B - Final NCCP HCP
FINAL DRAFT
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
AND HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
OCTOBERMARCH, 20198
B-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................10
1.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 11
1.2 Regulatory Compliance of the NCCP/HCP .......................................................... 13
1.2.1 Federal....................................................................................................... 13
1.2.2 State........................................................................................................... 15
1.2.3 Local ......................................................................................................... 21
1.3 Species for which Incidental Take Authorization is Requested ........................... 22
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF NCCP/HCP AREA .......................................................................24
2.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 24
2.2.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 24
2.2.2 Covered Species .................................................................................... 3534
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................4342
3.1 Preserve Alternative Analysis ........................................................................... 4342
3.1.1 Alternative A – Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative ................ 4443
3.1.2 Alternative B – Landowner Alternative ................................................ 4645
3.1.3 Alternative C – The City’s Alternative ................................................. 4847
3.1.4 Alternative D – The Proposed Alternative ............................................ 5049
4.0 PROPOSED PRESERVE DESIGN ...........................................................................5251
4.1 Conservation Strategy ....................................................................................... 5251
4.2 Existing Public Lands to be Dedicated to the Preserve (1,402.4 acres) ...... 5857
4.2.1 Lands Dedicated as Previous Mitigation (258.7 acres) ........................ 5857
4.2.2 City-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (1,123) ......................... 6059
4.3 PVPLC-Owned Lands Dedicated to the Preserve (20.7 acres): ....................... 6362
4.4 Other Private and Public Targeted Lands for Dedication to the Preserve (170.7
acres) ................................................................................................................. 6362
4.4.1 Coast Guard Upper Point Vicente Property (3.9 acres) ........................ 6564
4.4.2 Coast Guard Lighthouse Property (19.1 acres) ..................................... 6564
4.4.3 Terranea Resort Bluff Face (10.0 acres of the 102.1-acre parcel) ........ 6564
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) ........ 7978
4.4.5 Lower Filiorum Parcel – a minimum of 40.0 acres within the 94.2-acre
Point View ............................................................................................ 7978
4.4.6 Homeowner Association Contributions (76.1 acres) ............................ 7978
4.4.7 Private lands adjacent to Agua Amarga Canyon (14 acres) ................. 8079
4.4.8 A portion of 3787 Coolheights Drive (1 acre) ...................................... 8079
4.5 Neutral Lands .................................................................................................... 8281
4.5.1 Extreme Slopes on Private Property (Open Space Hillside) ................. 8281
B-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
4.5.2 Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard (Open Space Hillside) .................... 8281
4.5.3 Deed-Restricted Lands .......................................................................... 8382
4.6 Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Potential ..................................................... 8685
5.0 COVERED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ...........................................................8786
5.1 Summary of Covered Projects and Activities ................................................... 8786
5.2 Covered City Projects and Activities ................................................................ 8887
5.2.1 Altamira Canyon Drainage Project ....................................................... 8887
5.2.2 Dewatering Wells.................................................................................. 8887
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures ............................................................ 8887
5.2.4 Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas ............................. 9391
5.2.5 Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Project ..................... 9391
5.2.6 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements ................................................ 9391
5.2.7 Abalone Cove Beach Project ................................................................ 9391
5.2.8 Rancho Palos Verdes Trails Plan Implementation ................................ 9492
5.2.9 Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair ....................................................... 9492
5.2.10 Lower Point Vicente ............................................................................. 9492
5.2.11 Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair ................................................ 9593
5.2.12 Upper Point Vicente .............................................................................. 9593
5.2.13 Preserve Fuel Modification ................................................................... 9593
5.2.14 Utility Maintenance and Repair ............................................................ 9593
5.2.15 Unimproved City Park Projects ............................................................ 9694
5.2.16 Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements ............................................. 9694
5.2.17 Other Miscellaneous City Projects........................................................ 9694
5.3 Covered Private Projects and Activities ........................................................... 9795
5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development............................................................... 9795
5.3.2 Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading .......................................... 10199
5.3.3 Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the City ............... 10199
5.3.4 Miscellaneous Private Projects Throughout the City Outside of the Preserve
........................................................................................................... 102100
5.3.5 Plumtree Development...................................................................... 103101
5.4 Other Covered Activities .............................................................................. 103101
5.4.1 Operation and Maintenance .............................................................. 104102
5.4.2 Public Use ......................................................................................... 104102
5.4.3 Preserve Management ....................................................................... 106103
5.5 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Projects and
Activities ....................................................................................................... 106104
5.6 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species ...................... 110108
5.6.1 Aphanisma ........................................................................................ 110108
5.6.2 South Coast Saltscale ........................................................................ 110108
B-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
5.6.3 Catalina Crossosoma ......................................................................... 111109
5.6.4 Island Green Dudleya ....................................................................... 112109
5.6.5 Santa Catalina Island Desert-Thorn .................................................. 112110
5.6.6 Wooly Seablite .................................................................................. 113110
5.6.7 El Segundo Blue Butterfly ................................................................ 113111
5.6.8 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly.............................................................. 113111
5.6.9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher ......................................................... 114112
5.6.10 Cactus Wren ...................................................................................... 115113
5.7 Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting and Adjacent to the
Preserve ......................................................................................................... 116114
5.7.1 Abutting Development Project Review ............................................ 116114
5.7.2 Fencing and Lighting ........................................................................ 116114
5.7.3 Equestrian Use .................................................................................. 116114
5.7.4 Landscaping ...................................................................................... 117115
5.7.5 Stormwater and Urban Runoff .......................................................... 117115
6.0 LOCAL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS ...................................118116
6.1 City Implementation Process ........................................................................ 118116
6.2 Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code .................................................. 118116
6.3 City Implementation Actions and Process .................................................... 118116
6.3.1 Municipal Code Amendments .......................................................... 119117
6.3.2 Other Amendments ........................................................................... 120118
6.3.3 City Interim Resource Protection...................................................... 121119
6.4 City Approval of the Implementing Agreement ........................................... 121119
6.5 Sequence of Events ....................................................................................... 122120
6.5.1 Execution of the IA ........................................................................... 122120
6.5.2 Post Permit Issuance ......................................................................... 122120
6.5.3 Any time concurrent with the above processes the following events may
occur:................................................................................................. 123121
6.6 Wildlife Agency and City Coordination ....................................................... 124122
6.7 Compliance with Existing Federal and State Wetland Regulations ............. 124122
6.8 Amendments ................................................................................................. 125123
6.8.1 Minor Amendments – Preserve Boundary Adjustments and Equivalency
........................................................................................................... 125123
6.8.2 Major Plan Amendments .................................................................. 128126
6.8.3 Annexations ...................................................................................... 129127
6.9 Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances ............................. 130128
6.9.1 Unforeseen Circumstances ................................................................ 130128
6.9.2 Changed Circumstances .................................................................... 131129
6.10 Coordination with Other NCCPs .................................................................. 140138
B-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
7.0 BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...................................141139
7.1 Biological Objectives .................................................................................... 141139
7.2 Adaptive Management .................................................................................. 142140
7.3 Covered Species Surveys Methodologies ..................................................... 142140
7.3.1 Plant Species Monitoring .................................................................. 143141
7.3.2 Animal Species Monitoring .............................................................. 146144
7.3.3 Data Collection for Plant and Animal Species ................................. 148146
7.4 Non-Native Animal Species Management Plans .......................................... 149147
7.4.1 Feral and Domestic Animal Control ................................................. 149147
7.4.2 Cowbird Trapping Program .............................................................. 149147
7.4.3 Other Predator Control ...................................................................... 150148
7.5 Habitat Restoration Plan ............................................................................... 150148
7.5.1 Management Recommendations ....................................................... 151149
7.5.2 Develop a Detailed Habitat Restoration Plan ................................... 151149
7.5.3 Restoration Design ............................................................................ 151149
7.5.4 Restoration Maintenance Program .................................................... 154152
7.5.5 Restoration Site Monitoring and Reporting ...................................... 155153
7.5.6 Restoration Site Success Goals ......................................................... 155153
7.6 Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP) ..................................... 156154
7.7 Covered Species Reintroduction ................................................................... 156154
7.7.1 Management Recommendations ....................................................... 157155
7.7.2 Use an Experimental Approach ........................................................ 158156
7.7.3 Develop a Detailed Reintroduction Plan........................................... 158156
7.7.4 Include Reintroduction Sites in a Population Monitoring Program .. 159157
7.7.5 Establish Success Criteria ................................................................. 160158
7.7.6 Reporting........................................................................................... 160158
7.8 Research Recommendations ......................................................................... 160158
8.0 FUNDING AND FINANCING OF NCCP/HCP ...................................................163161
8.1 Estimated Implementation Cost .................................................................... 163161
8.1.1 Management Budget Analysis .......................................................... 163161
8.2 Funding Sources............................................................................................ 164162
8.2.1 Summary of Habitat Management Funding ...................................... 164162
8.2.2 PVPLC Land Management ............................................................... 168166
9.0 PRESERVE MONITORING, MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING..............173171
9.1 Preserve Habitat Manager ............................................................................. 173171
9.2 Preserve Habitat Management ...................................................................... 173171
9.2.1 Preserve Habitat Management Plan .................................................. 173171
9.2.2 The Public Use Master Plan .............................................................. 174172
B-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
9.2.3 Fire and Fuel Modification in the Preserve ....................................... 179177
9.2.4 Fencing and Signage ......................................................................... 180178
9.3 Reporting....................................................................................................... 181179
9.3.1 Annual Reports ................................................................................. 181179
9.3.2 Comprehensive Reports (Every Three Years) .................................. 182180
9.4 Annual Coordination Meetings ..................................................................... 184182
10.0 LITERATURE CITED ...........................................................................................185183
11.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS ...................................................................................192190
B-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. City Boundary and Regional Vicinity Map .............................................................................. 25
Figure 2-2. Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes ...................................................................... 26
Figure 2-3. Natural Vegetation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula ................................................................... 29
Figure 2-4. Covered Species Distributions ................................................................................................. 36
Figure 3-1. Preserve Alternative A ............................................................................................................. 45
Figure 3-2. Preserve Alternative B ............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 3-3. Preserve Alternative C ............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 3-4. Preserve Alternative D (Proposed Preserve Design) ................................................................ 51
Figure 4-1. Preserve Design and Vegetation Mapping ............................................................................... 54
Figure 4-2. Preserve Properties ................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4-3. Properties Identified for Possible Inclusion to the Preserve ..................................................... 64
Figure 4-4. Reserve Areas (Management Units) of Preserve ..................................................................... 66
Figure 4-5. Vista Del Norte Management Unit ........................................................................................... 67
Figure 4-6. Agua Amarga Management Unit ............................................................................................. 68
Figure 4-7. Ocean Trails Management Unit .............................................................................................. 69
Figure 4-8. Portuguese Bend Management Unit ......................................................................................... 70
Figure 4-9. Abalone Cove Management Unit ............................................................................................. 71
Figure 4-10. Three Sisters Management Unit ............................................................................................. 72
Figure 4-11. San Ramon Management Unit ............................................................................................... 73
Figure 4-12. Forrestal Management Unit .................................................................................................... 74
Figure 4-13. Vicente Bluffs Management Unit........................................................................................... 75
Figure 4-14. Alta Vicente Management Unit .............................................................................................. 76
Figure 4-15. Filiorum Management Unit .................................................................................................... 77
Figure 4-16. Malaga Canyon Management Unit......................................................................................... 78
Figure 4-17. Neutral Lands ......................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5-1. Brush Management in Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes ................................................. 91
Figure 5-2. Locations of City Projects Covered by the NCCP/HCP .......................................................... 92
Figure 5-3. Potential Preserve for Lower Filiorum ..................................................................................... 99
Figure 5-4. Locations of Private Projects Covered by NCCP/HCP .......................................................... 100
Figure 8-1. PVPLC Fundraising History (Fiscal Year 1998–2006).......................................................... 168
Figure 8-2. PVPLC Volunteer Support 2001–2013 .................................................................................. 172
B-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Proposed Covered Species List for the NCCP/HCP ................................................... 12
Table 2-1. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes1 .................................................... 30
Table 3-1. Summary of Preserve Alternatives .............................................................................. 44
Table 4-1. Public and Private Lands Contributed to the Preserve ................................................ 81
Table 4-2. Acreage in Preserve, Neutral Lands, and City Mitigation Lands ................................ 85
Table 5-1. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities .................................. 96
Table 5-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities ......................... 103
Table 7-1. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix ................................................ 153
Table 7-2. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Cactus Scrub Seed Mix ............................................. 153
Table 7-3. Potential Rancho Palos Verdes Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix* .................................... 154
Table 8-1. Annual Funding for Preserve Management During the Permit ................................. 165
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Definitions
B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses and Conditions for Coverage
C Management Budget Analysis
D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in California’s Coastal Zone
F Summary of preserve protection provided by the City’s General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan
and Municipal Code
G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report (2009)
H Initial Preserve Habitat Management Plan
I Public Use Master Plan
B-8
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ix
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
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
B-9
SECTION ONE Introduction
10
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 (CDFW, 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 A (NCCP/HCP working
B-10
SECTION ONE Introduction
11
group) and B (landowner). The City’s Alternative C was refined and the draft 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 27.0 acres of the Upper Filiorum parcel in the Preserve, approximately 40.0 acres of a former
City Redevelopment Agency Archery Range property, and includes approximately 61.5 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, a minimum of 250.0 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
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ NCCP/HCP 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 specie s, including but not
limited to those species protected under the ESA (identified in Table 1-1).
B-11
SECTION ONE Introduction
12
Table 1-1. 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 Projects and 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 7.0 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 Activities under its direct control and
jurisdiction. This Plan will be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and
Municipal Code ordinances.
B-12
SECTION ONE Introduction
13
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.
The City’s primary conservation strategy is to dedicate 1,402.4 acres of habitat for the NCCP/HCP Preserve
assembly. The dedication includes Existing Public Lands that are currently owned by the City (1,123.0
acres) and the PVPLC (20.7 acres). 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 and will be added to the Preserve.
Of the 1,123.0 acres of Existing Public Lands, 61.5 acres were acquired in association with a grant to the
State of California through the USFWS’s Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition Program,
263.5 acres were obtained by the City, and 798.0 acres of land in Portuguese Bend, Agua Amarga, Upper
Filiorum, and Forrestal were purchased for conservation in support the NCCP/HCP. The 798.0 acres were
acquired 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. Specifically,
the 499.9 of the 798.0 acres were purchased using non-state funding or 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 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 250.0
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.
B-13
SECTION ONE Introduction
14
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.
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).
1.2.1.1 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
exceptions. Under the Eagle Act, it is a violation to “…take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell,
transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American
eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof….” Here, take is defined as to include
B-14
SECTION ONE Introduction
15
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 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. 668–668d. 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, nest, or egg thereof. “Take” under the
Eagle Act is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect or molest, or
disturb.” Under the Eagle Act, “disturb” is further defined 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
B-15
SECTION ONE Introduction
16
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 applicant submits an approved plan
that minimizes and “fully mitigates” the 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 to provide “for the protection of habitat, natural communities, 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 for land,
aquatic, and marine habitats with the plan area…” (Section 2820 [3]). The NCCP Act identifies “ there is a
need for broad-based planning to provide for effective protection and conservation of the state’s wildlife
heritage while continuing to allow appropriate development and growth.(2801 [b])” and calls for 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.
B-16
SECTION ONE Introduction
17
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 regulations, this NCCP/HCP is also intended to be consistent with the City’s Local
Coastal Program (LCP) and California Coastal Act regulations (14 CCR 30000 et seq.) for lands within the
Coastal Zone.
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 (fi sh)
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 appro priate
conservation of the state’s biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal
species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA, California Fish and Game Code 2050,
B-17
SECTION ONE Introduction
18
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 project s 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.
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 Authorizations during the City’s local CEQA and development review/approval process.
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 draft 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 draft 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
B-18
SECTION ONE Introduction
19
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
permitting also adhere to a no net loss policy for wetland acreage, functions a nd values. The CDFG 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 CDFW, which may determine that a Streambed Alteration
Agreement is required. As part of Los Angeles County’s wetland conservation policies, compliance with
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
CDFW 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 1600–1616
that took effect on January 1, 2004 (Senate Bill No. 418 Sher). CDFW has the authority to regulate work
that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural 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, or
lake.” Activities of any person, state or local governmental 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
B-19
SECTION ONE Introduction
20
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.
The Act created a “coastal zone” that generally extends 1,000 yards inland 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 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 yea rs. 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
B-20
SECTION ONE Introduction
21
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.
1.2.3 Local
Implementation of this NCCP/HCP will rely on the City’s land-use authority provided through General
Plan policies, Local Coastal Program, and the City’s Municipal Code ordinances. Implementation will also
rely on the City’s compliance with state and 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
The City’s General Plan, adopted on June 26, 1975, is organized into various elements: Natural
Environment, Socio/Cultural, Urban Environment, and Land Use, which are relevant to this NCCP/HCP.
The portions of the City’s General Plan that 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
As a regulatory document, the City’s Municipal Code provides an important layer of environmental
protection to lands located in the Preserve (Figure 3-2). Each cited section of the City’s Code in effect at
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.
B-21
SECTION ONE Introduction
22
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 Coastal Zone along the 7.5 miles of coastline within the City’s jurisdiction. The CSP includes
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
Agencies’ oversight role is exercised through the normal CEQA process (e.g., individual project review)
and through review of the City’s Annual Report. The Wildlife Agencies may, upon receipt of a CEQA
notice for a project, request a voluntary coordination meeting with in 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 under the City’s 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
state permits are also requested for seven additional species including six plants and one bird that are not
B-22
SECTION ONE Introduction
23
currently listed under the CESA or ESA but have specific known locati ons 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.
B-23
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
24
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.
B-24
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
25
Figure 2-1. City Boundary and Regional Vicinity Map
B-25
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
26 B-26
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
27
Figure 2-2. Existing Land Use within Rancho Palos Verdes
B-27
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
28
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 NC CP/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 habitats,
agricultural lands, disturbed areas, and developed lands. These communities are listed in Table 2-1 and
described below.
B-28
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
29
Figure 2-3. Natural Vegetation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula
B-29
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
30
Table 2-1. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes1
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
Subtotal CSS 1,266.9
Grassland2 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 170.0
Agriculture 12.5
Developed 5,984.4
Subtotal Other 6,234.5
Total Acreage 8,616.6
1Vegetation 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
local policies or regulations. In the case of habitats in the Plan Area, these include all wetland habitat types
B-30
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
31
(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).
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),
B-31
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
32
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 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.
B-32
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
33
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 suppor t 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.
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 commu nity. Riparian
B-33
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
34
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.
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
B-34
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
35
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. Two locations in
the Plan Area are actively farmed and total approximately 12.5 acres. There are 5.5 acres of agriculture in
the vicinity of the Alta Vicente Reserve and another 7.0 acres that are located within the Lower Filiorum
(Point View) property.
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 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.
B-35
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
36
Figure 2-4. Covered Species Distributions
B-36
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
37
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).
B-37
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
38
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.
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.
B-38
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
39
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 ha bitats 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.
Euphilotes battoides allyni
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
USFWS: Endangered
CDFW: No status
B-39
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
40
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 Pelican Cove (Fisherman’s Access
area) where approximately 13 ESB were observed. There 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 East, within
the landslide moratorium area (Edward’s Canyon in Area 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
B-40
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
41
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 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 of this
species’ decline is the cumulative loss of CSS vegetation to urban and agricultural development (Atwood,
1993). This species’ habitat is formally protected and managed through the NCCP program, 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 1.0 to 7.0 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 the species’ habitat
preferences on the Peninsula and elsewhere indicate that California sagebrush (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).
B-41
SECTION TWO Description of NCCP/HCP Area
42
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 wre n 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 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).
B-42
SECTION THREE Project Alternatives
43
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
Wildlife Agencies’ staff through the overlay of vegetation and target species information during the early
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 identified “Neutral Lands” discussed in Section 4.5 of the Plan or the areas of potentially
additional preserve identified in Section 4.4 of the Plan. However, because the 1,696.7 acres of “Neutral
Lands” outside the proposed Preserve (Alternative D) are currently undevelopable and contain 670.9 acres
of natural vegetation including 430.2 acres of CSS, they will add biological value to the Preserve.
B-43
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
44
Table 3-1. Summary of Preserve Alternatives
ALTERNATIVES TOTAL ACREAGE
IN THE PRESERVE
ACREAGE OF ALL
NATURAL
VEGETATION
COMMUNITIES IN THE
PRESERVE*
ACREAGE OF CSS
IN THE PRESERVE
A 1,559.1 1,414.8 748.1
B 1,220.5 1,127.2 693.8
C 1,504.0 1,302.4 728.5
D 1,402.4 1,302.3 737.1
*Natural vegetation communities in this table do not include developed or agricultural lands,
disturbed vegetation, cliff face, or rocky shore/intertidal areas.
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.
B-44
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
45
Figure 3-1. Preserve Alternative A
B-45
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
46
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.
B-46
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
47
Figure 3-2. Preserve Alternative B
B-47
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
48
3.1.3 Alternative C – The City’s 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 1,504.0-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.
B-48
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
49
Figure 3-3. Preserve Alternative C
B-49
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
50
3.1.4 Alternative D – The Proposed Alternative
Alternative D (Figure 3-4) is the same as Alternative C with the following exceptions: (1) a 27.0-acre parcel
in the Upper Filiorum property (now identified as the Plumtree Parcel Project) that was included in the
Preserve under Alternative C has been removed from the Preserve in Alternative D and instead identified
as a Covered Project by the NCCP/HCP, including the associated dedication of 30 acres of functional and
connected habitat; (2) 40.0 acres of a former archery range property located along the coast to the east of
Abalone Cove have been removed from the proposed Preserve under Alternative D due to landslide and
legal constraints; and (3) 61.5 acres of Malaga Canyon, purchased by the City in 2014, have been
incorporated into the Preserve under Alternative D. 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.
B-50
SECTION THREE Proposed Preserve Design
51
Figure 3-4. Preserve Alternative D (Proposed Preserve Design)
B-51
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
52
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 develop ed 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 are as 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 lands to be dedicated to
the Preserve (identified below) that address the Phase I recommendations for reserve design and assist in
B-52
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
53
making the Preserve biologically viable for Covered Species and natural communities in perpetuity (Figure
4-1).
The City’s primary 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 California
through the USFWS’s Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition 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 Calif ornia
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 Exhibit E in
the IA) held by the City with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-party beneficiaries. In addition, the City
and PVPLC are 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 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 habitat within the Preserve on behalf of the City and with the City’s 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.
B-53
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
54
Figure 4-1. Preserve Design and Vegetation Mapping
B-54
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
55
Figure 4-2. Preserve Properties
B-55
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
56
In order to facilitate management, the Preserve has been divided into 12 geographical management units
referred to as “Reserve Areas” (see Figure 4-4). Also attached are Figures 4-5 through 4-12 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
o Crestridge Property
Agua Amarga Reserve
o Agua Amarga Canyon
o Lunada Canyon
Ocean Trails Reserve
o Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property
o Shoreline Park
Portuguese Bend Reserve
o Portuguese Bend Property
Abalone Cove Reserve
o Abalone Cove (Including portions of the State Ecological Reserve Area)
Three Sisters Reserve
o Barkentine Property
San Ramon Reserve
o Switchbacks Property
Forrestal Reserve
o Forrestal Property
Vicente Bluffs Reserve
o Ocean Front Estates Property
o Lower Point Vicente
o Pelican Cove (formerly the Fisherman’s Access)
Alta Vicente Reserve
o Upper Point Vicente
B-56
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
57
Filiorum Reserve
o Upper Filiorum
o Del Cerro Buffer
Malaga Canyon Reserve
o Malaga Canyon Open Space
B-57
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
58
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 (1,123.0 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 1,123.0 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 City 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 499.9 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
tract to satisfy the developer’s parkland dedication requirement. In 1997, 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 21.0 acres of this property for habitat enhancement/revegetation related to the
project’s HCP. However, due to concerns 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 10.0 acres of required habitat revegetation from this property to the City’s
nearby Shoreline Park property, and to allow 11.0 acres of habitat enhancement on this property.
The 11.0 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 11.0 acres pursuant to the
Development Agreement with the City, PVPLC may assume the management and monitoring of
B-58
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
59
these 11.0 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 20.0 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 revegetation. 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 4.0 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 residential development to satisfy the developer’s parkland dedication requirement.
Approximately 10.5 acres of the 71.5 acres of open space was set aside for ornamental landscaping
to be maintained by the development’s HOA. The remaining 61.5 acres was 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, revegetate 30.0 acres with CSS and preserve 26.9 acres of coastal bluff scrub. The developer’s
habitat restoration and management responsibilities on the 61 acres were 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 among other things, 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.
B-59
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
60
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
acres of “additional non-golf setback” area which will not 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
o 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
Tract 50666
o 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) – 1.0 acre
o Lot K (Bluff Top Public Access) - 8.9 acres
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 (158.0 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 was superseded by the
B-60
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
61
PUMP (adopted by the City Council on April 2, 2013) 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 out of the
Preserve to serve as a public-access point to the trail network within the Preserve and possibly an
equestrian facility. About 2.88 acres of the 425.9-acre property are Existing Preserve Roads that do
not provide habitat for Covered Species. Thus, 406.9 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 property is owned by the City’s successor agency to the Redevelopment 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 been
calculated as 65.2 acres using the City’s orthographic maps.
Lower Point Vicente Property (3.4 acres of the 27.4 acre parcel)
In 2004, the County deeded the 27.4-acre Lower Point Vicente property to the City. The City’s
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 acres using the City’s GIS database.
B-61
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
62
Pelican Cove (formally the Fisherman’s Access) 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 acres using the City’s GIS database.
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-acre property in 2003, which is located adjacent to the City’s Del
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 acres of the City’s 73.4-acre property)
The City’s Upper Point Vicente property consists of the following three separate parcels: a 65.12-
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 acres. Based on the City’s orthographic maps, 50.9 acres of the City’s 73.4-
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.
B-62
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
63
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 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 Conservancy’s 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. 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 habitat management by the
PVPLC. A memorandum of understanding will be sought by the City and PVPLC for management of
Targeted Lands under Federal ownership.
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.
B-63
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
64
Figure 4-3. Properties Identified for Possible Inclusion to the Preserve
B-64
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
65
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.
4.4.3 Terranea Resort Bluff Face (10.0 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 10.0 acres using the City’s GIS database. This land has been
targeted since it is adjacent to the City’s bluff face Preserve property that is referred to as the Pelican Cove
Property.
B-65
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
66
Figure 4-4. Reserve Areas (Management Units) of Preserve
B-66
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
67
Figure 4-5. Vista Del Norte Management Unit
4-5
B-67
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
68
Figure 4-6. Agua Amarga Management Unit
4-6
B-68
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
69
Figure 4-7. Ocean Trails Management Unit
4-7
B-69
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
70
Figure 4-8. Portuguese Bend Management Unit
4-8
B-70
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
71
Figure 4-9. Abalone Cove Management Unit
4-9
B-71
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
72
Figure 4-10. Three Sisters Management Unit
4-10
B-72
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
73
Figure 4-11. San Ramon Management Unit
4-11
B-73
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
74
Figure 4-12. Forrestal Management Unit
4-12
B-74
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
75
Figure 4-13. Vicente Bluffs Management Unit
4-13
B-75
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
76
Figure 4-14. Alta Vicente Management Unit
4-14
B-76
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
77
Figure 4-15. Filiorum Management Unit
4-15
B-77
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
78
Figure 4-16. Malaga Canyon Management Unit
4-16
B-78
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
79
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 the property
owner’s consent. It is anticipated that the property owner may wish to dedicate the habitat 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 40.0 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 40.0-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 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 the City’s orthographic maps and do not represent 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
Peninsula Pointe HOA – 14.4 acres of a 27.8-acre common open space area
B-79
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
80
Sunset Ridge HOA – 7.8 acres of a 19.5-acre common open space area
Seacliff Hills HOA – 6.2 acres of a 12.0-acre common open space area
RPV Estates HOA – 16.1 acres of a 28.0-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 Preser ve. 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 because
the area contains CSS and directly abuts the City’s Forrestal Reserve (see Figure 4-8). Inclusion of the 1.06-
acre portion of this property into the Preserve will have to be agreed upon by the property owner.
B-80
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
81
Table 4-1. Public and Private Lands Contributed to the Preserve
Parcel Acreage Acres Being
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 4.0
Subtotal 1,123
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 Point Vicente) 3.9 3.9
Coast Guard (Lower Point 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
*406.9 acres of the 409.8 acres dedicated to the Preserve will provide Covered Species habitat (see Section 4.2.2).
**30.0 acres dedicated as mitigation for the Plumtree private development (see Section 5.3.5).
***40.0 acres of functional/connected habitat required for any development on the Lower Filiorum site (see Section 5.3.1).
B-81
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
82
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 1,696.7 acres of
“Neutral Lands” exist outside the Preserve boundary (Figure 4-17). 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
development constraints that already exist on these properties pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code or
other legal constraint. By definition, “Neutral Lands” are those areas that are considered to be extreme
slopes (35% or greater slope - Open Space Hillside), 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
(Open Space Hillside), Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard, and Deed-Restricted Lands.
4.5.1 Extreme Slopes on Private Property (Open Space Hillside)
The City considers natural or graded slopes with a gradient in excess of 35% to be extreme slopes. The
City’s Municipal Code prohibits development on any extreme slopes. Extreme slopes occur mostly in
undeveloped canyons and developed residential tracts scattered throughout the City. Most of the
undeveloped canyons are concentrated on the City’s east side.
4.5.2 Lands Zoned Open Space Hazard (Open Space Hillside)
The City’s zoning map designates certain areas of the City with a zoning designation of Open Space Hazard.
Areas with such zoning are characterized by areas of downslope movement, areas unstable for development,
areas where grading or development may endanger the public due to erosion or flooding, and areas subject
to flooding. Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, 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.
B-82
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
83
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.
B-83
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
84
Figure 4-17. Neutral Lands
4-17
B-84
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
85
Table 4-2. Acreage in Preserve, Neutral Lands, and City Mitigation Lands
by Vegetation Community
Vegetation Category Preserve Neutral Lands Lands Outside
Preserve/Neutral Lands
Grand
Total
Agriculture 5.5 0.0 7.0 12.5
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 28.2 17.5 124.3 170.0
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 1,696.7 5,517.0 8,616.6
*Neutral Lands are not subject to NCCP/HCP management requirements unless they become Preserve lands.
B-85
SECTION FOUR Proposed Preserve Design
86
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 revegetation on
the Oceanfront Estates property and 93.6 acres of CSS revegetation on the City’s Switchbacks and
Shoreline Park properties associated with the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. These are pre-existing
programs that do not serve as mitigation under the NCCP/HCP; they do, however, enhance the Preserve’s
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.
B-86
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
87
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), 5 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. “Projects” are well-defined actions
that occur once in a discrete location whereas “Activities” are actions/operations that occur repeatedly in
one location or throughout the Plan Area. The City’s dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123.0
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
Projects/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 303.7 acres of non-native grassland and 115.5 acres of CSS. Of these
total impacts, it is estimated that 148.3 acres of the impacted non-native grassland (49%) and 60.0 acres of
the impacted CSS (52%) will occur within the Preserve. Southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal
bluff scrub are subsets of CSS, and 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 City lands to the Preserve and
providing restoration and management funding for the Preserve (see Section 8.0). Of the 737.0 acres of
CSS and associated vegetation communities within the Preserve, a maximum of 60.0 acres (<8%) could be
impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 677.0 acres (92%) of CSS in the
Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of
148.3 acres (31%) could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities in the Preserve, leaving a
minimum of 322.6 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 and associated
mitigation are described in individual project descriptions (Section 5.3). The total loss of habitat associated
B-87
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
88
with Covered Project and 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 of the Plan, will not only be consistent with the NCCP/HCP, but will
also be consistent with the City’s most current LCP. Furthermore, any impacts to habitat or ESHAs located
in 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 into
the landslide plane. The removal of the Canyon’s existing vegetation will result in the loss of 2.5 acres of
CSS habitat and 3.0 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 recreational trails, trails that
can accommodate authorized vehicles, Existing Preserve Roads, 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
B-88
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
89
pathways) for the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of fissures, the re-contouring of
slide debris, the creation and maintenance of trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles, 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
revegetated with CSS habitat within 60 days after completion of abatement activities. A plan for
revegetation of CSS habitat of areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be completed as part of the CEQA
review during the planning stage of landslide abatement measures. That plan will take into account all of
the restoration guidelines incorporated in this NCCP/HCP (see Section 5.5 and 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 5.0 acres of CSS habitat and 15.0 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.
B-89
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
90 B-90
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
91
Figure 5-1. Brush Management in Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
B-91
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
92
Figure 5-2. Locations of City Projects Covered by the NCCP/HCP
B-92
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
93
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 co mbined loss
of a maximum of 10.0 acres of CSS habitat and 15.0 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 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 5.0 acres of CSS habitat and 15.0 acres of non-
native grassland outside the Preserve. Covered Species are not currently known in 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 to
drainage systems in the City that are not located within the landslide areas or the Palos Verdes Drive East
drainage project area as described above. 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 trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles. It is
estimated that such activity could result in the combined loss of a maximum of 20.0 acres of CSS habitat
and 60.0 acres of grassland in the Plan Area. Of this total, it is estimated that 6.6 acres of CSS (33%) and
20.0 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 Existing Preserve Roads, trails that can accommodate
authorized vehicles, and recreational 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 revegetation shall be performed on site within the coastal zone of the Preserve. A point location for
B-93
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
94
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 City’s Trails 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 PlaMaster Plann (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 City’s Trails 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 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 4.0 acres of CSS habitat and 10.0 acres of grassland. It is estimated that one-half of these impacts will
occur within the Preserve (2.0 acres of CSS habitat and 5.0 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
The City implemented 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.
Past geologic studies identified a landslide in this canyon that could potentially block the stream flow in
the canyon. Blockage of the stream flow could cause water to percolate into the adjacent South Shores
landslide increasing the likelihood of land movement. The project is expected to reduce the likelihood of
reactivating the South Shores landslide, which could result in the loss of the Switchbacks on Palos Verdes
Drive East. The project resulted in the loss of .34 acres of the 5.0 acres of CSS allocated for the project.
The .34 acre of CSS lost occurred in the Preserve. One point location for one gnatcatcher occurs in the
project vicinity.
5.2.10 Lower Point Vicente
Pursuant to the City Council’s approved Parks Master Plan, the City 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.
B-94
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
95
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 5.0 acres of CSS habitat loss and 15.0 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
As part of the City Council’s approved Parks Master Plan, the City is considering development of a
civic/cultural/community center at Upper Point Vicente Park. The project may result in a loss of 2.0 acres
of CSS and 22.0 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur within
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 9.2.32 of the Plan. The
required City fuel modification is anticipated to result in a loss of 12.0 acres of CSS and 18.0 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 and other
public agencies and/or utility companies who seek Third-Party Participant status, will occur throughout the
City. These infrastructure facilities include sewers, water, cable, telephone, gas, power, and storm drains
located throughout the City and will be performed 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 10.0 acres of CSS and 20.0 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.
B-95
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
96
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 1.0-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 10.0 acres of CSS habitat and 20.0 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 trails
that can accommodate authorized vehicles. It is estimated that such activity could result in the combined
loss of a maximum of 5.0 acres of CSS habitat and 15.0 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve.
Any potential impacts will be offset to 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 20.0 acres of CSS habitat
and 60.0 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.
Table 5-1. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities
City Project Name
Total Habitat Loss
(Acres)
Habitat Loss In
Preserve (Acres)
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0.0 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 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
B-96
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
97
City Project Name
Total Habitat Loss
(Acres)
Habitat Loss In
Preserve (Acres)
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 0.0 0.0 0.34 0.0
10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0.0 0.0
11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
12. Upper Point 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 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 115.5 303.7 60.3 148.3
*Part of the PUMP, a Covered City Project (see Section 9.2 of this Plan)
**Total habitat loss (CSS and Grassland) is 419.2 acres, of which 208.6 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 5.0 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2.0 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2.0 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).
5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development
The Lower Filiorum property, also known as the Point View property, is 95 .0 acres and is zoned single-
family residential. Approximately 46.82 acres of the property is located outside the City’s Landslide
Moratorium Area (LMA) and approximately 48.18 acres of the property is located within the City’s LMA.
Under current land-use entitlements, the Point View property is authorized to be improved with 25.5 acres
of agricultural uses. The property currently has 7.0 acres of agricultural orchards and vineyards. In addition
to the agricultural uses, the Point View property includes a 9-hole golf course, a paved internal driveway
beginning at PVDS, and a landscaped patio (referred to as the “Event Garden”) located along the eastern
side of the site. The Event Garden is composed of a large outdoor patio area with decorative permeable
concrete pavers and includes an ornamental pepper tree in its center, an oval lawn surrounded by pavers
located adjacent to the patio area, and a ceremonial lawn and arbor to the southeast of the patio area. Within
the Event Garden are two small ancillary buildings, which are comprised of a restroom and storage area
that are commonly referred to as the “Cook Shack.” These structures are lined by a large 12-foot tall
decorative sound wall and additional 2-foot tall seat wall enclosing the useable area of the Event Garden.
In addition to these structures, the Event Garden provides an outdoor fireplace and bu ilt-in barbeque, with
a greenhouse just outside the garden area.
If any type of development project is approved on the Lower Filiorum property (Point View), the
landowner, as a condition of approval, will be required to dedicate a minimum of 40.0 acres of the 95.0-
acre property to the Preserve. This dedication will include an unimproved and non-agriculture 300-foot-
B-97
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
98
wide functional wildlife corridor for the purposes of providing habitat for Covered Species on the southern
edge of the property connecting to the Abalone Cove portion of the Preserve, within the property boundaries
depicted in Figure 5-3. Should the landowner choose to remove existing development to include currently
developed areas in the 300-foot wide wildlife corridor as part of the dedication, the currently developed
area will be restored with native vegetation that provides habitat for Covered Species. 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 40.0-acre dedication and 300-foot-wide minimum wildlife corridor required for this project
is to maintain a viable wildlife corridor and live-in habitat 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
was comprised of 70.0 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 40.0 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 9 5.0-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.
B-98
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
99
Figure 5-3. Potential Preserve for Lower Filiorum
B-99
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
100
Figure 5-4. Locations of Private Projects Covered by NCCP/HCP
B-100
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
101
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 3.0 acres of CSS habitat and 10.0 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, in part, by the City
conveying and managing 1,123.0 acres to the Preserve. For the Private Projects to be covered under the
City’s Plan, vegetation removal shall be offset by the project applicant paying a Mitigation Fee into the
City’s Habitat Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a 0.5:1 mitigation 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. This Covered Private Project may 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 City’s 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 at a 2:1
ratio = $300,000.00). 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 2013 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 Projects to be covered under the City’s Plan,
vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the project applicant paying a
Mitigation Fee into the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a
0.5:1 mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native
B-101
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
102
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 City’s 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 at a 2:1 ratio = $300,000.00).
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 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 outside of
within the Preserve is not expected to exceed 10.0 acres of CSS and 20.0 acres of grassland. Any loss of
CSS beyond 10.0 acres and 20.0 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 2:1 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 City’s 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
B-102
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
103
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 the Preserve
design and/or species persistence.
5.3.5 Plumtree Development
If a development project is approved on the 27.0-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,
all impacts to biological resources addressed under this Plan on the 27.0-acre Plumtree property will be
considered adequately mitigated by the conveyance of 30.0 acres of functional and connected habitat on
the Upper Filiorum property (190.0 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 Exhibit E in the IA).
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 27.0-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 30.0-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.
Table 5-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities
COVERED PRIVATE PROJECT
HABITAT LOSS (ACRES)
CSS GRASSLAND
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 and these activities are not expected
to involve the permanent loss of habitat.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
B-103
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
104
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 and Avoidance and
Minimization Measures for Covered Species outlined in Section 5.5 and 5.6, respectively of the Plan as
part of all operations and authorizations to precede work, where applicable.:
5.4.1 Operation and Maintenance
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. 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.
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
Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the Preserve that do not
result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.
The maintenance of Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles in
the Preserve provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.
Geologic testing and monitoring for public health and safety reasons, provided there is no loss
of Covered Species and/or their 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 their habitat.
Maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) provided there is no loss of
Covered Species and/or their 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 their habitat.
Photography and filming, provided a City permit is obtained, no grading is involved, no new
access road or trails are created, and provided there is no loss of impacts to Covered Species
and/or their habitat are avoided.
City and Los Angeles County law enforcement activities, including authorized 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 under the NCCP/HCP and must be consistent with the
protection and enhancement of biological resources set forth in this Plan. Excessive or uncontrolled access;
however, can result in habitat degradation through trampling and erosion (e.g., along trails) and disruption
B-104
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
105
of breeding and other critical wildlife functions at certain times of the year. In order to balance the public’s
passive 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 9.2.2.1 of this Plan provides the 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
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, 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 Preserve
Roads, recreational trails, or other access ways shall be sited 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 of the existing agricultural uses at the Alta Vicente Reserve, totaling 5.5 acres,
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.
B-105
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
106
5.4.3 Preserve Management
Management of the Preserve in accordance with the provisions described in Sections 7.0 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
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 coordinate with PVPLC to 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 Projects and 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,
authorized vehicle operators must take measures to avoid and minimize, to the maximum extent
possible, environmental damage, including damage to habitat and Covered Species. Existing
Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles in the Preserve should be used
wherever practical, while minimizing authorized vehicles trips overall within the Preserve. Any
unavoidable access routes outside existing trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles or
B-106
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
107
construction areas should be clearly marked. Any new recreational trails, trails that can
accommodate authorized vehicles, 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 Projects and 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 clean and free of foreign debris and non-native plant material.
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.
7. Temporary impacts associated with Covered Projects or Activities will be restored with native
vegetation appropriate to the physical conditions of the site. For example, if a temporary impact
area was dominated by disturbed CSS before initiation of the Covered Project or Activity, the goal
of habitat restoration will be to install undisturbed CSS. Project-specific restoration plans will be
submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and comment prior to commencing work
associated with each Covered Project or Activity that temporarily impacts in native vegetation.
8. Cut/fill slopes within the Preserve should be limited to Covered Projects and Activities, and outside
of fuel modification zones within the Preserve will be revegetated with native species, or in the
case of fuel modification zones, native plants recommended by Los Angeles County for fuel
modification zones and consistent with Number 7 above. 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.
9. Dust generated by the construction vehicles for Covered Projects and Activities on non-paved trails
that accommodate authorized vehicles within the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve
will be minimized using a speed limit restriction to 10 miles per hour (mph) and, where appropriate,
watering unpaved surfaces.
10. Any temporary safety or security night lighting for Covered Projects and Activities in the Preserve
or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from
all native vegetative communities.
B-107
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
108
11. Prior to implementation of Covered Projects or 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 Covered Projects or 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.
12. Any biologist used for the implementation of this NCCP/HCP, including implementing these
measures, will be subject to the Wildlife Agencies’ review and approval. The City will submit the
biologist’s name, address, telephone number, 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.
13. For bird species that are not federally listed or a Covered Species identified in 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 (consistent with Section 5.6.9 and 5.6.10 below) 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).
14. 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 Preserve Habitat Manager shall be notified at least ten (10) working days prior to impacts for
potential salvaging and relocation opportunities.
15. 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.
16. 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 in the City’s Annual Report.
17. 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
B-108
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
109
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).
18. All project landscaping, erosion control and revegetation efforts within the Preserve shall use
locally collected native vegetation/landscaping to the extent practicable and avoid those species
listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal -IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section
5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). All project landscaping, erosion control and revegetation efforts
on vacant land abutting the Preserve are permitted to use non-native plants but shall be prohibited
from using those species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal -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.
19. 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 guidelines in Section 9.2.2.1 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 Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles, wherever
practical; (3) any new trails, shall be located in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge
effects (e.g., 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.
20. 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;
B-109
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
110
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 coordinate with PVPLC to 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 Covered Species.
5.6.1 Aphanisma
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations (PVPLC 2013), and
the Preserve Habitat 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
Preserve Habitat Management Plan (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
Habitat 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 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 Habitat 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
B-110
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
111
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 Habitat 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 Habitat 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 subj ect 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 existing
population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve
Habitat 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.
B-111
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
112
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 Habitat 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 Habitat 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 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.
B-112
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
113
5.6.6 Wooly Seablite
Surveys will continue to be conducted at fixed locations every 3 years within the Preserve by the Preserve
Habitat 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 Habitat
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 Habitat Manager every 3 years within the existing populations
(Figure 2) to monitor trends in population dynamics. The Preserve Habitat Manager shall evaluate potential
opportunities to expand this species’ habitat. The host plant 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 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
The PVPLC shall regularly evaluate potential opportunities to expand this subspecies’ habitat. The host
plant for this species will be included in the seed mix for restoration (active planting) within the Preserve
B-113
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
114
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 on trails and trails that can accommodate
authorized vehicles throughout the Plan Area. Routine maintenance of recreational trails and trails that
accommodate authorized vehicles may impact host plants and potentially PVB individuals, and there will
be no additional restrictions placed on recreational trails or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles
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 Habitat 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,
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 60 dBA Leq within the 50-foot
buffer zone. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the nest
B-114
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
115
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 Habitat Manager within the Preserve to monitor
trends in population dynamics and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this
species. The Preserve Habitat 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 60 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.
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.
B-115
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
116
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.
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
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code 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
B-116
SECTION FIVE Covered Activities, Associated Impacts, and Conservation
117
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. Landscaping shall avoid those species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-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 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 City’s 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.
B-117
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
118
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 City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, as described herein in Section 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
compliance with applicable provisions of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grading Ordinance,
Subdivision Ordinance, and any other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
6.2 Existing Provisions of the Municipal Code
As a regulatory document, the City’s Municipal Code provides an important layer of environmental
protection (either directly or indirectly) to lands located in the Preserve. Each relevant section of the City’s
Code in effect at the time the NCCP/HCP is adopted is listed in Appendix F of the Plan 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, can be modified or denied if the City’s regulations are not being
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
City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Map and CEQA Guidelines to provide protection of the
B-118
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
119
Preserve lands and ensure consistency of future projects within the NCCP/HCP Area through the City’s
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. The City’s Fire 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.
B-119
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
120
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
The City’s Zoning Map, which is established by the Zoning Code, will be amended to incorporate the
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. This will
B-120
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
121
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 either an Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance (City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance)
establishing the protections contained in the NCCP/HCP to the Covered Species on an interim basis until
the City’s new regulations and ordinances that must be adopted to implement the NCCP/HCP go into effect
(Section 6.5.2 of the Plan). The City and Wildlife Agencies will work together to determine whether an
Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance will be adopted.
Specifically, the City Interim Resource Protection 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 Community
Development Director 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 Community Development Director 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
B-121
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
122
of the Parties (USFWS, CDFW, City, and PVPLC) in implementation of the NCCP/HCP in accordance
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 Execution of the IA
Upon execution of the IA and issuance of the Incidental Take Permits, the Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council will adopt the City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance (City Ordinance/Urgency 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 Ordinance or 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 Ordinance or
Urgency Ordinance consistent with the requirements of the NCCP/HCP. Any lapse in the effectiveness of
the Ordinance or 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 effectiveness. Upon the City’s enactment of 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.
Any revisions or amendments to the City Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance or to the regulations and
ordinances originally adopted by the City to implement the NCCP/HCP shall be submitted to the Wildlife
Agencies for review and comment at least 60 days prior to adoption by the City. Any revisi ons or
amendments to the Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance or other implementing regulations and ordinances that
are inconsistent with the NCCP/HCP or would impede implementation of the Plan will trigger a
reevaluation, and potential suspension or revocation of, the Permits.
6.5.2 Post Permit Issuance
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 Exhibit E of 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
B-122
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
123
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:
a. Within 90 days of issuance of the Permits, City Staff will submit the proposed amendments to
the City Council for initiation.
b. 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.
c. 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 authorized vehicles to
areas within the Preserve. The 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:
1. 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:
a. 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
B-123
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
124
beneficiaries, or a new conservation easement in the form contained in Exhibit E of the IA will
be granted by the City.
b. 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 Exhibit E of the IA will be granted by the City
with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-party beneficiaries.
c. 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.
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 Projects or 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.
B-124
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
125
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 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
B-125
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
126
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)
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 whi ch 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 project’s
environmental document.
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 the Minor Amendment process. 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
B-126
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
127
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 relevant documents, including the City’s rationale for processing the 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:
Corrections of typographic, grammatical, and similar editing errors in the Plan documents, IA,
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, IA, 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
City’s or applicants making are 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 City’s Annual Report. The City 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.
B-127
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
128
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
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.
B-128
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
129
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
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.
If these options are not adequate to meet the species’ conservation requirements, the Wildlife Agencies 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 process
and such lands and project shall not be covered under the City’s existing Take Authorizations.
In the case of annexations of land that require Take Authorizations of Covered Species, one of the 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
B-129
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
130
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 City’s Permits, then a Major Amendment to the City’s
NCCP/HCP and Permits shall be required.
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 the
NCCP/HCP without the City’s consent 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, th e 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
Agencies, at the time of the Plan’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse
change in the status of a Covered Species.
B-130
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
131
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 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 t o 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 authorities as provided by law over third parties under the City’s jurisdiction and
control that are carrying out Covered Activities.
6.9.2 Changed Circumstances
Changed Circumstances and the NCCP/HCP’s responses to those circumstances are provided below. The
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
B-131
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
132
occur, the City, in coordination with PVPLC, shall immediately provide written notification within seven
(7) working days to the Wildlife Agencies upon learning of any Changed Circumstances. 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 Wildlife Agencies on its actions within 30 days. 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.
The City’s Habitat Restoration Fund will be maintained with at least $50,000 (adjusted annually 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
B-132
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
133
0.55 fire per year. In addition, the fire size for fires within these properties has ranged from 1.0 acre to 194.0
acres with an average fire size of 56.0 acres.
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 200.0 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 5.0 acres to burn two or more times 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 part of the City’s procedures for responding to emergencies, the City will notify the Wildlife Agencies
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 200.0 acres occurs in the Preserve or a repeat fire less than 5.0 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.
B-133
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
134
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
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 promulgate d 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. The City’s SUSMP includes a list of 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
will be performed by the City’s Public Works Department and/or Los 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
B-134
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
135
and activities associated with other landslides have been identified as Covered Activities in Section 5.2 of
the Plan.
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
work will be performed by the City’s Public Works Department in consultation with the PVPLC. Any 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.
B-135
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
136
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 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.
B-136
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
137
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 Wildli fe
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:
o Temporarily adjust the success goals (criteria/performance standards) and practices for
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.
o Revise the methods for monitoring of vegetation conditions to identify areas that may
require additional management.
o Conduct additional weed abatement in restored/enhanced habitat areas. Temporarily
redirect habitat restoration/enhancement efforts towards invasive species removal until
drought conditions subside.
o Postponing habitat restoration/enhancement until irrigation or rainfall resumes.
o Redirecting habitat restoration/enhancement efforts during drought conditions towards 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
B-137
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
138
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 addres sed 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.
B-138
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
139
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
Species, initiate a program to control mesopredators under the Plan’s Changed Circumstances.
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, the City and PVPLC will
implement the “no adverse modification” measures, if any, identified 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.
B-139
SECTION SIX Local Plan Review and Approval Process
140
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.
B-140
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
141
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.
B-141
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
142
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, particularly if
a species’ habitat and physical site characteristics remain unchanged. Conversely, another 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 needs 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 consists of the following four
B-142
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
143
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 subject to the Wildlife
Agencies’ review and approval.
7.3.1 Plant Species Monitoring
Six target Covered Plant Species occur within the City’s jurisdictional limits. 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
Peninsula: Peirson’s morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) and state-listed Lyon’s pentachaeta
(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 pop ulations. 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
are difficult to census. For island green dudleya populations, abundance and density are assessed by direct
B-143
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
144
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 concurr ent 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 Species will vary according to species’ habit (e.g., annual versus
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 July–June 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.
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,
B-144
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
145
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).
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 loca tions. 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.
B-145
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
146
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 occur through these monitoring
efforts will be addressed in the Plan rather than the individual biologist’s 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.
3. Coverage of Survey. The calling rate of gnatcatchers is highly variable (Pr eston 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.
B-146
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
147
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:
a. Date and start/stop time of sighting
b. Sex and age (if feasible) of individual(s)
c. Are any of the birds detected color-banded? Record the color code, if present.
d. Habitat type, dominant plant species, and vegetative condition (i.e., extent of
disturbance/invasive plant species) will be documented and photographed
e. Is the sighting a single bird, a pair, or a family group?
f. Is there any evidence of breeding activity (e.g., nesting behavior, carrying of prey items)?
g. Are there any other sensitive CSS species or Species of Special Concern near the sighting?
h. 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 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
B-147
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
148
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 th e
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.
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.,
B-148
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
149
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. PVPLC shall document evidence of feral or domestic animal use in the Preserve.
2. The City shall 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
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).
B-149
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
150
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
under the Plan’s Changed Circumstances.
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 250.0 acres of habitat over the Permit
Term within the Preserve. A minimum of 5.0 acres of native habitat shall be restored each year, or a total
of 15.0 acres every three years if exigencies prevent restoration of 5 .0 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 plan 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 2.0-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 stored for direct
seeding and propagation. PVPLC staff maintains monthly inventory of the container plants, germi nation
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
B-150
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
151
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 r estoration 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 15.0 acres (5.0 acres per year). The restoration shall:
1. Prepare a 5.0-acre area(s) each year by removing exotics;
2. Revegetate or enhance that same 5.0-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 250.0
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.
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, in coordination with the
B-151
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
152
Wildlife Agencies and the Preserve Habitat Manager, 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 shall be installed within the City’s Landslide Moratorium Area or the City’s
coastal setback zone unless such installation is approved by the City’s geotechnical consultants.
The following will be included in the preparation criteria:
a. Prepare the site by restoring it to existing grade, fixing any erosion that may have occurred,
and scarifying any compacted areas.
b. 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 revegetation.
c. 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.
B-152
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
153
Table 7-1. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Sage Scrub Seed Mix
Scientific Name Common Name Pound per Acre Percent Pure Live
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 —
Table 7-2. 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.
B-153
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
154
Table 7-3. Potential Rancho Palos Verdes Butterfly Habitat Seed Mix*
Scientific Name Common Name Pounds per Acre Percent Pure Live
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 Restoration Maintenance Program
1. PVPLC will perform the following maintenance activities to facilitate restoration success: weed
control, erosion control, and access control.
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. Control access to restoration sites. Access to restoration sites should be on existing trails that
can accommodate authorized vehicles. 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 to the City for consideration and implementation.
2. Maintain the restoration site for five years following installation.
3. Perform maintenance on an as-needed basis, as recommended by the PVPLC.
B-154
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
155
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 revegetation 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.
B-155
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
156
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 250.0 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 activities in fulfillment of the City’s obligation through the 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 City’s weed control requirement is in addition to the City’s
requirement to restore a minimum of 5.0 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
population; (2) does the reintroduction site afford long-term stability; (3) are there higher competing values
B-156
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
157
(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. The City’s Plan Area 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).
9. The species Pierson’s morning glory, state-listed Lyon’s pentachaeta, and the Palos Verdes blue
butterfly are candidates for reintroduction (Lipman et al., 1999). The El Segundo blue butterfly
B-157
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
158
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.
B-158
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
159
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 b e
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 a nd 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 success, habitat
B-159
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
160
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 an Annual Report yearly,
with a Comprehensive Report submitted every three years, along with recommendations (including
remedial measures, as necessary) for the next year’s program.
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 university
or agency research projects. These research recommendations are not included in the monitoring plan
B-160
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
161
budget. The research recommendations provided below can be grouped into several generalized categories,
including basic inventories, habitat and life history studies, population biology and genetic studies, habitat
restoration and/or population reestablishment studies, and management studies. These recommendations
are consistent with the research agenda recommended by the Scientific Review Panel for the state’s NCCP
program. Additional recommendations may be generated based on results of 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 (a) the minimum size for viable self-sustaining plant
populations, (b) the minimum effective population size; and (c) the minimum and optimum
densities of stable plant populations (Messick, 1986).
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.
B-161
SECTION SEVEN Biological Objectives and Methodology
162
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. Using results of the studies above and species’ distribution and risk status, identify candidates for
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.
B-162
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
163
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 Habitat 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, and fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on lands owned by
the PVPLC (Lunada Canyon)(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). Since that time, levels of services necessary have changed, and each Permittee’s annual cost
to manage the Preserve were calculated. Based on the updated Preserve Management budget, the City and
PVPLC’s total cost of managing the Preserve is estimated at $1,785,438. The methodology combines actual
costs with the methodology of the Center for Natural Lands Management’s Property Analysis Record in
which the characteristics and needs of the properties are analyzed to derive the management requirements
on a yearly basis. Management tasks were specified and their costs provided or estimated, as were the
administrative costs to provide for the 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:
1. The costs will increase if acres beyond the 1,402.4 identified under the Plan are added to the
Preserve.
2. Levels of service may be increased or decreased depending on management needs of the Preserve.
3. The City’s services and contributions include the costs of providing perpetual public safety to the
Preserve. Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2016-17 to provide public safety enforcement
services in the Preserve, this cost has been estimated at $567,000 per year and was used for the
Management Budget Analysis.
B-163
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
164
4. 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.
5. 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 5.0 acres within the
Preserve. The TERPP does not include seeding or planting.
6. 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.
7. Fuel Modification: Based on the costs to the City in fiscal year 2016-2017 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.
8. The City’s annual services and contributions include public services (staff, enforcement, etc.);
general maintenance (fuel modification, restroom facilities, road and trail maintenance, signage,
etc.); and vehicles and equipment. The City has committed to performing these services and
contributions 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 service 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 2016-2017 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.
B-164
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
165
Table 8-1. Annual Funding for Preserve Management During the Permit
SOURCE *AMOUNT FROM
City $ 144,300 **Annual payment for the Management Agreement with PVPLC
City $ 1,391,119 **Services/financial contributions
PVPLC $ 250,019 Volunteer time/in-kind services in addition to $144,300 annual
payment for the Management Agreement from the City
Total $1,785,438
*Includes habitat restoration and Preserve management based on FY 2016-2017 costs
*Excludes the $50,000 Habitat Restoration Fund required funds
**See Section 8.2.1.1
8.2.1.1 City’s Funding Commitments
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 Preserve habitat management
and $15,000 per year for managing the City’s Oceanfront Estates habitat area and to adjust these payments
for inflation. As noted in Table 8-1 above, due to the annual adjustments for inflation the City’s combined
payment to the PVPLC amounted to $144,300 in fiscal year 2016-2017. The City will also commit services
and contributions including road maintenance, sign maintenance, public safety, enforcement, waste
removal, fuel modification for fire prevention purposes on City-owned lands, staff time (e.g., Planning,
Parks and Recreation, 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
by the CITY using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)) 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 certain 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 nearly 500.0 acres the City has dedicated as mitigation for certain Covered
Projects/Activities. Monies in the City’s Habitat Restoration 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 City’s cash obligation for Preserve management; and/or
2. As a contribution toward the City’s 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
B-165
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
166
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, in cluding, 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 s expire, beginning in 2006, the City
shall provide annual payment to the PVPLC with a minimum of $10,000, adjusted annually using Consumer
Price Index (CPI-U) for a separate non-wasting endowment fund. The PVPLC shall manage the endowment
to cover its costs for post-Permit conservation management thereby removing any financial obligations
related to conservation management by the City post-Permit Term. The City will continue to fulfill its
funding responsibilities identified in Appendix C (Exhibit C-2) of the Plan post-Permit Term. Currently,
there is approximately $126,946 within the account that will be transferred to the PVPLC within 60 days
after the City Council’s adoption of the Plan. A minimum payment of $10,000 (as described above) will be
provided to the PVPLC 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. A Fiscal Report on the status of the
fund will be included in the Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies (see Sections 8.2 and 9.3). The
PVPLC’s investment strategy of the fund is anticipated to generate at least $863,000 (adjusted for CPI-U)
by the end of the 40 year-Permit Term which will assure sufficient funding for the perpetual management
of the Preserve.
The interest and dividends on the endowment, but no part of the principal, will be used by 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 that the PVPLC will fund from the
endowment for such post-Permit activities is $22,030, adjusted annually by the CPI-U as of February of
each year beginning in 2018, based on the PVPLC’s experience monitoring the lands under conservation
easement (Summary of Estimated Post-Permit Costs, Appendix C). The PVPLC will also provide basic
land stewardship, including monitoring, sign and trail maintenance, and invasive species control on City-
owned lands post-Permit expiration. The endowment will be enough to cover these post-Permit costs. The
City will perpetually provide services and contributions 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, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works), and maintenance
for allowable activities in the Preserve apart from the long-term conservation easement endowment post
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
B-166
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
167
responsible for the maintenance and repair of City-owned public infrastructure such as sewer and storm
control, public safety enforcement services, 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 PVPLC’s Funding Commitments
To fulfill the Preserve management obligations, the PVPLC will commit $250,019 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
permit. The extent of PVPLC’s volunteer support 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 illustrates PVPLC’s 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 Habitat 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 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. The annual cost for PVPLC’s post-Permit activities is to be about $22,030 (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
B-167
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
168
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 addressed 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-kind services, or funded by the City’s non-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.
Figure 8-1. PVPLC Fundraising History (Fiscal Year 1998–2006)
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 Cit y to purchase and
preserve 463 acres of open space in Portuguese Bend.
B-168
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
169
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 City’s NCCP/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 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
1. 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 peninsula’s natural
environment and a significant part of the proposed NCCP/HCP Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
2. A 2003 grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project (Coastal Conservancy) allowed the PVPLC to
restore a wetland on the property.
3. Regularly scheduled volunteer days and scout projects provide assistance with habitat restoration,
trail repair, and other tasks.
B-169
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
170
Lunada Canyon Preserve
1. This 20.0-acre canyon within City was once prime land for development. A gift to the PVPLC in
1992 from the E.K. Zuckerman family created the PVPLC’s first natural area.
2. A grant from the Wetlands Recovery Project Small Grants Program (Coastal Conservancy) enabled
the PVPLC to restore a riparian area within this canyon.
3. A grant from the USFWS Endangered Species Act Landowner Incentives Program enabled the
PVPLC to restore 3.0 acres of CSS.
4. 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
1. An island of habitat, this 28.5-acre property is a critical part of the natural environment in Rolling
Hills Estates.
2. The Preserve is owned jointly by the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the PVPLC and managed by
the PVPLC.
3. 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.
4. The PVPLC has performed wetlands mitigation work for the City on this Preserve.
5. The PVPLC is implementing 5.0 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 2.0-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.
B-170
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
171
White Point Nature Preserve
1. This scenic 102.0-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.
2. 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.
3. The work at White Point has involved extensive community participation, including volunteer days,
a yearly fundraiser, and an active community committee.
4. The PVPLC assisted in securing and successfully implemented the Habitat Trails grant fr om the
State of California for the construction of trails, including a handicapped accessible loop.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. PVPLC secured corporate funding to design, fabricate, and install educational exhibits in this
building.
George F. Canyon Nature Center and Preserve
1. The 36.0-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.
2. 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 16.0 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 8-2 demonstrates the PVPLC’s history of volunteer 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 volunteer component of the PVPLC’s
B-171
SECTION EIGHT Funding and Financing of NCCP/HCP
172
commitment is sustainable at a $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.
Figure 8-2. PVPLC Volunteer Support 2001–20153
B-172
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
173
9.0 PRESERVE MONITORING, MANAGEMENT, AND REPORTING
As an urban Preserve plan for wildlife and plants, the NCCP/HCP will enhance the City’s quality of life
and provide the City with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving, maintaining and
enhancing the City’s unique biodiversity and conserving 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 Habitat Management
9.2.1 Preserve Habitat Management Plan
The PVPLC has developed an initial PHMP for the Preserve. The PHMP consists of four plans (described
below):
1. Initial Management and Monitoring Plan. This plan includes the results of the focused baseline
surveys for covered plant and wildlife species.
2. Predator Control Plan. Based on the focused baseline surveys, this plan describes potential
provisions for control of predators to wildlife within the Preserve and provides framework for
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.
B-173
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
174
3. Habitat Restoration Plan. This plan identifies habitat restoration projects consisting of a
minimum of 5 acres of habitat, or a total of 15.0-acres over three years, in suitable locations in the
Preserve and will be updated/revised every three years.
4. Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants. 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 5.0 acres or 20 individual sites are to be removed.
9.2.2 The Public Use Master Plan
In order to balance the public’s passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within
the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) (Appendix I of the Plan) was developed jointly by the City
and PVPLC to address public access issues. The PUMP includes the Preserve Trails Plan, which is
described further in Section 5.2.8 of this Plan. The PUMP received approval from the Wildlife Agencies
and was adopted by the City Council on April 2, 2013. Public use 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:
a. 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.
b. Limit trails for shoreline access to prevent extensive trampling and compaction.
c. Locate new trails away from sensitive resources or restrict their use.
d. Provide a 30-foot upland buffer along major drainages for new trails sited adjacent to drainages.
B-174
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
175
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 Master anagement Plan (PUMP) Implementation
Public use of the Preserve is considered a conditionally compatible use under the NCCP/HCP 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 public uses and activities identified in the PUMP are considered conditionally
compatible uses, provided they comply with the requirements set forth below:
1. Existing Trails
Baseline Trail Surveys
It is estimated that current non-vehicle trail widths vary between 2 feet and 6 feet in the Preserve,
and trails that accommodate authorized vehicular access vary between 10 feet and 12 feet in the
Preserve. Within 3 years of Plan approval, the PVPLC will complete baseline surveys to assess and
document current trail widths and identify all unauthorized trails throughout the
Preserve. Following the completion of these surveys, PVPLC, the City, and the Wildlife Agencies
will meet to determine and finalize appropriate widths for all approved trails including trails that
accommodate authorized vehicles as described in Section 5.5 and identified in the Council-
approved PUMP. The final width determinations, will take into consideration the current trail
widths as documented by the baseline surveys, trail topography, nearby sensitive species and their
habitats, trail prism, public use (taking into consideration the PUMP), and other factors. Once the
final widths have been determined and agreed upon, they will be memorialized in the PUMP and
will be referenced for comparison during 5-year monitoring events (see below). The determined
trail widths will be will monitored and maintained as a condition of trail coverage.
The baseline survey will consist of measuring trail widths in the Preserve (approximately 100 trails
and 32 miles) using recent aerial imagery, and field verification of a subset (at least 2 points on
each trail randomly selected) of those measurements. Specifically, trail widths will be measured on
each trail segment along 3 of the widest trail sections and 3 “control points” that characterize the
trail width overall. The “control points” will be recorded on a GPS unit and referenced in 5 -year
monitoring efforts described below. 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.
B-175
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
176
2. New Trails
The locations of new trails shall be sited to avoid/minimize impacts to biological resources as
follows:
a. Use existing dirt trails and disturbed areas for access within the Preserve to the maximum extent
practicable;
b. 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 see Figure 2-4 of the Plan.
c. New non-vehicle trails shall be limited to no greater than 5 feet in width and be monitored
every 5 years to assess any changes to the baseline widths, usage patterns, and indirect effects
consistent with the monitoring plan described below.
3. Unauthorized Trails
Within 5 years of the completion of baseline surveys, the City will close unauthorized trails using
natural barriers (i.e., rocks or plants), fencing or signage, etc. to prevent the continued use of or the
creation of unauthorized trails, and to protect sensitive species adjacent to established trails
consistent with Number 1 above.
4. 5-Year Monitoring
The City, in coordination with PVPLC, will monitor existing access points and trails to prevent
degradation of the Preserve. Subsequent to the initial trail baseline survey described above, every
5 years, timed with the arrival of updated aerial photos provided to the PVPLC by the City, PVPLC
will conduct trail monitoring using the same protocol as described in Number 1 above to assess
changes in the width of approved trails, and identify unauthorized trails for closure throughout the
Preserve.
The GPS point locations captured in the initial baseline survey and aerial imagery as described
above will be used to compare changes in trail width and unauthorized trails every 5 years by
PVPLC. Trail width data and unauthorized trail occurrence will be compared to the baseline survey
to determine if a substantial change has occurred that will trigger a response to remedy trail
widening and unauthorized trail creation.
The following criteria will be used to determine whether substantial widening of an existing trail
has occurred over the baseline survey at the monitoring GPS point locations or in areas that exhibit
substantial widening outside of the GPS locations:
For Non-Vehicular Trails:
a. Over 2 feet wide: Substantial change is defined as widening more than an average of 2 feet
(total both sides) beyond the baseline width over 10% of the total trail length.
b. Equal to or less than 2 feet wide: Substantial change is defined as widening more than an
average of 1 foot (total both sides) beyond the baseline width over 10% of the total trail length.
B-176
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
177
For Vehicular Access Trails:
c. Over 8 feet wide: Substantial change is defined as widening more than an average of 2 feet
(total both sides) beyond the baseline width over 10% of the total trail length.
d. Equal to or less than 8 feet wide: substantial change is defined as widening more than an
average of 1 foot (total both sides) beyond the baseline width over 10% of the total trail length.
In addition to the 5-year trail monitoring efforts, PVPLC and City will proactively identify potential
trail problems and coordinate and implement solutions on an ongoing basis from information
gathered when working in the Preserve and on trail and restoration projects.
5. Trail Widening and New Unauthorized Trail Remedies
If substantial trail widening is identified, the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies shall meet
to discuss this matter within 90 days of the completion of the 5-year monitoring. Authorized trail
widths will be determined by the baseline information addressed in Numbers 1 and 4 above and in
meetings between the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies. These meetings will review the 5-
year monitoring data and develop a plan to prioritize and remedy trail widening and unauthorized
trails (below). The subject area will be managed so that it can return back to its authorized widths,
which may involve either passive (e.g., use of barriers) and/or active measures (e.g., install
vegetation).
If new unauthorized trails are identified, as discussed above in Numbers 1 and 4 above, the City,
PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies will discuss a plan for their closure. The City will close
unauthorized trails as they are detected to prevent their continued use or the creation of new
unauthorized trails, and to protect sensitive species.
The area subject to trail widening or unauthorized trail installation/use will be managed so that it
can return back to its authorized trail width, which may involve either passive (e.g., use of barriers)
and/or active measures (e.g., install vegetation). These management actions for trail widening or
closure for new unauthorized trails will take place within 60 days after the City, PVPLC, and the
Wildlife Agencies meet to discuss the 5-year monitoring results. These closure actions will take
place within 60 days of detection of new unauthorized trails. Acceptable closure methods may
include, but not limited to, rocks barriers, fencing, and signage and will be coo rdinated between
the City and PVPLC.
6. Permanent Habitat Loss Caused by Trail Widening
Permanent unplanned habitat loss from trails that exceeds the level of substantial change is not a
Covered Project or Activity addressed by this Plan and is not included in the habitat loss identified
in City-Covered Project or Activity identified in Table 5-1. The City, in coordination with PVPLC,
will work to remediate trail widening and restore the trail to the authorized trail widths based on
Numbers 1 and 4 above. The acreage of trail widths beyond the documented baseline survey, and
approved by this Plan, that are not successfully remediated after 5 years despite management and
B-177
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
178
restoration efforts shall be deducted from the City’s Trails Plan Implementation acreage as defined
in Section 5.2.8 of the Plan, and illustrated in Table 5-1. However, attempts to minimize trail
widening will continue beyond the 5 years in highly sensitive habitat that provide habitat for
Covered Species as determined by the PVPLC, in coordination with the City and Wildlife
Agencies. The remediation will be subject to Wildlife Agency approval. If a trail is successfully
returned to its authorized trail width, the City’s Trail Plan Implementation acreage (Table 5-1) will
be reimbursed.
7. Trail Management
The City ensures that public access to the Preserve is consistent with the Council-approved PUMP
to provide a safe experience for people visiting the Preserve and protection of biological resources
consistent with the Plan. If circumstances warrant, the PVPLC may recommend to the City closure
of specific approved trails or access points for appropriate time periods to minimize biological
impacts in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. A detailed list of trail management
responsibilities for both the City and the PVPLC is attached to the Management Agreement
(Exhibit D of the IA and on file with the City). The City’s trail management responsibilities include,
but are not limited to:
a. City Council approval of the Preserve Trails Plan, and subsequent amendments;
b. At the City’s discretion when funding is available, and consistent with the Plan, construction
of new trails identified in the PTP;
c. Conducting routine trail inspection and maintenance to monitor trail conditions, and detect
vandalism and habitat degradation;
d. Controlling access by maintaining City gates and barriers that prevent/control unauthorized
access;
e. Waste management on an as needed basis;
f. Public safety (Ranger patrols, City staff or the L.A. County Sheriff) to enforce the City’s
municipal code; and
g. Installation and maintenance of regulatory and informational signage
Adverse effects of passive recreation such as trampling vegetation, erosion, and unauthorized trail
widening will be minimized by the City, in coordination with PVPLC, by implementing the
following management actions:
h. Install signage, post and cable, rock barriers, and/or plant vegetation;
i. Limit or rotate use if trails become degraded because of heavy use. 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;
B-178
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
179
j. Seasonally restrict access to certain trails, if deemed necessary by the City and/or recommended
by PVPLC, to prevent disturbance of breeding activities of Covered Species;
k. Maintain trail surfaces to minimize erosion;
l. Install trail features to minimize erosion and sedimentation;
m. Avoid utilizing materials for trails that will be sources of seed of invasive exotic species; and
n. Construct barriers and/or signage at viewpoints or prominent features to discourage access to
sensitive coastal bluff and sensitive habitat areas
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 Covered Species, proximity to developed areas, and
type of development). Standard fire protection measures include vegetation management and fuel reduction
by prescribed burning, disking, chaining, and 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.
B-179
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
180
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, to
the extent practicable, 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.
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.
B-180
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
181
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
The PVPLC and City shall prepare an Annual Report based on the 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. The Annual Report timeline
following the first full year the Permits are in affect is as follows: PVPLC will submit the Annual Report
of the previous calendar year to the City and Wildlife Agencies by February 28th, the Wildlife Agencies
will review and submit comments to the City by March 31st, and the report will be submitted to City Council
for approval on or around May 30th. 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 (PUMP) and recommendations, if necessary, for minimizing impacts to
the Preserve; all contributions towards the preservation of habitat 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 5 years of management, there will also be an annual evaluation of
management activities, enforcement activities, funding needs, funding needs, and the ability to accomplish
resource management goals. 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.
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, following Permit issuance, 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
B-181
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
182
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.
Annual Reports shall also include a summary of clerical changes made to the Plan in the preceding calendar
year, corrections to maps or exhibits made to the Plan in the preceding calendar year, and changes made to
survey, monitoring, or reporting protocols in the preceding calendar year.
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.
9.3.2 Comprehensive Reports (Every Three Years)
A Comprehensive Report will be prepared by the PVPLC, in coordination with the City, every 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 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. The Comprehensive Report timeline following the first full year the Permits
are in affect is as follows; PVPLC will submit the Report for the previous three calendar years to the City
and Wildlife Agencies by March 31st, the Wildlife Agencies will review and submit comments to the City
by April 30th, and the report will be submitted to City Council for approval on or around May 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 be included as an appendix in the Comprehensive Report.
Comprehensive Report Contents
The Comprehensive Report will contain the following components:
1. Updated Covered Species Surveys. 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
B-182
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
183
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.
2. Updated Predator Control Plan, see Section 9.3.1.
3. Updated Habitat Restoration Plan, see Section 9.3.1.
4. Management Recommendations. 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 attempt to reverse any declining trends in habitat or species’ populations.
Although it is difficult to anticipate the types of remediation that will be required before monitoring,
potential actions may include the following:
a. Fencing, signage, or redirecting trails to protect habitat or species populations from trampling
or other adverse, direct impacts;
b. Removal of invasive exotic plant species to protect native habitats, plant populations, and
wildlife values;
c. Removal or control of non-native animal species (e.g., cowbirds, feral cats) to protect native
animal populations;
d. Erosion-control measures to protect key habitats or populations of Covered Species;
e. Habitat enhancement to provide pollinator habitat, breeding areas for covered wildlife species,
or structural diversity for covered wildlife species;
f. 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;
g. 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);
h. 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;
i. Plant population reintroductions in areas where species populations have been extirpated; and,
j. Evaluation of management activities, enforcement service needs, 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.
B-183
SECTION NINE Preserve Management and Reporting
184
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 by April 30th annually 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.
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).
B-184
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
185
10.0 LITERATURE CITED
16 U.S.C. 661–666c. 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.
B-185
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
186
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
California Exotic Pest Plant Council. 1999. The California Exotic Pest Plant Council’s list of exotic pest
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
Center for Conservation Sciences Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. January 1999.
Project No. 317592000
B-186
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
187
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.
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.
B-187
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
188
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.
Moran, R. 1995. The subspecies of Dudleya virens (Crassulaceae). Haseltonia, Yearbook of the Cactus
and Succulent Society of America. No. 3: 1-9.
B-188
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
189
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.
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.
B-189
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
190
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.
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.
B-190
SECTION TEN Literature Cited
191
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 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.
B-191
SECTION ELEVEN Document Preparers
192
11.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Ara Mihranian, Community Development Director
Joel Rojas, former Planning Director
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
Andrea Vona, Executive Director
Adrienne Mohan, Conservation Director
Danielle Lefer, former 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
David Mayer, Supervisor, Senior Environmental Scientist/SCR
Randy Rodriguez, Staff Environmental Scientist/SCR
Warren Wong, Biologist/SCR
Stuart Itoga, Environment Scientist
Gail Presley, former Environmental Program Manager
Bill Tippets, former Regional Manager, South Coast Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mary Beth Woulfe, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Eric Porter, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Jim Bartel, former Field Supervisor
Ken Corey, Assistant Field Supervisor
Samantha Marcum, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
B-192