Determine allowable passive recreational activities within the Preserve, depending on the
resources to be protected, season, and successional stage of the adjacent habitat.
4. Restrict any passive recreational uses to areas where impacts to habitat can be avoided.
5. Include site-specific measures for any passive overlook areas, benches, tie rails, portable toilets,
and trash cans, so that no existing native habitat will be lost.
6. Include site-specific litter control measures, such as closed garbage cans and recycling bins, and
restrict such receptacles to access points for the Preserve.
9.2.2.2 Public Use Management Plan (PUMP) Implementation
Public use of the Preserve is considered a conditionally compatible use in the Preserve and shall be
consistent with the protection and enhancement of biological resources set forth in this Plan. Existing
recreational facilities shall be managed to promote the maintenance of habitat value surrounding these
facilities. The following PUMP public uses and activities are considered conditionally compatible
uses under the NCCP/HCP, provided they comply with the coverage requirements set forth below:
1. The locations of new trails shall be sited to avoid/minimize impacts to biological resources as
follows:
Use existing dirt roads and disturbed areas for access within the Preserve to the maximum
extent practicable;
Where new trail impacts are demonstrated to be the biologically superior alternative to
existing routes, minimize impacts by siting trail alignments through areas that have
limited concentrations of sensitive species;
New trails shall be limited to no greater than 5 feet in width and be monitored every 5
years to assess any changes to the approved baseline widths, usage patterns, and indirect
effects consistent with the monitoring program described below.
2. It is estimated that non-
of Plan approval, the PVPLC will complete surveys that will assess the current trail width to
establish the baseline of the approved trails within the Preserve in coordination with the City and
Wildlife Agencies. Baseline monitoring will consist of measuring trail width on recent aerial
photography and ground-truthing measurements in select locations. Neither the baseline trail
width nor the current uses of the trail shall be a conclusion or any evidence that the existing trail
width or uses are consistent with the goals of the NCCP. Subsequently, every 5 years, timed with
the arrival of updated aerial photos provided to the PVPLC by City, PVPLC will conduct similar
166
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
surveys with ground-truthing of data from the aerial surveys of the trails to assess changes in the
width of approved trails throughout the Preserve.
For baseline monitoring, each unique trail in the Preserve (approximately 100 trails and 32 miles)
will be surveyed in the field. Trail width will be measured on each trail segment along 3 of the
will be recorded on a Trimble GPS unit. Unauthorized trails will be recorded in the field using a
GPS unit (sub-meter) and supplemented by digitizing the area in GIS based on current aerial-
imagery.
The GPS point locations will be revisited and measured every 5 years. Trail width data and
unauthorized trail occurrence will be compared to baseline surveys to determine if a substantial
change has occurred that will trigger a response to remedy the trail widening. Aerial imagery will
also be used to compare changes in trail width and unauthorized trails over time. The following
criteria will be used to determine whether substantial widening of a trail has occurred over
baseline conditions:
For trails over 24 inches wide: substantial change is defined as widening more than 24
inches (total both sides) beyond the baseline width over a 10-foot linear span or for more
than 10% of the total trail length.
For trails equal to or less than 24 inches wide: substantial change is defined as widening
more than 12 inches (total both sides) beyond the baseline width over a 10-foot linear
span or for more than 10% of the total trail length.
3. In addition to the 5-year focused monitoring efforts, PVPLC will identify potential problems
on an ongoing basis from information gathered when working in the Preserve on trail and
restoration projects. PVPLC will also use information gathered from volunteers serving on
Preserve related programs.
4. Ensure that public access to the Preserve is consistent with the approved PUMP to provide
protection and enhancement of biological resources.
5. If circumstances warrant, close specific approved trails for appropriate time periods to
minimize biological impacts in coordination with the City and Wildlife Agencies.
6. Within 3 years of Plan approval, close unapproved trails using fencing or signage, etc. to
prevent the continued use or the creation of unauthorized trails, and to protect sensitive
species adjacent to established trails.
7. Monitor existing access points and trails to prevent degradation of the Preserve. It is expected
that no unauthorized trails will be constructed and that trail widths will not substantially
increase beyond the established baseline within the Preserve (see Number 2 above). If trail
widths substantially increase or new unauthorized trails are constructed, the PVPLC in
coordination with the City, will propose management solutions or remediation options within
in 60 days of detection of increased trail widths or new trails for approval by the Wildlife
Agencies. Adverse effects of passive recreation such as trampling vegetation, erosion, and
unauthorized trail widening will be minimized as determined by the City and PVPLC in
167
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. The following measures will be implemented as
appropriate:
Install signage, post and cable, and/or plant vegetation. If trails become degraded
because of heavy use, it may be necessary to limit use, as necessary;
Establish a trail inspection and maintenance program within one year of Plan
approval to monitor trail conditions, and detect vandalism and habitat degradation;
Seasonally restrict access to certain trails, if deemed necessary by PVPLC and/or
City, to prevent disturbance of breeding activities of Covered Species.
If trails become degraded because of heavy use, rotate or limit use as appropriate.
Limiting use can occur during certain seasons to minimize further degradation.
Changing the types of designated uses on certain trails may also be considered to
reduce trail degradation.
8. Trails widths documented in the baseline conditions and approved by the Wildlife Agencies
shall be monitored and maintained as a condition of trail coverage. If substantial trail
widening is detected through monitoring, the subject area will be managed so that it can
return back to its baseline conditions, which may involve either passive (e.g., use of barriers)
and/or active measures (e.g., install vegetation). Permanent unplanned habitat loss from trails
that exceed the level of substantial change is not considered part of the total loss of habitat by
City-Covered Project and activities identified in Table 5-1.
Acreage of trails that have substantially widened more than the width documented in the
baseline conditions and approved by this Plan and are not successfully repaired after 5 years
despite management measures shall be deducted from trail coverage (Table 5-1),
subject to Wildlife Agency approval. However, attempts to minimize trail widening will
continue beyond the 5 years in highly sensitive habitat as determined by the PVPLC in
coordination with the City and Wildlife Agencies.
9. Prepare and maintain trail surfaces to minimize erosion. Do not use materials for trails that
will be a source of seed of invasive exotic species. Prohibit use of eucalyptus chips that could
suppress native plant growth adjacent to trails.
Install water-bars on steep trails to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
Locate new trails away from sensitive resources or restrict their use.
10. Construct barriers and/or signage at viewpoints or prominent features to discourage access to
sensitive coastal bluff areas. This measure will be appropriate at viewpoints or prominent
features along established trails.
11. Provide litter control measures, such as closed garbage cans and recycling bins, at access
points within the Preserve.
168
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
9.2.3 Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve
The City and PVPLC are responsible for performing fuel modification on their respective lands in the
Preserve (see Figure 5-1). While fire and fuel modification will be carried out with a priority for human
safety, where practicable, the City and PVPLC shall also consider the minimization of impacts to
biological resources, where appropriate (i.e., habitat types 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. The biological
impacts 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 Preserve. With both biological resources and human safety considerations in mind, the
following management guidelines shall be implemented for performing the required fuel modification
within the Preserve.
1. Maintain fuel modification zones for human safety by mowing, grazing, chopping, crushing,
chaining, vegetation removal, and herbicide application (consistent with the labels) when
recommended by a licensed pest control adviser in areas that do not support the PVB or ESB.
2. If recommended by the City, and approved by PVPLC, debris produced by the vegetation
removal process will be removed from the site or converted into mulch by a chipping machine
and evenly dispersed on site to a maximum depth of 6 inches.
3. The use of goats to clear brush is allowed provided that the goats are physically restricted to the
required fuel modification areas with appropriate fencing and closely monitored.
4. Any fuel modification that will occur in CSS during bird breeding/nesting season shall be
conducted consistent with Section 5.5 of this Plan.
5. Cactus (Opuntia spp.) shall be avoided and retained to the maximum extent practicable.
9.2.4 Fencing and Signage
Fencing
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. Therefore, existing fencing inside the Preserve shall be dismantled
and no new fencing shall be installed except as necessary to:
1. Protect particularly sensitive species or habitats. For example, perimeter fencing could be used in
habitat linkage areas where Preserve widths are narrower and there is greater exposure to adverse
edge effects.
169
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
2. Direct human access away from sensitive resource areas. Efforts to limit human access will
involve the use of natural vegetation, topography, signs, and limited fencing.
3. Protect from natural hazards or other public safety needs.
4. Design and locate new fences within the Preserve so they do not impede wildlife movement or
impact Covered Species.
Signage
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
Preserve (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) shall be
posted at appropriate locations. Therefore, the following recommendations shall be considered.
1. Provide educational brochures, interpretive kiosks, and signs to educate the public about the
resources and goals of the NCCP/HCP and Preserve.
2. Establish signs for access control and education at the periphery of the Preserve that are
accessible to individuals. Post signs to prohibit firearms and unleashed pets.
3. Install signs for educational nature trails.
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.
9.3 Reporting
9.3.1 Annual Reports (all due by April 30th)
The PVPLC and City shall prepare an Annual Report based on a calendar year (January to December) for
the purposes of evaluating the implementation of the NCCP/HCP during the preceding year and the
adequacy of the overall progress being made towards reaching the conservation goals of the NCCP/HCP,
utilizing Habitrak or a similar system acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. Items to be considered in the
evaluation include, but are not limited to: gains/losses (by Project and CEQA reference) to habitat within
the Plan area (both inside and outside the Preserve); impacts of public uses and recommendations, if
necessary, for minimizing impacts to the Preserve; all contributions towards the preservation of habitat
170
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
lands, such as public lands, private mitigation lands, land donations, land acquisitions, and management
activities undertaken or proposed on habitat lands; and, a summary of night time use of the Preserve. Also
included in the Annual Reports is a description of the management of invasive plant species,
documentation of the habitat restoration efforts to enhance and restore native plant communities and the
results of biological monitoring of the Preserve. It shall also report on the impacts of public uses and
provide recommendations, if necessary, for minimizing impacts to the Preserve. During the first five
years of management, there will also be an annual evaluation of management activities, enforcement
difficulties, funding needs, and the ability to accomplish resource management goals.
For lands within the Preserve, 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 easement, or execution/recordation of any other instrument that confers third-party
beneficiary status to the project/property) will be included in the Annual Report. 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.
A separate Fiscal Report prepared jointly by the City and PVPLC will be provided to the USFWS and
CDFW yearly, as part of the Annual Report, which will also be included in the Comprehensive Report.
After the first five years, this evaluation will be part of the Comprehensive Report submitted every three
years. The Fiscal Report shall include an accounting of all funds received and expended during the
previous year to implement the Plan, including the amounts received and expended on habitat acquisition,
restoration, management, and monitoring. The Fiscal Report will be used by the Wildlife Agencies to
evaluate whether adequate progress toward implementation of the Plan is being achieved. An annual
public workshop or public meeting will be held by the City and attended by PVPLC to disseminate and
discuss the Annual Report.
Habitat Tracking. The City shall produce an annual accounting of the acreage, type, and location of
habitat and species conserved or lost within the Plan Area (by Project and CEQA reference). The habitat
tracking would include areas gained/conserved, restored, and areas lost/removed by projects and other
activities covered under the Plan. The City will maintain records in ledger and GIS format using the
HabiTrak application (or similar methodology) which is currently being used in other NCCPs. The report
will include a list of all Covered Activities performed the previous year. It will specify the review process
for each Covered Activity and describe impacts to Covered Species and vegetation from each project. The
information will contribute to the annual public report demonstrating compliance with the terms and
conditions of this NCCP/HCP, IA, and Permits.
The Annual Report will be transmitted by the City to the Wildlife Agencies by April 30.
9.3.2 Comprehensive Reports (Every Three Years)
A Comprehensive Report will be prepared by the PVPLC every three (3) years, and will include both a
synthesis of all data collected in the preceding three years and an analysis of overall trends in biological
171
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
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
CDFW by April 30th. The reporting program will be the primary vehicle for (1) providing monitoring
results and (2) identifying habitats or species that require specific Adaptive Management activities. A
separate Fiscal Report prepared jointly by the City and PVPLC will be provided to the USFWS and
CDFW yearly, as part of the Annual Report, which will also be included in the Comprehensive Report.
Comprehensive Report Contents
The Comprehensive Report will contain the following components:
Updated Covered Species Surveys.
1. Surveys and data analysis regarding covered plants,
gnatcatchers, cactus wren, and butterflies. For covered plants, monitoring occurs every third year
in spring unless rains do not exceed 75% of the long-term average annual precipitation as
measured during the July-June rain year. In survey years that do not meet this threshold,
monitoring will occur during the next season that meets the above criteria as approved by the
Wildlife Agencies. If less than 75% of the long-term average precipitation occurs for 3
consecutive years, monitoring will take place to record impacts of such a drought.
Updated Predator Control Plan
2. , see Section 9.3.1.
Updated Habitat Restoration Plan
3. , see Section 9.3.1.
Management Recommendations.
4. The Comprehensive Management and Monitoring Report
issued every three years will provide specific Adaptive Management recommendations based on
information from species monitoring, management and targeted studies to continually assess
PHMP effectiveness and
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;
Removal of invasive exotic plant species to protect native habitats, plant populations, and
wildlife values;
Removal or control of non-native 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;
172
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
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 Preserve);
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;
and,
Evaluation of management activities, enforcement difficulties, funding needs, and the ability
to accomplish resource management goals. An annual financial audit of PVPLC will be
submitted as part of the Annual Report, and also included with the Comprehensive Report.
9.4 Annual Coordination Meetings
Once each year, the City and PVPLC shall meet or (at the discretion of the Wildlife Agencies)
communicate with the USFWS and the CDFW to review and coordinate implementation of the
NCCP/HCP, as documented by the Annual Report and annual Habitat Tracking Report (see Section 9.3.3
of the Plan). Progress toward achieving conservation requirements will be reviewed, and habitat
management issues will be discussed, along with a review of Plan approvals affecting undeveloped lands
issued by the City over the course of the year.
Every third year, the meeting with the Wildlife Agencies will discuss the Comprehensive Report, which
includes restoration planning, management and the results of species surveys. It is the responsibility of the
City to schedule this meeting within 60 days of each anniversary of execution of the IA or as otherwise
agreed to by the City and Wildlife Agencies. To meet the stipulations of the IA, this NCCP/HCP 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 NCCP/HCP.
If the Wildlife Agencies determine that this NCCP/HCP is not being implemented as required, the
Wildlife Agencies, PVPLC, and the City will take the actions specified in the IA to remedy the situation.
These actions may include additional management activities, modification of the project compliance
process, or redirection of acquisition and/or other Plan funds, as long as they are consistent with the
provisions of the IA, provided; however, that nothing in the IA is intended, or shall be construed to limit
the remedies available to either of the Wildlife Agencies under law to enforce, or remedy violations of
their respective Permits.
173
SECTION
Preserve Management and Reporting
If the Wildlife Agencies determine that adequate progress towards implementation of the NCCP/HCP is
being achieved, but the NCCP/HCP is nevertheless not providing sufficient protection to Covered
Species, CDFW and USFWS shall set forth their findings and the basis for such findings in writing; then
the Parties shall work cooperatively and take appropriate actions consistent with the NCCP/HCP (such as
altering management activities, redirecting mitigation, and acquisition).
174
SECTION
Literature Cited
10.0 LITERATURE CITED
16 U.S.C. 661666c. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
16 U.S.C. 742(f) et seq. 1956. Fish and Wildlife Act.
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 1973. Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended.
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. 1987. Decline of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly in California. Biological
Conservation 40:203-217.
Arnold, R.A. 1983. Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae); island
biogeography, patch dynamics, and the design of habitat preserves. University California
Publication Ent. 99:1-161.
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, and C.H. Reynolds. 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, R. Hirsch, D. Kamada, M. Madden, C, Reynolds, S. Tsai, and
P.A. Bowler. 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.
Atwood, J., and D. Bontrager. 2001. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In: A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 574. The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA. 32 pp.
175
SECTION
Literature Cited
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.
Beatty, S.W. and D.L. Licari. 1992. Invasion of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) into shrub communities on
Santa Cruz Island, California. Madroño 39(1):54-66.
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.
California Botanical Society. 1998. Resolution by the California Botanical Society on transplantation.
Madroño 45(1):92.
California Department of Fish and Game, 1993. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP
Conservation Guidelines. August, 1993 Published by: California Department of Fish & Game
and California Resources Agency 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
plants of greatest ecological concern in California - August 1996 revision.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
Sixth Ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor.
Sacramento, CA. 388 pp. and on-line database.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition
v7). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed 2010, from
http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2011. California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program:
Sampling Protocols and Projects (online). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
Accessed May 4, 2011, from http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/protocol.
California Coastal Act. 14 CCR 30000 et seq.
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.
City of RPV, 1999. Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan Phase I Summary Report. Prepared for
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-
5391. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., 5510 Morehouse Drive,
San Diego, California 92121, (619)458-9044 in association with Dames & Moore, Inc., Manomet
176
SECTION
Literature Cited
Center for Conservation Sciences Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. January 1999.
Project No. 317592000
Crooks, K. R., and M. E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented
system. Nature 400:563-566.
CNDDB 2003, 2010. California Natural Diversity Database.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. Draft California Drought Contingency Plan. 87 pp.
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. (ERC), 1990. Phase I report: Amber Ridge California
gnatcatcher study. Prepared for Weingarten, Siegel, Fletcher Group, Inc., April. 30 pp.
Evans, R.A. and J.A. Young. 1989. Characterization and analysis of abiotic factors and their influences on
vegetation. Pages 13-28 in Grassland structure and function: California annual grassland,
Huenneke, L.F. and H.A. Mooney, editors. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ewing, A.L. and J.W. Menke. 1983. Reproductive potential of Bromus mollis and Avena barbata under
drought conditions. Madroño 30(3):159-167.
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.
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.
177
SECTION
Literature Cited
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.
Heady, H.F. 1995. Valley grassland. Pages 491-514 in Terrestrial vegetation of California, Barbour, M.G.
and J. Major, editors. California Native Plant Society, special publication no. 9. 1,020 pp.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California. 1,400 pp.
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.
Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, D. Wilken, and D. Young. 1995. A flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa
Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 397 pp.
Lipman, A., T.R. Longcore, R. Mattoni, and YinLan Zhang. 1999. Habitat evaluation and reintroduction
planning for the endangered Palos Verdes Blue butterfly. Technical report prepared for Longcore,
T., R. Mattoni, A.
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.
Mattoni, R. 1992. Rediscovery of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly, Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis Perkins and Emmel (Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
31:180-194.
Mattoni, R. 1990. The endangered El Segundo blue butterfly. Journal of Research Lepidoptera. 29:277-
304.
Mattoni, R.T., T. Longcore, C. Zonneveld, and V. Novotny. 2001. Analysis of transect counts to monitor
population size in endangered insects: the case of the El Segundo blue butterfly, Euphilotes
Bernardino allyni. Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 197-206.
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.
178
SECTION
Literature Cited
Moran, R. 1995. The subspecies of Dudleya virens (Crassulaceae). Haseltonia, Yearbook of the Cactus
and Succulent Society of America. No. 3: 1-9.
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.
Morse, L.E. 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.
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.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (Ogden). 1992a. Ecology of the California Gnatcatcher at
Rancho San Diego. Prepared for: Home Capital Corporation. December. 56 pp.
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services (Ogden). 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. 1992. Population biology and management of
the marsh gentian (Gentiana pneumonanthe 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.
Pavlik, B.M. 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.
Perkins, E.M. and J.F. Emmel. 1977. New subspecies of Glaucopsyche lygdamus from California
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 79:468-471.
Pratt, G. F. 2006. El Segundo blue survey along the southern slopes of Palos Verdes Penisnula. Prepared
for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Preston, K.L., P.J. Mock, M.A. Grishaver. 1998. California gnatcatcher territorial behavior. Western
Birds 29:242-257.
Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV). 2009. Municipal Code.
179
SECTION
Literature Cited
RBF Consulting. 2001. Results of focused surveys on two butterflies. Appendix 15.3.7. In: Environmental
Impact Report for the Long Point Resort Project. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
RSA. 1996. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 641202. Collector: Steven A. Junak. April 3.
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSA). 1992a. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 597460. Collector:
Angelika Brinkmann-Busi. May 29.
RSA. 1992b. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 640596. Collector: Steven A. Junak. June 3.
RSA. 1991. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 628645. Collector: Steven A. Junak. July 31.
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.
Reiser, C.H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA: Aquafir Press. 180 pp.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. Sacramento, CA: California
Native Plant Society. 471 pp.
Talbot, M.W., H.H. Biswell, and A.L. Hormay. 1939. Fluctuations in the annual vegetation of California.
Ecology 20:394-402.
USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington,
Virginia. 99 pp.
USFWS.2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final determination of critical habitat for
the coastal California gnatcatcher; Final Rule. Federal Register 65:63680-63743.
USFWS.1999a. Recovery Plan for Six Plants from the Mountains of Surrounding the Los Angeles Basin.
Portland, Oregon. 62 pp.
USFWS.1999b. Reinitiation of intra-service consultation on implementation of the special rule for the
coastal California gnatcatcher. On file, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, Carlsbad, California.
USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for the El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes abttoides allyni). Portland,
Oregon. 67 pp.
180
SECTION
Literature Cited
USFWS. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for
Two Plants and Threatened Status for Four Plants From Southern California. Final Rule. Federal
Register: Volume 62, Number 19. Pp. 4172-4183.
USFWS. 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.
USFWS. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; emergency rule to list the Pacific pocket
mouse as endangered. Federal Register 59(23):5306-5310.
USFWS.1993a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of threatened status for the
Coastal California Gnatcatcher; Final Rule. Federal Register (FR) 58:16742-16757.
USFWS. 1993b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; special rule concerning take of the
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher; Final rule. Federal Register 58:65088-65096.
USFWS. 1984. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan, dated January 19, 1984, prepared by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service under contract with Dr. Richard Arnold, Department of
Entomology, University of California 94720.
USFWS. 1980. Listing the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly as an Endangered Species With Critical Habitat;
Final Rule. Federal Register 45:44939-44942.
White, K.L. 1967. Native bunchgrass (Stipa pulchra) 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.
White, P.S. 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.
181
SECTION
Document Preparers
11.0. DOCUMENT PREPARERS
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Joel Rojas, Planning Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Andrea Vona, Executive Director
Danielle Lefer, Conservation Director
Barbara Dye, former 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
Palos Verdes on the Net
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Brenda Johnson, Environmental Program Manager/Habitat Conservation Planning Branch (HCPB)
David Mayer, Supervisor, Senior Environmental Scientist/SCR
Randy Rodriguez, Staff Environmental Scientist/SCR
Erinn Wilson, Staff Environmental Scientist/SCR
Warren Wong, Biologist/SCR
Stuart Itoga, Environment Scientist/HCPB
Gail Presley (former Environmental Program Manager/HCPB)
Bill Tippets, Supervisor, South Coast Region (former Regional Manager/SCR)
Daniel Schrimsher, Environmental Scientist (former Environment Scientist/SCR)
182
SECTION
Document Preparers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jim Bartel, former Field Supervisor
Eric Porter, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Mary Beth Woulfe, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Samantha Marcum, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
183