C - Final Appendices (Pages C1 - C232)APPENDIX A
Definitions
C-1
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-1
Adaptive Management: A species and habitat management program that 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. The Adaptive Management program is designed to achieve the objectives of providing
corrective actions where: 1) resources are threatened by land uses in and adjacent to the Preserve, 2) current
management activities are not adequate or effective, or 3) enforcement difficulties are identified.
Additional Conservation Measures: The conservation measures beyond those provided by the Plan that
are necessary to adequately protect species proposed to be added to the Permits.
Annual Report(s): The report(s) prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 9.33 of the Plan.
Certificate of Inclusion: A certificate issued by the CITY to a Third-Party Participant under its jurisdiction
and control that extend the CITY’s Take coverage to such parties for Covered Activities carried out in
accordance with the Take Authorizations (see Appendix D of the Implementing Agreement).
CDFW: Is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CEQA: Is the California Environmental Quality Act (the California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et
seq.), and all rules, regulations, and guidelines promulgated there under, as amended.
CESA: Is the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.),
and all rules, regulations, and guidelines promulgated there under, as amended.
Changed Circumstances: Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.3, changes in circumstances affecting a Covered
Species or geographic area covered by the Permits that can reasonably be anticipated by the Parties and that
can be planned for in the Plan or as part of the Permit. Changed Circumstances and the planned responses
to those circumstances are integral requirements of the Plan and are identified in Section 6.10.2 of the Plan.
Changed Circumstances are not Unforeseen Circumstances.
City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance or Urgency Ordinance: Protections that the CITY shall
adopt to codify and implement the protections for the Covered Species contained in the Plan and Permit on
an interim basis until the CITY’s new regulations and ordinances set forth in Section 10.1.4 of this
Agreement are adopted to implement the Plan and Permits. The City Interim Resource Protection
Ordinance/Urgency Ordinance is attached as Exhibit F. Incidental take coverage will be extended to third
persons and entities under the jurisdiction and control of the CITY through permits issued pursuant to the
City Interim Resource Protection Ordinance, as described in this Agreement and in Section 6.3 of the Plan.
City Mitigation Lands: All currently owned and conserved/protected City lands plus all newly dedicated
and currently unprotected City lands.
Comprehensive Report: Is a report prepared by PVPLC that will be prepared every three (3) years and
will include both a synthesis of all biological data collected in the preceding three years and an analysis of
C-2
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-2
overall trends in biological resources as described in Section 9.3.2 of the Plan. The Comprehensive Report
will also include the Annual Report.
Conserve: To keep from loss, decay or depletion; maintain, protect. Conservation and preservation are
similar terms and are used in much the same way. Preservation connotes the act of securing the land and its
values, whereas conservation generally is more broad and includes activities such as management of the
land and its resources.
Conservation: As defined in the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the use of all methods and
procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary (ESA, Section 3[3]). In this NCCP/HCP,
the term "conservation" also applies to all actions related to providing a viable habitat Preserve system in
the City.
Conveyance or Conveyed: Legally transfer land into biological conservation status by means of fee title
and conservation easement, or other method deemed acceptable in advance in writing by the Wildlife
Agencies, to ensure the permanent protection of such lands for conservation purposes consistent with the
Plan. If such conveyance is to an entity other than CITY or PVPLC, such entity must also be approved in
advance in writing by the Wildlife Agencies.
Corridor: A defined tract of land, usually linear, through which a species must travel to reach habitat
suitable for reproduction and other life-sustaining needs.
Covered Activities: Is the operation and maintenance and habitat management activities undertaken by the
CITY or PVPLC; public land development undertaken by the City; and private land development
undertaken by Third-Party Participants under the jurisdiction and control of the City that obtain
development permits from the City consistent with Section 9.6 of this Agreement and as described in
Section 5.0 and Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of the Plan and receive Incidental Take Authorization under the section
10(a)(1)(B) Permit and NCCP Permit, provided these activities are otherwise lawful.
Covered Management Activity: Those management or monitoring activities conducted in associated with
the section 10(a)(1)(B) for this NCCP/HCP for the benefit of the Covered Species.
Covered Projects: A project included in the list of projects identified in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 and
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 of the Plan that are authorized to receive Incidental Take coverage under the
Permits.
Covered Species: Those ten (10) species for which Incidental Take Authorization is provided through the
Permits issued in conjunction with this Agreement, Plan, and Permits. These species are discussed in the
Table 1-1 of the Plan.
Effective Date: The date on which the Implementing Agreement takes effect. The Implementing
Agreement shall be effective upon issuance of the Permits.
Endangered Species: Any plant or animal in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its
range and federally or State listed as endangered under the ESA or CESA, respectively.
C-3
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-3
Endangered Species Act or ESA: Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.), as
amended, including all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): Is a Coastal Act term defined in Section 30240 of the
California Coastal Act that requires: a) Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas shall be protected against
any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed
within such areas, and b) Development in areas adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and
parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade
such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Erosion Control Plan: A plan that will be developed for any Covered Project or 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.
Existing Preserve Roads: Paved portions of Vanderlip Drive, Narcissa Drive, and Beach School Trail that
are located within the Preserve boundaries.
Fiscal Report: A report that will be prepared jointly by the City and PVPLC and will be provided to the
USFWS and CDFW yearly, as part of the Annual Report, which will also be included in the Comprehensive
Report. The Fiscal Report will include the total expenditures made toward habitat acquisition to date and
over the preceding year. 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, management, and monitoring.
Fully Protected Species: Those species identified in California Fish and Game Code sections 3511 sections
3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) or any successor statute.
Habitat: The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a species.
Habitat Conservation Plan or HCP: Is a Plan prepared pursuant to section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, (16
U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)).
Habitat Restoration Plan: Is a plan that will describe how to actively establish a minimum of 5 acres, or
a total of 15 acres every three years if exigencies prevent restoration of 5 acres each year, of native habitat
in areas currently dominated by non-native habitat or on disturbed lands, based on an initial three (3)-year
Habitat Restoration Plan developed by the PVPLC in coordination with the City and the Wildlife Agencies
and approved by the Wildlife Agencies as described in Section 7.5 of the Plan. 250 total acres are anticipated
over the Permit Term.
Harass: A form of incidental take under the ESA; defined in Federal regulations as an intentional or
negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as
to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or
sheltering (50 C.F.R. § 17.3).
Harm: A form of incidental take under the ESA; defined in Federal regulations as an act that actually kills
or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually
kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,
or sheltering (50 C.F.R. § 17.3).
C-4
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-4
Implementing Agreement: Is the executed agreement intended to ensure implementation of the
NCCP/HCP.
Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures: Is the standard enforceable conditions of approval that the
CITY will impose on all Covered Projects and Activities in the Plan Area to ensure implementation of the
Plan in accordance with the Permits, as set forth in Section 5.0 of the Plan.
Incidental Take: Is the taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the
carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Linkage (Habitat): A component of the Preserve system established under this Plan, consisting of
conserved habitat that provides connectivity between natural vegetation communities within the region with
opportunities for breeding where generational movement is required.
Major Amendment: A proposed change to the Plan and/or this Agreement, as described in Section 6.8.2
of the Plan and Section 18.2 of this Agreement that will require an amendment to one or more of the Permits.
Major amendments generally include, but are not limited to, proposed modifications to the Plan that would
result in changes in the level of conservation provided for a Covered Species, higher levels of Take,
significant changes in reserve design, additions to or exclusions of lands from the Plan Area, or 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. Major amendments must be processed
in accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations including ESA, CESA, NCCP Act,
NEPA, and CEQA.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): Is the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.),
including all regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended.
Minor Amendment: A proposed minor modification to the Plan or the Implementing Agreement, as
described in Section 6.8.1 of the Plan and Section 18.1 of this Agreement that is approved in writing by the
Wildlife Agencies and does not require an amendment to either of the Permits. Minor amendments include
adjustments to the Preserve boundaries (Preserve Boundary Adjustments) that are approved by the Wildlife
Agencies based on a finding that the adjustment will result in equal or higher biological value to the
Preserve. Minor amendments generally include small changes to the NCCP/HCP that do not result in: 1)
coverage for new activities or in 2) impacts to the Covered Species or their habitats, including a higher level
of Take, or to the environment generally, that are different from or greater than those impacts analyzed in
the NEPA and CEQA documents prepared for the NCCP/HCP. A Minor Amendment does not require an
amendment to the Take Authorizations.
Mesopredators: Middle-sized (meso=middle) meat eaters such as gray fox, raccoon, skunk, and opossum.
Metapopulation: A network of semi-isolated breeding populations of a species that have some level of
regular or intermittent migration and gene flow among them (see also Population).
Mitigation: Measures undertaken to diminish or compensate for the negative impacts of a project or activity
on the environment.
C-5
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-5
Mitigation Fee: Is the adopted by the City to fund the Habitat Restoration Fund for conveyance and
permanent management of land within the Plan Area. The fee is described in Sections 5.1, 5.3.4, and 8.2.1.1
of the Plan.
NCCP Act: Is the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (codified in part at
California Fish and Game Code §§ 2800, et seq.), as amended, including all rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, as amended.
NCCP/HCP or Plan: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), conservation analysis, and related maps/appendices.
NCCP Permit or State Permit: Is the authorization issued in accordance with this Plan and Agreement
by CDFW under section 2835 of the NCCP Act to authorize the Incidental Take of a Covered Species,
including Covered Species that are listed under CESA as threatened or endangered, and Covered Species
that are candidates for listing, or that are Non-Listed species (e.g., species of special concern).
Natural Community Conservation Plan or NCCP: developed in accordance with the State’s NCCP Act
California Fish and Game Code (section 2800, et seq.), which provides comprehensive management and
conservation of multiple wildlife and plant species, and which identifies and provides for the regional or
area-wide protection and conservation of natural wildlife diversity through preservation of sufficient habitat
in an appropriate configuration that enables species to persist, while allowing compatible and appropriate
development and growth.
NEPA: The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321-d 4335) as amended, and all rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended. For the purposes of the Plan and Federal Permit, the
USFWS is the lead agency under NEPA as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 1508.16.
Neutral Lands: Lands on private property that have one of the following three conditions: 1) extreme
slopes (35% or greater slope), 2) are zoned Open Space Hazard or 3) contain deed restricted open space
(e.g., Home Owner Association lots). These Lands are outside of the Preserve. Neutral Lands are currently
undevelopable land located outside of the Preserve, and therefore is not subject to the restrictions that apply
to properties within the Preserve, but that add biological function (e.g., facilitate wildlife movement) and
value to the Preserve.
No Surprises Rule: Is the rule promulgated by USFWS and currently codified at 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5)
and 17.32(b)(5) that extends certain assurances regarding future mitigation obligations to permittees
obtaining Incidental Take Permits under section 10(a) of the Federal ESA.
Non-Listed Covered Species: Is a species that is not listed under ESA and/or CESA.
NPPA: Is the Native Plant Protection Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 1900 et seq.), including
all regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended.
Party or Parties: The Parties mean the signatories to this Agreement, namely the USFWS, CDFW, the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC).
Permits: Permits mean the Federal Permit issued pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the “Take
Authorization” (state Permit) issued pursuant to section 2835 of the State NCCP Act.
C-6
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-6
Plan Area: The boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP, consisting of approximately
8,616.5 acres within the City’s municipal boundaries, Los Angeles County, California, as depicted in Figure
2-1 of the NCCP/HCP.
Point Location: Data incorporated in the database for the Plan that was collected from various sources and
studies that occurred on the Palos Verdes Peninsula from 1976-1998 (2004 discovery of Crossosoma
californicum). Most point locations have high precision (see Section 2.2.2 of the Plan); some point locations
are cumulative observations for the same location and some point locations are a single observation.
Population: A group of individuals of a given species that inhabits a relatively well defined geographic
area and has the opportunity to interbreed freely.
Preserve: Lands in the Plan Area that will be conserved and managed to meet the species and habitat
requirements of the Plan and Permits, including previous mitigation lands that are either currently protected
through conservation easements held by the PVPLC or the City (baseline) and City mitigation lands that
will be conveyed and added to the Preserve during the Permit Term. Assembly of the Preserve is described
in Section 4.0 of the Plan and in Section 6.1 of this Agreement. Lands in the Preserve will be subject to
habitat management and restoration actions described in Sections 7.0 and 9.0 of the Plan. In order to
facilitate management, the Preserve has been divided into 12 geographical management units referred to as
“Reserve Areas” as shown in Figure 4-4 of the Plan.
Preserve Access Protocol or PAP: means the plan that will be developed by the City and its Preserve Land
Manager within 90 days of issuance of the Permits to facilitate access by utility agencies and the City’s
Public Works Department to areas within the Preserve and must be approved by the Wildlife Agencies. The
Preserve access protocol will contain measures, including the Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures
provided in Section 5.0 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 the PAP is approved
by the Wildlife Agencies, the City and PVPLC shall ensure all access to the Preserve is consistent with the
minimization measures described in Section 5.0 of the Plan.
Preserve Boundary Adjustment: Is a change in the boundaries of the Preserve specified under the Plan,
as described in Section 6.8.1 of the Plan and Section 21.1 of the Implementing Agreement that has been
approved by the Wildlife Agencies upon their determination that the adjustment will result in equal or
higher biological value to the Preserve. This would be considered a Minor Amendment to the Plan.
Preserve Habitat Manager or Preserve Manager: The PVPLC, the CITY’s designated Preserve Habitat
Manager for the Plan and the entity responsible for overseeing the habitat management activities within the
Preserve pursuant to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Management Agreement with the City, as described
in Section 9.0 of the Plan, including, but not limited to management of natural resources, restoration of
habitat, reporting, and enforcement of the conservation easements.
Preserve Habitat Management Plan (PHMP): The Preserve Habitat Management Plan developed for the
Permits as described in Sections 9.3 of the Plan. The PHMP 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 TERPP).
Project(s): Any activity that has biological impacts and is undertaken by the City or involves the issuance
of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement by the City. “Projects” are well-defined actions
C-7
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-7
that occur once in a discrete location whereas “Activities” are actions/operations that occur repeatedly in
one location or throughout the permit area. The take authorization from the Wildlife Agencies in the Plan
covers both “Projects” and “Activities.”
Public Lands: Properties owned by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes means land owned by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, as depicted in Figure 4-2 of the Plan.
Public Use Master Plan (PUMP): Is the City’s Public Use Master Plan that describes public access within
the Preserve. The City’s PUMP covers the CITY’s Conceptual Trails Plan, including the Preserve Trails
Plan component. The PUMP is a Covered City Project under the Plan as described in Sections 5.2.8, 5.4,
and 9.2.1 of the Plan.
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC): The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
which will contribute lands and act as the City’s designated Preserve Habitat Manager to the “Preserve” in
accordance with the Plan and the Implementing Agreement. PVPLC is a certified 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation and conservation organization that has been actively working to “preserve land and restore
habitat on the Palos Verdes Peninsula” since 1988. The City and PVPLC have entered into a separate Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve Management Agreement (Management Agreement) that will allow PVPLC to act
as the City’s designated NCCP/HCP Preserve Habitat Manager. PVPLC is also a Permittee under the
NCCP/HCP for take authorization related to implementation of specified biological management and
monitoring activities as agreed to by the City and PVPLC under the Management Agreement and this Plan
(Section 8.1 of the Plan).
Qualified Biologist: A biologist that either possess ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for the target species
or is approved by the Service, in coordination with the CDFW, prior to conducting surveys.
Rare: A species (plant or animal) existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of
its range that it may become endangered or threatened (as defined by CESA or ESA) if its environment
worsens.
Reintroduction Plan: A plan that provides guidance to minimize risks to source populations, manage the
genetic composition of the reintroduced population, and maximize the likelihood of successful
establishment of the reintroduced population.
Reserve Area: The Preserve has been divided into 12 geographical management units referred to as
“Reserve Areas” (see Figure 4-4 of the Plan).
Section 4(d) Special Rule: Is the special rule for the coastal California gnatcatcher, published by the
USFWS on December 10, 1993 (58 Federal Register 65088) and codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.41 (b), which
defines the conditions under which Incidental Take of the species is considered lawful under the ESA.
Under the 4(d) rule, incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher is not considered a violation of the
take prohibition under section 9 of the ESA if such take occurs within a jurisdiction that is enrolled in and
actively engaged in preparing an NCCP under the State of California’s NCCP Act of 1991 and results from
activities conducted in accordance with the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines; or such take
results from activities conducted in accordance with an NCCP Plan that has been prepared, approved and
implemented in accordance with the NCCP Act and the NCCP Conservation and Process Guidelines and
C-8
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-8
approved by USFWS through issuance of written concurrence that the NCCP Plan meets the standards for
issuance of an incidental take permit under 50 C.F.R. § 17.32(b).
Section 7 Consultation: Is the process under section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, 1536(a)(2), wherein
Federal agencies must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and
anadromous species, or the USFWS for freshwater species and terrestrial wildlife, if they are proposing an
“action” that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat. “Action” is defined broadly to
include funding, permitting, and other regulatory actions and extends to local government projects that
require a Federal permit or receive Federal funding. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.02.
Section 10(a) Permit or Federal Permit: Is the permit issued by the USFWS to the City and the PVPLC
under section 10(a)(l)(B) of the ESA pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a), authorizing the Incidental Take of
Covered animal Species.
Sensitive Habitat: Include vegetation communities within the Plan Area 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 and described further in Section 2.2.1 of the Plan.
Sensitive Species: Include species of plants and animals that are considered rare in the region and Plan
Area and/or are subject to regulatory protection through various Federal, state, or local policies or
regulations. For rare species that require certain species for survival (e.g. butterfly host plants), those species
are included in the definition of Sensitive Species.
Species: Any distinct population of organisms (plant or animal) that interbreed when mature.
Species of Special Concern (SSC): Species of Special Concern means a species, subspecies, or distinct
population of an animal native to California that is not currently listed and does not currently warrant listing
under CESA or but may in the future warrant listing under the statute.
Take and Taking: Take shall have the meanings provided by the Federal and state ESAs and shall apply
to both listed and Non-Listed Covered Species in the Plan. Loss of Covered plant species that occurs under
the Federal Permit shall be considered Take for purposes of assessing any outstanding mitigation owed on
account of Take of Covered Species during the term of the Federal Permit under 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(7)
and 17.32(b)(7).
Take Authorization: Is the authorization to incidentally take the Covered Species under the Federal section
10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit or pursuant to section 2835 of the State NCCP Act.
Targeted Exotic Removal Plan for Plants (TERPP): A key component of the PHMP and Adaptive
Management program to control for invasive species in the Preserve as described in Sections 6.10.2.5, 7.6,
and 9.0 of the Plan.
Targeted Lands: Is Federal and private properties shown in Figure 4-1 of the Plan that contain natural
vegetation and provide biological value to Covered Species and other wildlife. These areas could benefit
from habitat stewardship and the private properties may be formally dedicated to the Preserve with
conservation easements and committed habitat management as described in Sections 7.0 and 9.0 of the
Plan.
C-9
APPENDIX A Definitions
A-9
Third-Party Participants: Is a third-party under the jurisdiction and where the CITY has land use control
that receive Take Authorization for Covered Projects and Activities under the Plan through the CITY local
development review/approval process or receives a Certificate of Inclusion to ensure compliance with the
terms and conditions of the Plan and Permits in accordance with the Plan and Section 9.6 of this Agreement.
Third-Party Participants specifically include landowners and public and private entities undertaking land
development Covered Activities in conformance with an approval granted by the CITY in compliance with
the Plan, Permits, and this Agreement.
Threatened Species: Those species or subspecies listed as threatened under the ESA and/or CESA.
Trump National HCP: Is the existing Habitat Conservation Plan (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP,
PRT-799348) which is covered by an incidental take permit issued by the USFWS in 1997 to address
potential impacts of golf course construction and operation to eight species that were covered under the
HCP, including the coastal California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren, and subsequently amended in
2001 to include the Palos Verdes blue butterfly (TE-032423-1, TE-037483-0). The Trump National Golf
Course (Ocean Trails) is described in Section 4.2.1 of the Plan, and its associated conservation area is
included within the Plan Area and CITY’s Preserve.
Vision Plan: A Plan, adopted by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in 2008, which establishes a vision,
goals, concept designs and design guidance that seek to cohesively link key open space properties and
public lands along the coast, including the NCCP properties located within the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve.
Unforeseen Circumstances: As provided in 50 C.F.R. § 17.3, the term “Unforeseen Circumstances” shall
mean 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 as described in Section 6.10.1 of the Plan and Section 10.3 of the Implementing Agreement.
USFWS: Is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the United States Department of the
Interior.
Wetlands: Generally those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
or duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. For purposes of the Plan, wetlands are those lands that contain one or more of the naturally
occurring wetland communities (e.g., riparian scrub) described in Section 2.2 and 6.7 of the Plan including
those listed on Table 2-1 of the Plan. Impacts to state and/or Federal jurisdictional wetlands are not covered
under this Plan or Permit.
Wildlife Agencies: The USFWS and CDFW, collectively.
C-10
APPENDIX B
Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
C-11
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-1
APPENDIX B-1
SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANALYSES AND CONDITIONS FOR COVERAGE
This Appendix is the analysis of impacts from City of Palos Verdes (City) and Private Covered
Projects and Activities for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan or NCCP/HCP). Mitigation for these activities primarily
consists of dedicating currently unprotected, biologically valuable, City-owned land and Palos
Verdes Land Conservancy (PVPLC)-owned land (Plan Conservation Lands). Lands, or portions
thereof, which were purchased using state and/or Federal funding do not serve as mitigation for
impacts under this Plan; however, these lands may be subject to habitat restoration where such
actions will benefit Covered Species. Lands purchased using state and/or Federal acquisition funds
within the City’s Plan Area enhance the Plan by providing baseline conservation, which the City’s
conservation strategy builds upon. Additionally, approximately 258.7 acres of land that were
previously conserved to mitigate for previous projects (Previous Mitigation Lands) will be
dedicated to the Preserve: Trump National/Ocean Trails 1 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
Property within the Ocean Trails Reserve (66.9 acres), Switchbacks Property within the San
Ramon Reserve (94.5 acres), Shoreline Park within the Ocean Trails Reserve (45.7 acres of the
50.7-acre property), and Ocean Front Estates Property within the Vicente Bluffs Reserve (51.6 of
the 71.5-acre open space property). These existing conservation lands are not considered
mitigation for Covered Projects and Activities in the Plan (Section 4.2.1 in the Plan), but are
factored into the overall Preserve design as “baseline” conserved lands. Table 1 shows the
distribution of mapped vegetation categories throughout the Plan Area.
Specifically, 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 California State Dominquez Hills. Of
the 798 acres, funding for 236.3 acres was contributed from non-state funding sources. An
additional 263.6 acres are being dedicated directly by the City. Thus, the City is contributing a
total of 499.9 acres to mitigate for all Covered City Projects and Activities (Figure 4-2). The
remainder of the Preserve is comprised of 20.7 acres owned by PVPLC, and 258.7 acres of City-
owned land, or land that will eventually be owned by the City, which has been previously dedicated
for conservation as mitigation for certain private projects. The City and PVPLC will be responsible
for the management of the entire 1,402.4-acre Preserve.
1 Names of individual Preserve areas follow the convention established in the Plan.
C-12
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-2
Table 1. Vegetation Categories throughout the Plan Area Table
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.
To assess impacts and anticipated conservation benefits to Covered Species, survey data prior and
up to the year 1997 were used because they provided a complete set of data throughout the entire
Plan Area (Table 2). These data serve as the baseline and were used to develop the impact analysis
for the City-approved 2004 Plan. Table 2 represents either individuals or distinct populations with
multiple individuals that were observed (e.g., presence/absence) over several years (Ogden 1999).
Ocean locoweed and coast buckwheat are included because they are the specific hostplant species
for the Palos Verdes blue and El Segundo blue, respectively. Woolly seablite was not included in
this initial dataset; therefore, this species is not included in Table 2 but is included in the 2006-
2013 dataset provided in Table 3.
Table 2. Results from species surveys throughout the Plan Area
Preserve Outside
Preserve
Grand
Total
Species Plan Conservation
Land
Previous
Mitigation
Land
Neutral
Lands
Other
Aphanisma
(Aphanisma blitoides)
2 22 3 0 27
South coast saltscale
(Atriplex pacifica)
3 6 0 0 9
Catalina crossosoma
(Crossosoma californicum)
3 0 0 0 3
Island green dudleya
(Dudleya virens ssp. insularis)
5 16 13 0 34
C-13
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-3
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn
(Lycium brevipes var. hassei)
3 0 0 0 3
Palos Verdes blue
(Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis)
9 4 2 4 19
Ocean locoweed (PVB)
(Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus)
40 13 13 19 85
El Segundo blue
1. (Euphilotes battoides allyni)
0 0 1 0 1
Coast buckwheat (ESB)
(Eriogonum parvifolium)
8 4 6 1 19
Coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica)
121 27 39 4 191
Coastal cactus wren
(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)
135 54 71 19 279
Since 2006, PVPLC has conducted routine plant surveys for areas within dedicated City open
space and PVPLC-owned lands that are proposed to be included as part of the NCCP/HCP Preserve
(PVPLC 2013). The 2006-2013 PVPLC data is used in this conservation analysis to update the
current baseline for plants within the proposed Preserve; however, with some exceptions these data
do not inform the analysis of potential impacts outside of the Preserve, including Neutral Lands.
It is expected that outside the Preserve, conditions have not substantially changed from the 1997-
1998 City-wide baseline surveys. More recent survey and vegetation data will be used as the basis
for management and monitoring required under this Plan. Table 3 shows population counts of
individuals within the Preserve during these surveys, rather than observation points for
presence/absence throughout the entire Plan Area as shown in Table 2.
Table 3. Individual Plant Counts within the Preserve
Species 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011
Aphanisma
(Aphanisma blitoides) 0 0 ≥371 ≥250 300
South coast saltscale
(Atriplex pacifica) 136 0 376 5 17
Catalina crossosoma
(Crossosoma californicum) 540 -- ≥198 783 --
Island green dudleya
(Dudleya virens ssp. insularis) 3,430 550 408 240 --
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn
(Lycium brevipes var. hassei)
750 300 -- 605 --
Woolly seablite
(Suaeda taxifolia)
455 55 48 122 --
C-14
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-4
Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides)
USFWS: No Status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B.2
Background
Aphanisma is a small annual herb that occurs on coastal shrublands, coastal dunes, and bluffs or
slopes on sandy substrates or clay soils from less than 200 meters (650 feet) in elevation
(Wetherwax et al. 2013; data from CNDDB 2003; CNPS 2001). It is a fleshy species that blooms
from March to June (CNPS 2001). Aphanisma is presumably wind-pollinated with self-dispersing
seeds (McArthur and Sanderson 1984). As an annual plant subject to prevailing weather and
rainfall conditions, aphanisma experiences dramatic annual fluctuations in population size.
Historically, aphanisma occurred from Ventura County southward to Baja California, Mexico, and
on most of the Channel Islands. It is now considered extirpated in much of the northern portion of
its range and is facing steep declines in all other mainland locations as well (CNPS 2001).
Mainland populations have declined due to recreational use of beaches and development along the
coast (Reiser 1994).
In 1992, aphanisma was found in the Plan Area within Abalone Cove Reserve along the southern
coastal bluff scrub from the west side of Portuguese Point to the Rancho Palos Verdes/San Pedro
city limit (data from CNDDB 2003). One plant was observed at this location growing between
sage scrub and remnants of Pelargonium hybrids (data from CNDDB 2003). The aphanisma
population in the Abalone Cove Reserve is subject to dramatic population fluctuations tied to
seasonal climatic variability with no observations during surveys in 2006 or 2007, but more than
250 individuals in 2008, 2010, and 2011 (PVPLC 2013). The species also occurs within the Plan
Area in and immediately north of Trump National/Ocean Trails Property south to the City-owned
Shoreline Park within the Ocean Trails Reserve.
Aphanisma occurs primarily on bluffs where it may be subject to limited trampling but is otherwise
partially protected from impacts associated with development due to its proximity to steep slopes.
Aphanisma is threatened by urbanization, recreational development, and foot traffic, and by feral
herbivores on Santa Catalina, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa islands (CNPS 2001). Exotic plant
invasions and dewatering for landslide control are also significant threats to this species (CNDDB
2003).
Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for aphanisma is defined as all southern coastal bluff scrub.
There are 133.2 acres of potential aphanisma habitat in the Plan Area, of which 81.6 acres are
located in the proposed Preserve and 46.7 acres occur outside the Preserve in Neutral Lands. Of
the 81.6 acres of aphanisma habitat within the Preserve, 55.0 acres (or 67%) are within Previous
Mitigation Lands. Potential habitat for aphanisma is restricted to areas within the southern coastal
bluff scrub vegetation community with specific soil types (e.g., clay, sandy loam soils). Therefore,
the conservation analysis for this species relies primarily on the known distribution of aphanisma
C-15
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-5
in the Plan Area from occurrence data (Table 2) as well as more specific population data (Table
3).
According to surveys through 1997 covering the Plan Area (Table 2), 27 locations of aphanisma
were observed, of which 24 are within the proposed Preserve and 3 occur outside the Preserve
(within Neutral Lands within the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property). Of those within
the proposed Preserve, 22 were observed in Previous Mitigation Lands (18 in the Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and 4 in Shoreline Park) and 2 within the Abalone Cove
Reserve. Each of the 24 within-Preserve observations represented either multiple or individual
plants. Subsequent surveys that counted each individual for these previously observed locations
show no aphanisma observations in 2006 or 2007, at least 371 individuals in 2008, at least 250
individuals in 2010, and 300 individuals in 2011 (Table 3). Abalone Cove Reserve is the only
proposed Plan Conservation Land Preserve area that currently supports aphanisma (Figure 1).
Aphanisma is a covered species in the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP (Section 4.2.1 of the
Plan).
Conservation Goals
At a minimum, conserve and manage the existing aphanisma population (two locations) within the
Plan Conservation Lands at Abalone Cove Reserve. The other locations of this species are already
conserved at Ocean Trails Reserve (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and Shoreline
Park). Additionally, restoration/enhancement projects should include efforts to expand the Abalone
Cove population (in terms of occupied area as well as number of individuals) and efforts to establish
three new populations in suitable habitat within the Preserve to guard against stochastic events. The
establishment of aphanisma populations into unoccupied habitat as part of ongoing restoration will
be considered whenever feasible.
Conservation Strategy
The known populations within the Plan Conservation Lands (Figure 1) will be monitored
at three-year intervals and managed to protect against threats, particularly to address
establishment/expansion of invasive plants, as well as to prevent human trespass.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Abalone Cove Reserve, Ocean
Trails Reserve) will be targeted for seeding with aphanisma (if propagation techniques are
established), possibly with additional habitat enhancement/restoration measures
(depending on the specific location), in an effort to establish, re-establish and/or expand
population(s) to protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Impacts to southern coastal bluff scrub are limited to 2 acres within the Plan Area, and
habitat avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented where impacts could
occur to aphanisma.
Potential impacts to the existing populations at Abalone Cove, as well as to any newly
established populations in the Plan Conservation Lands, will be avoided or minimized
through advance planning (pre-project surveys, incorporation of avoidance and
minimization measures, best management practices, etc.) and follow-up habitat restoration
(where appropriate). The existing populations at the Ocean Trails Reserve locations will be
C-16
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-6
adequately protected by the existing Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. Because any
individual project may not be able to perform habitat restoration at/near the location of the
impact due to steep, erosive slope and other logistics, the conservation strategy relies on a
broader effort to protect and expand aphanisma populations rather than specific mitigation
measures for individual project impacts. Furthermore, the species tends to occur as scattered
individuals or clumps of individuals, therefore potential impacts at any particular project
location are expected to be largely able to avoid plants, and/or would only affect a small
number of plants at any location.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination: Covered
Rationale. All but 4.8 (3%) of 133.1 acres of potential aphanisma habitat within the Plan Area are
either in the Preserve (81.6 acres) or Neutral Lands (46.7 acres). Although there is no commitment
for active aphanisma management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are authorized. The City has
committed to limiting impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub to 2 acres
throughout the Preserve (NCCP/HCP Table 5-1). Given the highly restricted distribution of
aphanisma and limitation on impacts in southern coastal bluff scrub within the Preserve, direct
impacts from Covered Projects and Activities are highly unlikely, and the primary threats to the
species are indirect anthropogenic impacts that can best be ameliorated with active habitat
management and targeted reseeding. For the proposed 2 acres of impact with southern coastal bluff
scrub habitat, the impact avoidance and minimization measures for Covered Projects and Activities
(Section 5.5 of the Plan) will be followed. Therefore, through the commitment for habitat
management, enhancement, and restoration, the Plan is anticipated to benefit aphanisma. Potential
impacts to the species will therefore be offset by active management, opportunistic seeding, and
impact avoidance/mitigation measures.
Conditions. Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations
(PVPLC 2013), and the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or
enhancement opportunities as part of routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including
clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and
seeding for aphanisma will be included in the PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential aphanisma habitat prior to approving
Covered Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and minimization measures.
If an existing population, as defined in Figure 1, will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities,
the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to
prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the City and Wildlife
Agencies, that will ensure no net loss of 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
C-17
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-7
species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted and
patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. There are no known aphanisma outside of the Preserve and
Neutral Lands and impacts to southern coastal bluff scrub habitat will be limited to 2 acres within
the Plan Area. Moreover, habitat avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented
where impacts to potential habitat for aphanisma could occur. With these provisions is place, it is
not anticipated that any direct impacts to aphanisma in the Neutral Lands would occur; however,
since Neutral Lands do not have a commitment for active management (unless formally enrolled
into the Preserve) there is still a potential for indirect effects to occur. The only known aphanisma
occurring in Neutral Lands are part of the Ocean Trails Reserve population, and the plants within
the Neutral Lands are only a very small portion of this population (three of the 21 locations are
within Neutral Lands). The majority (18 locations) of the plants are broadly distributed within the
protected open space on the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and considered
adequately protected by the measures included in the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. The
remaining aphanisma are within the Abalone Cove Reserve (2 locations) and Shoreline Park (4
locations). There are no proposed Covered Projects or Activities currently planned that would
affect aphanisma within the Abalone Cove Property; however, the Miscellaneous Drainage Repair
in the Landslide Area project has the potential to impact aphanisma. The location of this project is
dependent on hydrogeological conditions that cannot be precisely anticipated until site-specific
studies are completed. The Abalone Cove Beach Project also has the potential to result in direct
and/or indirect impacts to aphanisma; however, the City will avoid impacts to the known
population through coordination with the PVPLC to verify known aphanisma locations, project
design, and implementation of the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered
Projects/Activities identified in Section 5.5 of Plan. These measures are expected to prevent any
Covered Project or Activity from eliminating an existing or any newly established aphanisma
location.
The PHMP is anticipated to improve habitat conditions for aphanisma and this species’ distribution
within the Preserve is anticipated to expand as a result. The PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement
efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by Covered Projects and Activities; however, given
the unpredictable location of the landslide repair project, some impacts may occur. Prior to any
habitat enhancement efforts for this species, PVPLC shall coordinate with the City to verify that
the proposed location is not anticipated to be impacted by any Covered Projects and Activities. If
any were to occur within the 2 acres of southern bluff scrub habitat, they are expected to be very
small and limited in scope/distribution and not anticipated to affect the viability of the existing
aphanisma population within the proposed Plan Conservation Lands. The populations within the
Previous Mitigation Lands will be adequately managed under the Trump National/Ocean Trails
HCP. Overall, the Plan is expected to protect and expand aphanisma populations within the Plan
Area.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for aphanisma occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that will likely be subject to edge effects. The NCCP/HCP
C-18
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-8
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan), and measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve (Section
5.6 of the Plan) that will be implemented for projects in existing and/or potential habitat for
aphanisma to address potential edge effects to this species within the Preserve.
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Distribution. With implementation of the Plan, very
few direct impacts are anticipated to occur, and where impacts would occur they would be small
and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability of the existing disbursed
aphanisma population in the Plan Area. Active management for this species within the Preserve,
which is the best safeguard against indirect impacts that are the primary threats, would occur under
the Plan’s PHMP. The PHMP will also provide additional suitable habitat for this species in
Abalone Cove Reserve, Ocean Trails Reserve, and possibly other suitable locations, and provide
the opportunity to expand this species’ distribution in the Preserve.
Adaptive Management. As part of PVPLC’s habitat management of the Preserve, seed will be
collected and used for propagation, and applied based on monitoring results (e.g., in response to
low abundance counts). The seed collected will be incorporated into the 5 acre per year restoration
requirements, where appropriate conditions are identified, that are included as part of this Plan
(Section 7.5 of the Plan). These restored areas are required to be monitored and reported for 5
years (Section 7.5.5 of the Plan).
C-19
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-9
Figure 1. Distribution of Aphanisma and south coast saltscale within Plan Conservation Lands.
South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B.2
Background
South coast saltscale occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, and alkali playas (CNPS
2001). This small, wiry, prostrate annual herb grows in openings between shrubs in xeric, often
mildly disturbed areas. As an annual plant subject to prevailing weather and rainfall conditions,
south coast saltscale experiences dramatic annual fluctuations in population size. Historically,
South Coast saltscale was known from Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa islands; San Nicholas
Island and coastal Ventura County; Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands and coastal Los
C-20
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-10
Angeles County; Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties, as well as Arizona and Baja California
and Sonora, Mexico (CNPS 2001; data from CNDDB 2003). South coast saltscale is severely
declining throughout its coastal range on the mainland, and it has been recommended that all
mainland populations be protected (Reiser 1994).
Threats to south coast saltscale include urbanization, recreational development, and foot traffic
(CNPS 2001, Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Extant populations of this species occur primarily on
coastal bluffs that may be partially protected from impacts associated with development due to
their proximity to steep slopes. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for south coast saltscale is
defined as all coastal sage scrub and southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 1,159.3 acres of south
coast saltscale habitat in the Plan Area, of which 663.5 acres are in the Preserve and 401.1 acres
are in Neutral Lands. Of the 663.5 acres of south coast saltscale habitat within the Preserve, 101.6
acres (15%) are within Previous Mitigation Lands. South coast saltscale is typically found in open
patches frequently associated with disturbance within the coastal sage scrub and southern coastal
bluff scrub vegetation communities; therefore, potential habitat within these vegetation
communities is more restricted than these vegetation communities.
According to surveys through 1997 covering the Plan Area (Table 2), 9 locations of south coast
saltscale were observed within the Plan Area, all within the Preserve. Of the nine known
occurrences, six of the observations are within Previous Mitigation Lands (4 in Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and 2 in Shoreline Park), and three locations in the Plan
Conservation Lands, specifically the Abalone Cove Reserve (Figure 1). Subsequent surveys
conducted by PVPLC show highly variable abundance with 136 individuals counted in 2006, zero
in 2007, 376 in 2008, 5 in 2010, and 17 in 2011(Table 3). South coast saltscale is a covered species
in the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP (Section 4.2.1 of the Plan).
Conservation Goals
At a minimum, conserve and manage the existing south coast saltscale population within the Plan
Conservation Lands, specifically Abalone Cove Reserve. The other locations of this species are
adequately conserved at Ocean Trails Reserve (Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and
Shoreline Park). Additionally, restoration projects should include efforts to expand the Abalone
Cove Reserve population (in terms of occupied area as well as number of individuals) and efforts
to establish three new populations in suitable habitat within the Preserve to guard against extirpation
from stochastic events. The establishment of south coast saltscale populations into unoccupied
habitat as part of ongoing restoration will be considered whenever feasible.
Conservation Strategy
Established transects will continue to be monitored at three-year intervals, and known
populations within the Preserve (Figure 1) will be managed to protect against threats,
particularly to address establishment/expansion of invasive plants and prevent
unauthorized public access into occupied habitat.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Abalone Cove Reserve, Ocean
Trails Reserve) will be targeted for enhancement, restoration, and/or seeding to expand,
C-21
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-11
establish, or re-establish population(s) to protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire,
landslides, bluff retreat).
Impacts to southern coastal bluff scrub are limited to 2 acres within the Plan Area, and
habitat avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented where impacts could
occur to south coast saltscale. Impacts to coastal sage scrub will be avoided or minimized
through advance planning (pre-project surveys, incorporation of avoidance and
minimization measures, best management practices, etc.).
Minimize impacts to the populations at Abalone Cove and any new population(s) in the
Preserve through surveys and avoidance and minimization measures including controlling
for public access, brush clearing and operation/maintenance activities. Populations on the
Ocean Trails Reserve are adequately protected by the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP.
Restoration of coastal sage scrub will incorporate south coast saltscale seed into the
planting pallet where conditions are favorable to its establishment.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination: Covered
Rationale. All (100%) of the known locations of south coast saltscale are within the Preserve. The
City has committed to limiting impacts within the existing 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff
scrub to 2 acres and within the existing 1,266.9 acres of coastal sage scrub to 188 acres, of which
127.5 acres (67%) would occur outside the Preserve and 60.5 acres (32%) within the Preserve.
Given the highly restricted distribution of south coast saltscale and limitation on anticipated
impacts within south coast saltscale habitat within the Preserve, few direct impacts from Covered
Projects and Activities are anticipated, and the primary threats to the species are indirect
anthropogenic threats that can best be ameliorated with active habitat management. For the
proposed 2 acres of impact with southern coastal bluff scrub habitat and 60.5 acres of impacts to
coastal sage scrub within the Preserve, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered
Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. Therefore, through the
commitment for habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, the Plan is anticipated to
benefit south coast saltscale, and potential impacts, if any, to the species will be offset by active
management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures.
Conditions. Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations
(PVPLC 2013), and the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or
enhancement opportunities as part of routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including
clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and
seeding for south coast saltscale will be included in the PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential south coast saltscale habitat prior to
approving Covered Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and
minimization measures. If an existing population, as defined in Figure 1, will be impacted by
Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with
the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the
City and Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of south coast saltscale within the
C-22
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-12
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.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. All of the nine known point locations in the Plan Area are within
the Preserve, and 91.8% of potential habitat (1,064.6 of 1,159.3 acres) in the Plan Area is within
the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Of this, approximately 663.5 acres occur within the Preserve (561.9
within Plan Conservation Lands) and will be subject to management actions. Impacts to southern
coastal bluff scrub habitat are limited to 2 acres within the Plan Area and impacts to coastal sage
scrub are limited to 60.5 acres within the Preserve. Moreover, habitat avoidance and minimization
measures would be implemented where impacts to potential south coast saltscale habitat could
occur. With these provisions in place, it is not anticipated that direct impacts to south coast saltscale
would occur. There are no known south coast saltscale outside of the Preserve.
The Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Area project has the potential to impact south
coast saltscale. The location of this project is dependent on hydrogeological conditions that cannot
be precisely anticipated until site specific studies are completed. The Abalone Cove Beach Project
has the potential to impact south coast saltscale; however, the City will avoid impacts to the known
population through project design and implementation of the impact avoidance/mitigation
measures for Covered Projects and Activities identified in the Plan (Section 5.5 of the Plan).
Implementation of the PHMP will result in enhancement of habitat for south coast saltscale, and
this is expected to result in an expansion of the species’ distribution within the Preserve. PVPLC
will focus habitat enhancement efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by Covered
Projects/Activities; however, given the unpredictable location of the landslide repair project, some
impacts may occur. Prior to any habitat enhancement efforts for this species, PVPLC shall
coordinate with the City to verify that the proposed location is not anticipated to be impacted by
any covered activities.
Potential impacts, if any were to occur, are expected to be too limited in scope/distribution to affect
the viability of the existing south coast saltscale population within the Plan Conservation Lands.
The populations within the Previous Mitigation Lands will be managed under the Trump
National/Ocean Trails HCP. Overall, the Plan is expected to protect and expand south coast
saltscale populations within the Plan Area.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that will be subject to edge effects. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve (Section.
C-23
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-13
5.6 of the Plan) that would be implemented for projects in existing and/or potential habitat for
south coast saltscale to reduce the likelihood that edge effects will occur.
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Distribution. With implementation of the Plan, very
few impacts are anticipated to occur, and where impacts would occur they would be small and
limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability of south coast saltscale in the
Plan Area. Active management for this species within the Preserve, which is the best safeguard
against indirect impacts that are the primary threats, would occur under the Plan’s PHMP. The
PHMP will create additional habitat for this species in the Abalone Cove Reserve, Ocean Trails
Reserve, and possibly other suitable locations.
Adaptive Management Program. As part of PVPLC’s management of the Preserve, seed will be
collected and used for propagation, and applied based on monitoring results (e.g., in response to
low abundance counts) and in areas of coastal sage scrub restoration/enhancement where site
conditions are favorable to establishment of south coast saltscale. Where local site conditions are
appropriate, collected seed will also be incorporated into the 5-acre per year
restoration/enhancement requirements that are part of this Plan (Section 7.5 of the Plan). Restored
areas are required to be monitored for 5 years (Section 7.5.5 of the Plan).
Catalina Crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B.2
Background
Catalina crossosoma is a deciduous shrub that can reach 5 meters (16 feet) in height. This shrub is
usually found on dry, rocky slopes and canyons in coastal sage scrub below 500 meters (1,600
feet) elevation (Skinner and Pavlik 1994, Preston and Shevock 2013). It is known from the Palos
Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula), San Clemente Island, Santa Catalina Island, and on Guadelupe
Island, Mexico (Preston and Shevock 2013). Catalina crossosoma was once in decline on San
Clemente Island but appears to be recovering well (CNPS 2001). Henrickson (1979) first reported
this species on the mainland of California on the Palos Verdes Peninsula northeast of Forrestal
Drive (within the City).
Threats to this species include urbanization, recreational development, and foot traffic (CNPS
2001). Development is the primary threat to this species on the mainland (CNPS 2001).
Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for Catalina crossosoma is coastal sage scrub and southern
coastal bluff scrub. There are 1,159.3 acres of Catalina crossosoma habitat in the Plan Area, of
which 663.5 acres are in the Preserve and 401.1 acres are in Neutral Lands. Of the 663.5 acres of
Catalina crossosoma habitat within the Preserve, 101.6 acres (15%) are within Previous Mitigation
Lands. Due to its specific habitat requirements, Catalina crossosoma is found on dry, rocky slopes
C-24
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-14
and canyons within southern coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub; therefore, potential habitat
within these vegetation communities is more restricted to areas that exhibit these conditions.
According to surveys through 1997 covering the Plan Area (Table 2), there are 4 locations of
Catalina crossosoma within the Plan Area, all within the Forrestal Reserve. One location is north
of Pirate Drive; three locations occur in an area west of Ganado Drive and south of Crest Road, on
the ridgeline and in the adjacent canyon. Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC that counted
each individual found 540 individuals in 2006, 198 in 2008, and 783 in 2010 (Table 3). Mapping
in 2015, shows that the largest population is within Forrestal Preserve and the adjacent Neutral
Lands with 3.1 acres in the Preserve and 0.2 acres in the Neutral Lands. This population extends
into a separate section of Neutral Lands with a less dense stand of 0.5 acres.
Conservation Goals
At a minimum, conserve and manage the existing Catalina crossosoma population within the
Forrestal Reserve. Additionally, restoration projects should include efforts to expand this
population and establish at least two new populations in suitable habitat within the Preserve to
guard against extirpation from stochastic events. The establishment of Catalina crossosoma
populations into unoccupied habitat as part of ongoing restoration will be considered whenever
feasible.
Conservation Strategy
Sample populations within the Preserve will continue to be monitored at three year
intervals and managed to protect against threats, particularly from recreational uses and
competition with invasive plants (PVPLC 2013).
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Forrestal Reserve) will continue to
be targeted for restoration and seeding to establish or re-establish additional population(s)
and to protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Incorporate Catalina crossosoma seed or container plants into sage scrub restoration
planting pallets where suitable conditions exist for this species.
Minimize impacts to the existing population at the Forrestal Reserve, as well as to any new
population(s) discovered or established in the Preserve, through surveys and avoidance
measures when planning for Covered Projects and Activities such as public access, brush
clearing, and operation/maintenance activities.
Monitor use of trails in the vicinity of Catalina crossosoma locations to ensure public
access is controlled and avoids direct or indirect impacts.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination: Covered
Rationale. The Catalina crossosoma population within Forrestal Reserve is the largest known stand
of the species throughout its range and extends into the adjacent Neutral Lands. Although there is
no commitment for active Catalina crossosoma management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are
C-25
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-15
authorized. The City has committed to limiting impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal
bluff scrub in the Preserve to 2 acres and impacts within the 663.5 acres of coastal sage scrub in
the Preserve to 66.5 acres (32%) (Table 5-1 in the Plan). Given the highly restricted distribution
of Catalina crossosoma and limitations on anticipated impacts within suitable Catalina crossosoma
habitat within the Preserve, direct impacts from Covered Projects/Activities are highly unlikely,
and the existing population is large and robust enough to withstand minor impacts (including the
loss of a small number of individuals) that may be associated with Covered City Projects/Activities
within the Preserve. For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where Catalina
crossosoma exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects
and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. The primary threats to the species are
indirect anthropogenic threats that can best be ameliorated with active habitat management.
Therefore, through the commitment for habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, the
Plan is expected to benefit Catalina crossosoma. Potential impacts to the species will be offset by
active management and impact avoidance/minimization measures.
Conditions. Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve by the
Preserve manager to monitor trends in population dynamics. Potential for habitat restoration
actions that may benefit this species will be evaluated during routine habitat management. There
are no Covered Projects/Activities with the potential to impact existing populations. If the large
population in the Forrestal Reserve expands into an existing trail, routine trail maintenance as
contemplated in the PUMP may require trimming or selective removal of some Catalina
crossosoma individuals, only to the extent that it will maintain the existing width of an existing
trail; impacts from the widening of an existing trail or a new trail would be subject to the conditions
below.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in potential Catalina crossosoma habitat prior to any
Covered Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization
measures. If an existing population, as defined in Figure 2, will be impacted by Covered
Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with the
Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the City
and the Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of Catalina crossosoma within the
population. Habitat restoration will include transplantation or use of seedlings propagated from
previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations throughout the
Plan Area will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population will be
impacted unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the
impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings,
document that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails
will be maintained, posted, and patrolled to prevent/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
C-26
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-16
Figure 2. Distribution of Catalina crossosoma within Plan Conservation Lands.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. Catalina crossosoma is almost entirely within the Preserve;
however, incidental observations have shown that the Forrestal Parcel population extends slightly
into adjacent steep slopes within Neutral Lands. The Plan does not authorize direct impacts to
Catalina crossosma in the Neutral Lands. The Preserve Trails Plan Implementation Project may
impact some individuals of this species. As described in the Public Use Master Plan (PUMP),
several hiking, biking and equestrian trails run through the Forrestal Parcel. The Catalina
crossosoma population in the Forrestal Reserve is currently not in conflict with trail use; however,
one population in this Reserve is large and be expanding, and minor impacts may be unavoidable
if the population grows into a trail use area. For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve
where Catalina crossosoma exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for
Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. In particular, some
impacts to the Catalina crossosoma population in the Forrestal Reserve from trail use,
improvements, and maintenance are anticipated in this Plan.
Surveys will be conducted in potential Catalina crossosoma habitat prior to approving any covered
activity to assess occupancy and to determine appropriate avoidance and minimization measures
as described above. These measures will prevent any Covered Activity/Project from eliminating
any population. If demonstrated to be unavoidable, or avoidance may impact other sensitive
biological and non-biological resources, impacts to newly discovered or established populations
C-27
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-17
will not exceed 10% of the individuals at the time of impact based on current surveys. Trails will
be maintained, posted and patrolled to prevent/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
The PHMP will result in measures to enhance habitat for Catalina crossosoma and this species’
distribution within the Preserve is expected to expand as a result. PVPLC will focus habitat
enhancement efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by future covered projects. Prior to
any habitat enhancement efforts for this species, PVPLC shall coordinate with the City to verify
that the proposed location is not anticipated to be impacted by any Covered Projects/Activities.
Very few impacts are anticipated to occur under the Plan, and where impacts would occur they
would be small and not substantially affect the viability of the existing Catalina crossosoma
population within the Preserve. Overall, the Plan is expected to increase the number and
distribution of Catalina crossosoma within the Preserve.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, the Catalina crossosoma is restricted to a
relatively small area in the Forrestal Reserve and is therefore vulnerable to edge effects and
catastrophic events such as fire. The NCCP/HCP includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures
for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) and measures for Covered Projects
and Activities adjacent to the Preserve (Section 5.6 of the Plan). These measures, along with efforts
to expand existing and establish new populations, will reduce potential edge effects, and
vulnerability to catastrophic events.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has collected some seed from Catalina crossosoma which
will be used in habitat restoration efforts. This will safeguard the local genetic composition from
extirpation from catastrophic events. Where site conditions are favorable, collected seed will be
incorporated into the 5 acre per year restoration requirements of this Plan (Section 7.5 of the Plan).
These restored areas are required to be monitored and reported for five years (Section 7.5.5 of the
Plan), and subject to the monitoring requirements thereafter.
Island Green Dudleya (Dudleya virens ssp. insularis)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B.2
Background
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; McCabe 2013). Island green dudleya is insect-pollinated
(e.g., bees, bee flies; Wyatt 1983) and seeds are presumably self-dispersed. It is known from the
mainland on the Peninsula at the south base of San Pedro Hill from Point Vicente to Point Fermin
within the Plan Area, Santa Catalina Island, and San Nicholas Island (CNPS 2001, data from
CNDDB 2003, Moran 1995). This species occurs on steep slopes in chaparral, coastal bluff scrub,
and coastal sage scrub habitats below 200 meters (650 feet) (CNPS 2001, McCabe 2013). This
C-28
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-18
species is threatened by development (data from CNDDB 2003) and livestock grazing. Island
green dudleya may also be susceptible to surface disturbance (e.g., vehicle traffic, trampling by
hikers and horses).
Although island green dudleya has been found in other vegetation communities outside of the Plan
Area, it is primarily restricted to southern coastal bluff scrub within the Plan Area. Therefore,
potential habitat for island green dudleya is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 133.2
acres of island green dudleya habitat in the Plan Area, of which 81.6 acres (61%) are in the Preserve
and 46.7 acres (35%) are in Neutral Lands. Of the 81.6 acres of island green dudleya habitat within
the Preserve, 55.0 acres (67%) are within Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to its specific habitat
requirements, island green dudleya is restricted to steep slopes in southern coastal bluff scrub
within the Plan Area.
According to surveys covering the Plan Area through 1997 (Table 2), there were 34 observations
of island green dudleya within the Plan Area, of which 21 (61%) are within the Preserve and 13
(38%) within Neutral Lands. Within the Preserve, 16 (76%) of the observations are located in
Previous Mitigation Lands (13 in the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP Property and 3 in
Shoreline Park) and 5 within Plan Conservation Lands (Pelican Cove and Abalone Cove Reserve).
Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC found 3,430 individuals in 2006, 550 in 2007, 408 in
2008, and 240 in 2010 (Table 3). Pelican Cove is the only area within Plan Conservation Lands
that currently supports a stable population of island green dudleya. PVPLC introduced island green
dudleya to Abalone Cove Reserve in 2013.
Conservation Goals
Conserve and manage the existing island green dudleya populations within the Preserve, consisting
of five locations at Pelican Cove and Abalone Cove. The locations in Previous Mitigation Lands
(Ocean Trails Reserve) will continue to be managed consistent with the obligations in the existing
Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP. Additionally, restoration projects should include efforts to
expand these populations (in terms of occupied area as well as number of individuals), and include
island green dudleya in planting pallets, where appropriate, as part of the coastal scrub restoration
obligations to establish new populations to guard against stochastic events. The establishment of
island green dudleya populations into unoccupied habitat as part of ongoing restoration will be
considered whenever feasible.
Conservation Strategy
Sample populations of island green dudleya within the Preserve will continue to be
monitored at 3 year intervals and managed to protect against threats, particularly from
unauthorized recreational uses and competition with invasive plants.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Pelican Cove and Abalone Cove
Reserve) will be targeted for restoration and seeding to establish or expand populations to
protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Incorporate use of island green dudleya into sage scrub restoration planting pallets where
suitable conditions exist for this species.
C-29
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-19
Avoid/minimize impacts to all populations from authorized activities (e.g., new trails,
brush clearing and operation/maintenance activities) in the Preserve, through pre-project
surveys and incorporation of avoidance measures into project design and construction (e.g.,
construction and maintenance of trails).
Monitor use of trails in the vicinity of island green dudleya locations to ensure public access
is controlled and avoids direct and indirect impacts.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. All but 4.8 (3%) of 133.1 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within the Plan Area are
either in the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Although there is no commitment for active island green
dudleya management within Neutral Lands, no direct impacts are authorized. The City has
committed to limiting impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub to 2 acres
throughout the Preserve (Table 5-1 in the Plan). Given the restricted distribution of island green
dudleya and limitation on anticipated impacts within suitable southern coastal bluff scrub within
the Preserve, direct impacts from Covered Projects and Activities are highly unlikely. For proposed
impacts to coastal bluff scrub habitat within the Preserve where island green dudleya exists or may
occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) would be followed. The primary threats to the species are indirect anthropogenic
threats that can best be ameliorated with active habitat management. Therefore, through the
commitment for habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, the Plan is anticipated to
benefit island green dudleya, and potential impacts to the species are considered to be offset by
active management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures.
Conditions. Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within established locations to
monitor trends in population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit
this species will be evaluated during routine habitat management.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential island green dudleya habitat prior to any
Covered Project or Activity to assess occupancy, and to determine avoidance and minimization
measures. If this species is detected during surveys, impacts to this plant are expected to be
avoided. Where avoidance of island green dudleya is not feasible, the project applicant will engage
the Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat
restoration plan, to be approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure the impacts
will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than 0.25 acre of occupied dudleya
habitat will be impacted, and no more than one impact per Reserve, unless additional populations
are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife
Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the species in the
Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. The PVPLC has a successful propagation program
for this species at the PVPLC nursery, and this program will continue as part of the NCCP/HCP.
This species can be successfully planted in suitable habitat. Trails will be maintained, posted, and
patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
C-30
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-20
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. No direct impacts to island green dudleya within the Pelican
Cove are anticipated under this Plan because no Covered Project or Activities are planned in these
reserves. However, because island green dudleya will continue to be used in habitat restoration
efforts within the Preserve, there remains a potential for future projects and activities, depending
on their ultimate location, to impact restored/expanded populations associated with the following
projects depending on their ultimate location: Miscellaneous Fissure Filling, Miscellaneous
Damaged Drain Repair, Miscellaneous Drainage Projects, Abalone Beach Project, and Preserve
Trails Plan Implementation. Most island green dudleya in the Preserve are within the Ocean Trails
Reserve, and impacts to these populations are addressed in the Trump National/Ocean Trails HCP.
For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where island green dudleya exists or may
occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) would be followed. The remaining island green dudleya are within Neutral Lands,
where no impacts are authorized by the Plan.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential island green dudleya habitat prior to
any covered activity to assess occupancy and determine appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures as described above. It is anticipated that these measures will prevent any Covered
Projects and Activity from eliminating the existing or any newly established population(s). Where
avoidance of island green dudleya is not feasible, impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat
restoration.
The conservation required by the Plan will contribute to the viability of the species by removing
invasive plants within the Preserve. Additionally, the populations will continue to be augmented
within potential habitat in Preserve areas where it does not currently exist. Island green dudleya
will be incorporated into sage scrub restoration planting pallets where suitable conditions exist for
this species. As mentioned above, this species may be relocated to other areas within the Preserve
that contain suitable habitat. It is anticipated that the PHMP will enhance habitat for island green
dudleya and this species’ distribution within the Preserve may expand as a result. Through
coordination with the City, PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement efforts in areas that are unlikely
to be impacted by future covered projects/activities.
With implementation of the Plan, very few impacts are anticipated of occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the
viability of the existing island green dudleya population within the Preserve. Overall, the Plan’s
measures are expected to expand the number and distribution of island green dudleya populations
within the Plan Area.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that will be subject to edge effects. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and required measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve
(Section. 5.6 of the Plan) to reduce potential edge effects within the Preserve.
C-31
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-21
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Distribution. With implementation of the Plan, very
few impacts to island green dudleya are anticipated to occur, and where impacts would occur they
would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability of the
existing island green dudleya population in the Plan area. Active management, which is the best
safeguard against indirect impacts that are likely the primary threats, would occur under the Plan’s
PHMP. The PHMP will create additional habitat for this species in Pelican Cove and Abalone
Cove Reserves and other suitable locations, and is expected to increase this species’ distribution
in the Reserve.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already implemented a program to grow and out-
plant island green dudleya in restoration plots, including a project at the Abalone Cove Reserve.
Monitoring and adaptive management strategies will be continued as part of this Plan. Areas
restored with island green dudleya are required to be monitored and reported for 5 years (Section
7.5.5 of the Plan).
Santa Catalina Island Desert-Thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 1B.1
Background
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is a deciduous shrub that can reach 4 meters (13 feet) in height
(Nee 2013). It requires insects for pollination. It is found on slopes in coastal bluff scrub and
coastal sage scrub habitats at elevations below 300 meters (1,000 feet; CNPS 2001, Nee 2013).
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is known from Los Angeles County, on San Clemente Island
and Santa Catalina Island (CNPS 2001). Due to the small population numbers, this species is
threatened by development, recreational foot traffic, and stochastic events. Effective conservation
of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn must include protection from trampling and other soil surface
disturbance.
Potential habitat for Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub.
There are 133.2 acres of potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat in the Plan Area, of
which 81.6 acres (61%) are in the Preserve and 46.7 acres (35%) are in Neutral Lands. Of the 81.6
acres of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat within the Preserve, 55.0 acres (67%) are within
Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to its specific habitat requirements, Santa Catalina Island desert-
thorn often occurs in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal bluff slopes) within southern coastal bluff
scrub habitat.
According to surveys covering the Plan Area through 1997 (Table 2), there were 3 observations of
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn within the Plan Area, all within the Abalone Cove Preserve.
Each observation represented either multiple or individual plants. Subsequent surveys conducted
by PVPLC that counted each individual found 750 individuals in 2006, 300 in 2007, and 605 in
2011 (Table 3).
C-32
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-22
PVPLC planted Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn at Abalone Cove and in Ocean Front Estates
Property (within Vicente Bluffs Reserve) in 2013.
Conservation Goals
At a minimum, conserve and manage the existing Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn population
within the Abalone Cove Reserve. Additionally, restoration projects should include efforts to
expand this population (in terms of occupied area as well as number of individuals) and efforts to
establish at least three populations in new locations within the Preserve to guard against stochastic
events. The establishment of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn populations into unoccupied habitat
as part of ongoing restoration will be considered whenever feasible.
Conservation Strategy
The known populations of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn within the Preserve will
continue to be surveyed by the Preserve Manager every 3 years and managed to protect
against threats, particularly from unauthorized recreational uses and competition with
invasive plants.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Abalone Cove Reserve and Ocean
Front Estates Property) within restoration project areas will be targeted to establish new
populations to protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Avoid/minimize impacts to the existing population at Abalone Cove and to expanded
and/or new population(s) in the Preserve through pre-project surveys and establishment of
measures to avoid impacts from public access, brush clearing, and operation/maintenance
activities.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. All but 4.8 (3%) of 133.1 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within the Plan Area are
either in the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Although there is no commitment for active Santa Catalina
Island desert-thorn management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are authorized. The City has
committed to limiting impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub to 2 acres in
the Preserve (Table 5-1 in the Plan). Given the highly restricted distribution of Santa Catalina
Island desert-thorn and limitation on anticipated impacts to suitable southern coastal bluff scrub in
the Preserve, direct impacts from Covered Projects are highly unlikely. For proposed impacts to
potential habitat within the Preserve where Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn exists or may occur,
the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the
Plan) would be followed. The primary threats to the species are indirect anthropogenic threats that
best be ameliorated with active habitat management. Therefore, through the commitment for
habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, the Plan is anticipated to benefit to Santa
Catalina Island desert-thorn and that any potential impacts to the species will be offset by active
management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures.
C-33
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-23
Conditions. 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, as defined in Figure 3, will be impacted by Covered
Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with the
Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the City
and the Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure no net loss of 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.
Figure 3. Distribution of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn within Plan Conservation Lands.
C-34
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-24
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. All 3 known locations of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn are
within the Abalone Cove Reserve. No direct impacts to Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn are
anticipated under this Plan because no Covered Projects/Activities are currently planned that
would affect this species within the Abalone Cove Reserve. However, the Miscellaneous Drainage
Repair in Landslide Area Project has the potential to impact Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn if
new populations are discovered or established in other areas of the Reserve. The location of this
project is dependent on hydrogeological conditions that cannot be precisely anticipated until site-
specific studies are completed. The Abalone Cove Beach Project has the potential to result in direct
and/or indirect impacts to Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn; however, the City will avoid impacts
to the known population through project design and implementation of the impact
avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities identified in the NCCP/HCP
(Section 5.5 of the Plan).
The PHMP provides measures to enhance habitat for Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn and this
species’ distribution within the Preserve is anticipated to expand as a result. Through coordination
with the City, PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement efforts in areas that are unlikely to be
impacted by future covered projects. Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve within
restoration project areas will be targeted to establish new populations.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn
habitat prior to approval of any Covered Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and determine
avoidance and minimization measures. These measures are intended avoid, or to minimize if total
avoidance is not feasible, impacts to the existing or any newly established population(s). For
Covered Projects/Activities, this species will be avoided from areas to be impacted, if feasible.
Where avoidance of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is not feasible, impacts will be offset with
equivalent habitat restoration. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize
encroachment into occupied habitat.
For Covered Projects/Activities located in suitable areas within southern coastal bluff scrub
habitat, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) would be followed to further minimize potential impacts.
With implementation of the Plan, very few impacts are anticipated to occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the
viability of the existing population within the Preserve. Overall, the Plan is expected to benefit
Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn by expanding its numbers and distribution within the Plan Area.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that may be subject to edge effects. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and required measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve
(Section. 5.6 of the Plan) that will reduce potential edge effects to this species.
C-35
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-25
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Distribution. With implementation of the Plan, very
few impacts to Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn are anticipated of occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the
viability of the existing island green dudleya population in the Plan area. Active management,
which is the best safeguard against indirect impacts that are the primary threats to this species,
would occur under the Plan’s PHMP. The PHMP will create additional habitat for this species in
the Abalone Cove Reserve and Ocean Front Estates Property (Vicente Bluffs Reserve), and
possibly other suitable locations, and provide the opportunity to increase this species’ distribution
in the Preserve.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already successfully established Santa Catalina
Island desert-thorn in their nursery and are using stock in restoration projects within the Preserve.
PVPLC planted Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn at the Abalone Cove Reserve and at the Ocean
Front Estates Property. Monitoring is continuing, and management actions will be recorded to
ensure an adaptive management approach will guide subsequent restoration efforts. Areas restored
with Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn are required to be monitored and reported for 5 years
(Section 7.5.5 of the Plan), and will thereafter be subject to monitoring every 3 years.
Woolly Seablite (Suaeda taxifolia)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: No status
CNPS: List 4.2
Background
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)
from elevations below 50 meters (CNPS 2001) or below 15 meters as reported by Schenk and
Ferren (2013). This evergreen subshrub flowers January-December (CNPS 2001). Historically,
woolly seablite occurred from Ventura County and most of the Channel Islands southward to Baja
California, Mexico (CNPS 2001). This species currently is known 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). On the Palos
Verdes Peninsula, woolly seablite occurs as isolated plants along the Peninsula shoreline from
Torrance Beach to San Pedro.
Proposed development and potential landslides and cliff retreat along coastal bluffs threaten this
species. Foot traffic is also presumably a threat in the Preserve.
Potential habitat for woolly seablite is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 133.2
acres of woolly seablite habitat in the Plan Area, of which 81.6 acres (61%) are in the Preserve
and 46.7 acres (35%) are in Neutral Lands. Of the 81.6 acres of woolly seablite habitat within the
Preserve, 55.0 acres (67%) are within Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to its specific habitat
C-36
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-26
requirements, woolly seablite occurs in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal bluff slopes) within
southern coastal bluff scrub.
Woolly seablite was not included in the database that includes the entire Plan Area; therefore, there
is no specific information about the distribution of this species in Neutral Lands or other areas
outside of the Preserve. Woolly seablite is found in Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican Cove
(within the Vicente Bluffs Reserves) (Plan Conservation Lands) and within Trump National/Ocean
Trails HCP Property, Shoreline Park, and the Ocean Front Estates Property (Previous Mitigation
Lands). Surveys conducted by PVPLC within the Preserve found 455 individuals in 2006, 55 in
2007, 48 in 2008, and 122 in 2010 (Table 3). According to PVPLC (2013), woolly seablite is
broadly distributed throughout the bluffs where it is found.
Conservation Goals
At a minimum, conserve and manage all existing woolly seablite populations in the Preserve to
protect against recreation impacts (authorized and unauthorized public access) and invasive plants.
Expand and establish new populations within suitable southern coastal bluff scrub by incorporating
this species in restoration planting pallets, where appropriate. The establishment of woolly seablite
populations into unoccupied habitat as part of ongoing restoration will be considered whenever
feasible.
Conservation Strategy
Sample populations of woolly seablite within the Preserve will continue to be surveyed
every 3 years and managed to protect against threats, particularly from unauthorized
recreational uses and competition with invasive plants.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve (e.g., Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican
Cove) will be targeted for restoration which is expected to provide natural opportunities
for woolly seablite to expand its occupied area. At this time it is not believed to be
necessary to perform seeding to expand the existing populations to protect against
catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Avoid/minimize impacts to the existing populations at Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican
Cove, and to any new populations in the Reserve, through pre-project surveys and
establishment of measures to avoid impacts from public access, brush clearing and
operation/maintenance activities.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. All but 4.8 (3%) of 133.1 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within the Plan Area are
either in the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Although there is no commitment for active woolly seablite
management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are authorized. The City has committed to limiting
impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub to 2 acres within the Preserve (Table
5-1 in the NCCP/HCP). Given the restricted distribution of woolly seablite and limitation on
C-37
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-27
anticipated impacts within suitable southern coastal bluff scrub in the Preserve, direct impacts from
Covered Projects and Activities are highly unlikely. For proposed impacts to habitat within the
Preserve where woolly seablite exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for
Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. The primary threats
to the species are indirect anthropogenic threats that can best be ameliorated with active habitat
management. Therefore, through the commitment for management and habitat restoration, the Plan
is anticipated to benefit to woolly seablite, and potential impacts to the species will be offset by
active management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures.
Conditions. Surveys will continue to be conducted at fixed locations every 3 years within the
Preserve by the Preserve Manager to monitor trends in population dynamics, and potential habitat
restoration actions that may benefit this species will be evaluated during routine habitat
management activities. Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential woolly seablite
habitat for any Covered Project to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization
measures. For Covered Projects/Activities, this species will be avoided from areas to be impacted,
if feasible. The project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife
Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the Wildlife
Agencies, that will ensure the impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more
than 0.25 acre of occupied woolly seablite habitat will be impacted, and no more than one impact
per Reserve, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of
the impact, and/or the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings,
document that the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails
will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Impact Levels. There are no known woolly seablite populations outside of the
Preserve. No direct impacts to woolly seablite are anticipated under this Plan because no covered
projects are currently planned in Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican Cove that would affect this
species. However, the Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in the Landslide Area project has the
potential to impact woolly seablite if impacts were to occur within suitable southern coastal bluff
habitat. The location of this project is dependent on hydrogeological conditions that cannot be
precisely anticipated until site specific studies are completed. The Abalone Cove Beach Project
also has the potential to result in direct and/or indirect impacts to woolly seablite; however, impacts
to the known population will be avoided or minimized through project design and implementation
of the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities identified in the
NCCP/HCP. Because woolly seablite is patchily distributed where it is found, the City may not be
able to avoid all individual plants. Where any unavoidable impacts occur, they would be mitigated
in accordance with the NCCP/HCP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in potential habitat for woolly seablite prior to any Covered
Project and Activities within southern coastal bluff scrub to assess occupancy and determine
avoidance and minimization measures. These measures are intended to prevent any Covered
Project and Activity from impacting an existing or any newly established population(s). Where it
is demonstrated that avoidance of woolly seablite is not feasible, an area equivalent to the impact
C-38
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-28
area will be restored in the vicinity of an existing population. The goal will be passive recruitment
into restored habitat although seeding or transplantation may also be employed. With
implementation of the Plan, very few impacts are anticipated of occur, and where impacts would
occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability
of the existing population within the Preserve. For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve
where woolly seablite exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered
Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. Overall, the Plan provides
measures to increase the number and distribution of woolly seablite within the Plan Area.
The conservation required by the Plan will contribute to the viability of the species by removing
invasive plants within the Preserve and protecting existing populations. The PHMP will enhance
habitat for woolly seablite and this species’ distribution and numbers are expected to increase as a
result. Through coordination with the City, PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement efforts in areas
that are unlikely to be impacted by future Covered Projects/Activities.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that will be subject to edge effects. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and requires measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve
(Section. 5.6 of the Plan) to reduce potential edge effects within the Preserve.
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Distribution. With implementation of the Plan, very
few impacts to woolly seablite are anticipated of occur, and where impacts would occur they would
be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability of the existing
woolly population in the Plan Area. Active management, which is the best safeguard against
indirect impacts that are likely the primary threats, would occur under the Plan’s PHMP. Further
assessment will be performed of the Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican Cove to determine if
improved conditions and/or additional suitable habitat can be provided. Other suitable locations
will also be considered for introduction of woolly seablite; however, the existing numbers and
distribution of this plant do not necessitate prioritization of enhancement measures at this time.
Adaptive Management Program. Given woolly seablite’s current distribution and abundance
within the Preserve, it is currently not necessary to propagate this species in their nursery facilities
for inclusion in restoration projects. PVPLC will continue to monitor woolly seablite populations
and will respond with habitat enhancement or restoration, and/or propagation as necessary (e.g.,
in the event of declining trend in populations, catastrophic fire, landslides, cliff retreat, or other
factors).
C-39
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-29
El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni)
USFWS: Endangered
CDFW: No status
Background
The El Segundo blue butterfly (ESB) is a federally endangered subspecies of the square-spotted
blue butterfly in the family Lycaenida. The coast buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) is the larval
hostplant of ESB, and ESB effectively spend their entire life cycle on this plant. At the time of
listing in 1976, the ESB was 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 et al. 1997). Each of these areas represents a Recovery Unit within the ESB
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998). The Recovery Plan for ESB was prepared with the Malaga Cove
population as the most southern management unit (Torrance Recovery Unit). The Malaga Cove
population is small, between 10 and 30 individuals utilizing between 50 and 100 individuals of
coast buckwheat (R. Arnold, pers. comm.).
The El Segundo dunes complex historically covered an area of about 4.5 square miles, stretching
from the mouth of Ballona Creek south to the Peninsula (USFWS 1998). The dunes were bordered
on the west by the Pacific Ocean and continued inland approximately 0.5 mile. Museum specimens
of ESB were collected in El Segundo, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and on the Peninsula
(Donahue 1975).
The LAX Recovery Unit is the largest remaining undeveloped coastal sand dune system in
southern California (USFWS 1998). It also contains what is believed to be the largest remaining
population of ESB. Population estimates for ESB vary greatly from year to year and there is
disagreement regarding the survey methods employed to estimate the ESB population. From 1998
through 2013, estimated maximum population numbers varied from a low of 39,282 in 1999 to a
high of 142,727 in 2006 (Arnold 2014); however, the population estimate model used by LAX
likely overestimated the size of the ESB population (Longcore and Rich 2001). The LAX Recovery
Unit is a cornerstone for the survival and recovery of ESB due to the population size and the status
of the LAX dunes as a preserve for ESB and other coastal dune dependent species (USFWS 1998).
The Torrance Recovery Unit is the southern-most unit extending south to the Peninsula. There are
several scattered areas along the beach bluffs that support coast buckwheat and ESB. These areas
are located primarily on private property. A “Safe Harbors Agreement” has been implemented for
this Recovery Unit. The agreement, administered by the Urban Wildlands Group, allows private
landowners to carry out some low-impact shoreline development while maintaining and improving
ESB habitat. Coastal habitat has been restored along beachfronts in Torrance and Redondo Beach,
and ESB have been observed in these restored areas. In the Plan area, there was one ESB
observation through 2000 (in Neutral Lands south of the Pelican Cove within the Vicente Bluffs
Reserve), and between 2006 and 2011 ESB were identified at 2 locations in the Vicente Bluffs
Reserve (Ocean Front Estates Property and Pelican Cove).
C-40
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-30
The primary cause of the decline of the ESB is attributed to the loss of habitat from urban
development and loss of hostplants (Mattoni 1990). Competition with plants which are not native
to the coastal dunes ecosystem can also have a detrimental impact on the El Segundo blue butterfly
hostplant, Eriogonum parvifolium or coast buckwheat (USFWS, 2008). Arnold (2009) expressed
concern about a long-term trend of senescence among coast buckwheat at the LAX dunes.
Depending on the rates of recruitment and senescence, the population of coast buckwheat may not
replace itself naturally. The senescence of coast buckwheat populations along with the isolation of
potential habitat for ESB, a relatively small number of individuals, and limited dispersal ability
could result in a catastrophic collapse of the ESB population. Small and isolated populations can
be particularly sensitive to even the most mild habitat perturbation, disease outbreak, natural
catastrophe, or demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soulé 1986). Management of occupied ESB
habitat requires protection from invasives and public access, maintenance of the distribution of
hostplants, an awareness of hostplant senescence and competition, and overall management to
provide the early successional stage habitat optimal for ESB.
Potential habitat for the El Segundo blue butterfly (ESB) is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub.
There are 133.2 acres of potential ESB habitat in the Plan Area, of which 81.6 acres (61%) are in
the Preserve and 46.7 acres (35%) are in Neutral Lands. Of the 81.6 acres of ESB habitat within
the Preserve, 55.0 acres (67%) are within Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to its specific habitat
requirements, ESB is more likely to occur in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal dunes and bluff
slopes with sufficient coastal buckwheat and loose sand and/or cliff faces comprised of hard-
packed sand) within southern coastal bluff scrub habitat that exhibit these conditions.
There is no dune habitat within the Plan Area; however, coast buckwheat is known to occur within
the coastal bluff scrub habitat between Ocean Front Estates Property within the Vicente Bluffs
Reserve and the Abalone Cove Reserve. 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); this location is now within the
Terranea Resort, and the occupied habitat was avoided by the development and surrounding habitat
was restored. Additional focused surveys for the ESB in 2006 resulted in two confirmed
populations (Pratt 2006): one location was just north of Point Vicente in a large patch of coast
buckwheat (36 ESB), and the other southeast of Point Vicente at the Fisherman’s access area (13
ESB). There was also one ESB observation through 2000, and this observation was in the Neutral
Lands south of the Pelican Cove (within Vicente Bluffs Reserve). Subsequent surveys between
2006 and 2011 identified ESB in the Vicente Bluffs Reserve (Ocean Front Estates Property and
Pelican Cove).
Conservation Goals
Protect the existing populations from project impacts and indirect effects of recreation, and manage
habitat to be suitable for ESB occupation. Overall, facilitate the existing trend for ESB to
recolonize southern coastal bluff scrub habitat throughout the Preserve.
C-41
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-31
Conservation Strategy
The known populations of ESB within the Preserve will be surveyed every three years
(standardized surveys) and managed for persistence.
Protect and maintain areas of the larval hostplant, coast buckwheat, within the Preserve.
Suitable, unoccupied habitat within the Preserve [e.g., Vicente Bluffs Reserve (Pelican
Cove and Ocean Front Estates Property)] will continue to be targeted for restoration and
active planting with coast buckwheat in an effort to establish or re-establish additional
population(s) of ESB and to ensure genetic diversity and protect against catastrophic events
(e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Implement species-specific management actions (e.g., invasive species removal) to
increase hostplant numbers, overall habitat quality, and thereby increase ESB population
size.
Include coast buckwheat in restoration projects throughout suitable habitat in the Preserve;
actively plant ESB’s hostplant coast buckwheat in appropriate locations (and avoid the use
of flat-topped buckwheat in such locations).
Minimize impacts to the existing populations and suitable habitat at the Vicente Bluffs
Reserve (Pelican Cove and Ocean Front Estates Property), and any expanded or new
populations, through surveys and avoidance measures including controlling for public
access, brush clearing and operation/maintenance activities.
As part of recommended research on this species (where grants are available), contribute
to conducting taxonomic research combining morphological, ecological, and genetic
analyses to help determine its relationship to other known populations.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. All but 4.8 (3%) of 133.1 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within the Plan Area are
either in the Preserve (81.6 acres) or Neutral Lands (46.7 acres). Although there is no commitment
for active ESB management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are authorized. The City has
committed to limiting impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub to 2 acres in
the Preserve (NCCP/HCP Table 5-1). Given the highly restricted distribution of ESB and
limitation on anticipated impacts in southern coastal bluff scrub in the Preserve, direct impacts
from Covered Projects and Activities are unlikely. For proposed impacts to habitat within the
Preserve where ESB or its hostplant coast buckwheat exists or may occur, the impact
avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would
be followed. By including coast buckwheat in habitat enhancement and restoration work within
the Preserve (active seeding/planting), the Plan is expected to benefit ESB and likely result in
expansion of its distribution within the Plan Area. Therefore, through the commitment for habitat
management, enhancement, and restoration, the Plan is expected to benefit ESB. Active
management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures will offset any potential impacts to the
species.
C-42
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-32
Conditions. Surveys will be conducted by the Preserve Manager every 3 years within the existing
populations, as defined in Figure 4, to monitor trends in population dynamics. The Preserve
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, as defined in Figure 4, 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.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Take Levels. There are no known ESB populations outside of the Preserve and
Neutral Lands. The known ESB population within Neutral Lands is protected through a
conservation easement to the City and managed by the Terranea Resort as a habitat enhancement
area under a prior HCP. No direct impacts to ESB are anticipated under this Plan because no
Covered Projects and Activities are currently planned in Vicente Bluffs Reserve (Pelican Cove
and Ocean Front Estates Property) that would affect this species. However, because ESB may
become established in additional areas within the Preserve, the following projects may impact ESB
depending on their ultimate location: Miscellaneous Fissure Filling, Miscellaneous Damaged
Drain Repair, Miscellaneous Drainage Projects, Abalone Beach Project, and RPV Trails Plan
Implementation. Management actions (such as clearing for restoration, etc.) inside the Preserve
could result in the removal of very small amounts of coastal sage scrub, which could include some
hostplants for ESB.
No more than 5% of any existing ESB occurrence polygon, as defined in Figure 2, will be
impacted. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations will not exceed 10% of their
distribution at the time of impact based on current surveys, and the loss of hostplants will be offset
with onsite habitat restoration. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize
encroachment into occupied habitat.
Pre-project surveys within the entire Plan Area will be conducted throughout southern coastal bluff
scrub in potential ESB habitat prior to any Covered Project and Activity to assess occupancy and
C-43
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-33
to determine avoidance and minimization measures. If ESB is discovered during surveys, the
Wildlife Agencies will be notified immediately. Occupied ESB hostplants will be avoided when
possible. Where ESB is detected and impacts are clearly demonstrated to be unavoidable, the
Wildlife Agencies will be provided the opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice) to relocate
any and all larvae, pupae, or adults.
With implementation of the Plan, very few impacts are anticipated of occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be minor and limited in scope/distribution and unlikely to substantially
affect the viability or likelihood for persistence of ESB within the Plan Area. For proposed impacts
to habitat within the Preserve where ESB exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation
measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. Where
any unavoidable impacts occur, they would be mitigated in accordance with the NCCP/HCP.
Overall, the Plan is expected to benefit ESB by securing and expanding occupancy within the Plan
Area.
The conservation required by the Plan will contribute to the viability of the species by removing
invasive plants within the Preserve, active planting of coast buckwheat, and protecting existing
ESB and hostplant populations. It is anticipated that the PHMP will enhance habitat for ESB and
result in an expansion of this species’ occupied area within the Preserve. Habitat restoration is
expected to improve habitat quality for ESB and result in larger, more stable populations in the
Plan Area. Additional habitat patches may be colonized as habitat restoration continues and
existing populations get larger and are more likely to produce founder individuals. PVPLC will
focus habitat enhancement efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by Covered Projects
and Activities. Prior to any habitat enhancement efforts for this species, PVPLC shall coordinate
with the City to verify that the proposed location is not anticipated to be impacted by any Covered
Projects and Activities.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs as
relatively small stands of habitat that will be subject to edge effects. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and requires measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve
(Section 5.6 of the Plan) to reduce edge effects into the Preserve. The hostplant for ESB will also
be included in the PHMP seed mix, where appropriate, to aid in establishing more suitable habitat
for this species within the Preserve. The majority of historical point locations for ESB and coast
buckwheat are included within the Preserve. The Preserve will be managed for ESB and other
southern coastal bluff scrub associate species.
Effects on Population Viability and Species Recovery. With implementation of the Plan, very few
impacts to ESB and its hostplant coast buckwheat are anticipated to occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially affect the
viability of the existing ESB population in the Plan Area. Active management for this species,
which is the best safeguard against indirect impacts that are likely the primary threats, would occur
under the Plan’s PHMP. The PHMP will create and enhance habitat for the species in the Vicente
Bluffs Reserve (Pelican Cove and Ocean Front Estates Property), and other suitable locations, and
provide opportunity to expand the population size and distribution in the Preserve to increase the
C-44
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-34
regional population viability. For Covered Projects/Activities located in suitable areas within
southern coastal bluff scrub habitat, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered
Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed to further minimize potential
impacts.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already included coast buckwheat in their restoration
projects and initiated ESB surveys within potential habitat in the Preserve Area. PVPLC will
continue to monitor ESB populations and will respond with habitat enhancement restoration, active
planting and/or propagation of coast buckwheat as necessary. As part of recommended research
on this species (where grants are available), the City and PVPLC will participate in, support, or
otherwise facilitate taxonomic research addressing morphological, ecological, and genetic
analyses to help determine the Preserve’s ESB population’s relationship to other known
populations.
Figure 4. Known locations of El Segundo blue butterflies within the Plan Area.
C-45
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-35
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)
USFWS: Endangered
CDFW: No status
Background
The Palos Verdes blue (PVB) butterfly is a rare subspecies of the silvery blue butterfly in the family
Lycaenidae (Perkins and Emmel 1977, Arnold 1987). The PVB is restricted to habitats that support
larval hostplants, either ocean locoweed or deerweed (Mattoni 1992). Habitat for PVB is typified by
open coastal sage scrub and ecotone areas between sage scrub and grasslands. Locoweed is the
primary larval hostplant present in the Plan Area. Deerweed does not generally occur within RPV and
is mostly restricted to the northeast slope of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Locoweed and deerweed are
early successional or disturbance-associated species; thus, these species will decline if there is an
extended period of time without disturbance (e.g., mechanical disturbance and 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
contributed to the current endangered status of the PVB (Arnold 1987, Mattoni 1992). Federally
designated critical habitat includes the San Ramon/Switchbacks Reserve, Agua Amarga Canyon
Reserve, and Fred Hesse Park (USFWS 1980); however, none of these sites is currently occupied by
PVB.
PVB are currently known to occupy the DFSP San Pedro (Mattoni 1992), the Chandler Preserve in
Rolling Hills Estates, and potentially the Malaga Dune in Palos Verdes Estates. Historically, the PVB
occurred throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula. When the PVB was recognized as a distinct
subspecies in the 1970s, its range and distribution were already reduced by grazing, agriculture,
and residential and urban development (USFWS 1984, Arnold 1987; Mattoni 1992). The type
locality on the Alta Vista Terrace was developed for residential use in 1978, and the PVB
population was extirpated (USFWS 1984). By the early 1980s, PVB were found at only 10
locations (Arnold 1987). Until its rediscovery in 1994 on the DFSP, the PVB had not been seen
since 1983 and was thought to be extinct (Arnold 1987, Mattoni 1992).
PVB surveys were conducted on the DFSP San Pedro from 1994 to 2015 and on the adjacent Palos
Verdes Navy housing area from 1999 to 2015 (Longcore and Osborne 2015). The estimated
population size at the fuel depot and housing area for 1994 to 2015 varied annually, ranging
between 0 and 282 individuals. In 1994, a captive rearing program was established from the
population at the DFSP (Longcore et al. 2002). The captive breeding facility provides stock for
reintroductions and acts as a safeguard against extinction.
In 2009, following habitat restoration efforts, PVB from the captive rearing program were
introduced to the 28.5-acre Linden H. Chandler Preserve in Rolling Hills Estates. Reintroduction
at this site continued until 2013, and locally produced progeny were observed in 2014 and 2015.
Thus, this reintroduction effort appears successful at this time.
C-46
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-36
Two male and one female PVB were discovered at the Malaga Dune in 2001 (Rudi Mattoni and
Jeremiah George, personal communication, 2001). Previous surveys at the Malaga Dune did not
detect PVB; therefore, PVB abundance is assumed to be very low at this site (Rudi Mattoni,
personal communication, 2001). The Malaga Dune is within the City of Palos Verdes Estates.
In summary, there is one fairly robust population of PVB at the DFSP and Palos Verdes Navy
housing area, and a reintroduction effort at the Linden H. Chandler Preserve appears to be
successful. A captive rearing program funded by the U.S. Navy provides some protection against
impacts from catastrophic events to wild populations. The Malaga Dune may support a low density
population. In the Plan Area, PVB are currently not known to be present; however, this species
was historically observed in the Agua Amarga Reserve, Upper Filiorum, Portuguese Bend
Property, Forrestal Reserve, San Ramon Reserve (Switchbacks Property), and Neutral Lands near
Ocean Trails Reserve. PVB’s hostplants (ocean locoweed and deerweed) have been observed in
all known historic PVB sites within the Plan Area, as well as within the Preserve (Three
Sisters/Barkentine Reserve, Ocean Trails Reserve, and Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point
Vicente). Federally designated critical habitat for the PVB includes the San Ramon Reserve
(Switchbacks Property) of Palos Verdes Drive East, Fred Hesse Park, and Agua Amarga Canyon
(USFWS 1980).
Threats described at the time the PVB was listed as endangered are still concerns throughout its
known and potential range, including continued urban and residential development, weed
abatement and control, fire prevention practices, and non-native plant invasion. PVB’s primary
hostplant (ocean locoweed) has also declined throughout its range, which precipitated the decline
of PVB. Competition with plants which are not native to the coastal sage scrub and grassland
ecosystems can also have a detrimental impact on the PVB hostplants (ocean locoweed and
deerweed). Given the extremely limited range of the PVB, the primary threats to this species are
demographic stochasticity and catastrophic events (e.g., fires, landslides). One extreme
disturbance event or a series of years with negative population growth could eliminate the existing
populations. At this time, the captive breeding program offers protection against range-wide
extinction.
Current conservation efforts depend on habitat restoration techniques to establish potential habitat
for the PVB. Because both ocean locoweed and deerweed are early successional species,
restoration plots may naturally convert into later successional coastal sage scrub communities. If
natural succession is allowed to proceed, potential PVB habitat may be lost. Management of
occupied PVB habitat requires protection from invasives and public access, maintenance of the
distribution of hostplants, an awareness of hostplant senescence and competition, and overall
management to provide the early successional stage habitat optimal for PVB.
Habitat for the Palos Verdes blue butterfly (PVB) is defined by the presence of its obligate
hostplants, ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) and deerweed (Acmispon
glaber), which are found within coastal sage scrub and grassland communities within the Plan
Area. There are 1,975.9 acres of potential PVB habitat in the Plan Area, of which 1,052.5 acres
(53%) are in the Preserve and 570.8 acres (28%) are in Neutral Lands. Of the 1,052.5 acres of PVB
habitat within the Preserve, 154.1 acres (14%) are within Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to PVB’s
C-47
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-37
obligate relationship to hostplants and its specific habitat requirements, PVB is more likely to
occur in specific areas (e.g., with ocean locoweed and deerweed in sufficient amount with
appropriate structure), within coastal sage scrub that exhibit these conditions.
PVB are not currently known to be present within the Plan Area; however, this species was
historically observed through the mid-1980s in the Agua Amarga Reserve, Filiorum Reserve,
Portuguese Bend Reserve, Forrestal Reserve, the San Ramon Reserve (Switchbacks Property), and
Neutral Lands near Ocean Trails Reserve. Ocean locoweed has been observed in all known historic
PVB sites within the Plan Area, as well as within the Three Sisters/Barkentine Reserve, Ocean
Trails Reserve, Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente), and Ocean Trails Reserve. Deerweed
has not been mapped in the Plan Area, but it is generally less common than ocean locoweed in the
Plan Area and more common farther inland.
Conservation Goals
Protect the existing suitable habitat, and expand suitable habitat by managing for the hostplant to
support potential recolonization and future active reintroduction, and continued occupation by
PVB in suitable habitat if/when PVB butterflies become established in the Preserve.
Conservation Strategy
Areas within the Preserve that have known populations of PVB hostplants ocean locoweed
and deerweed will be managed for persistence
Protect large areas of potential habitat where larval hostplants are plentiful within the
Preserve system.
Target suitable area in the Preserve for restoration and active planting with ocean locoweed
and deerweed to establish or re-establish additional viable population(s) of PVB and to
ensure genetic diversity and protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff
retreat).
Implement species-specific management actions (e.g., invasive species removal) to
increase habitat quality and population size for PVB.
Limit impacts to suitable habitat within the Plan area, and implement habitat avoidance
and minimization measures where unavoidable impacts could occur.
As part of recommended research on this species (where grants are available), contribute
to conducting taxonomic research combining morphological, ecological, and genetic
analyses to help determine its relationship to other known populations.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. At the time of its listing as a federally endangered species in 1980, the entire range of
the subspecies was thought to be within the Plan Area; however, it has not been observed in the
Plan Area since 1983 (Arnold 1987, Mattoni 1992). A disjunct population was found at the Defense
Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San Pedro in 1994 (Mattoni 1992) [located adjacent (to the east) of the
C-48
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-38
northernmost portion of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (near Green Hills Memorial Park)], and
PVB continue to occupy this site. Despite it not being documented in the Plan Area since 1983, most
potential habitat for PVB throughout its range remains within the Plan Area. Accordingly, recovery
of the PVB may depend on natural recolonization or active reintroduction and management within
the Plan Area. PVB coverage in the Plan will provide a commitment to encourage reintroduction of
PVB into its historic range and greatly increase the likelihood of recovery and provide regulatory
assurance in the event PVB does recolonize in the Plan area. Because PVB is not currently found in
the Plan Area (but has historically occurred), it is anticipated that there would be no direct impacts to
this species until it is reintroduced or naturally recolonizes the Plan Area.
The City has committed to limiting impacts within coastal sage scrub habitats throughout the
Preserve (NCCP/HCP Table 5-1 of the Plan). For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve
where PVB or its hostplant ocean locoweed and/or deerweed exist or may occur, the impact
avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would
be followed. By including ocean locoweed and deerweed in habitat enhancement and restoration
work within the Preserve (active planting), we expect that the Plan will benefit PVB and result in
reintroduced or a natural recolonization within the Plan Area. Therefore, through the commitment
for habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, we expect the Plan to benefit PVB and that
active management and impact avoidance/mitigation measures will offset any potential impacts to
the species.
Conditions. 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 in suitable areas within coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat,
particularly in historic areas. Pre-project host plant surveys will be conducted in potential PVB
habitat prior to any Covered Project/Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and
minimization measures. If host plants are identified, a 5-foot buffer around host plants will be
avoided if feasible. If avoidance of host plants is not feasible, focused PVB surveys will be
conducted. If PVB is discovered during surveys, , the Wildlife Agencies will be provided the
opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice) to relocate any and all larvae, pupae, or adults.
Occupied PVB host plants will be avoided when possible. Occupied habitat will be defined as host
plants, including a 5-foot buffer, within a 50-foot buffer around any PVB observation. Trails will
be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
Because PVB host plants readily establish in disturbed areas, they may become established in trails
and dirt roads throughout the Plan Area. Routine trail and road maintenance may impact host plants
and potentially PVB individuals, and there will be no additional restrictions placed on trail or road
maintenance based on presence of PVB.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Take Levels. There are no known PVB populations in the Plan Area; therefore,
there is no current threat of direct impacts from Covered Projects/Activities. However, if PVB
colonize the Plan Area (naturally or through active reintroduction), the following Covered Projects
and Activities have the potential to impact PVB depending on their ultimate location: Altamira
Canyon Drainage Project, Miscellaneous Drainage Projects, Preserve Trails Plan Implementation,
C-49
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-39
Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair, Landslide Abatement Measures, Portuguese Bend Club
Remedial Grading, or Plumtree Development.
Due to the rarity of PVB, special precautions will be implemented to protect the initial new
populations introduced or found in the Preserve. With the exception of projects necessary to protect
infrastructure and habitat (e.g., drainage projects), there will be no impacts to occupied PVB
habitat until three separate populations are established. However, some project locations may
necessarily impact areas that cannot currently be predicted (e.g., Miscellaneous Drainage Projects,
RPV Trails Implementation, and Landslide Abatement Measures). If Covered Projects and
Activities are proposed near occupied PVB habitat, measures will be employed to minimize or
avoid impacts. Pre-project surveys within the entire Plan area will be conducted throughout
potential PVB habitat prior to any Covered Project and Activity to assess occupancy and determine
avoidance and minimization measures. If PVB is discovered during surveys, the Wildlife Agencies
will be notified immediately. Occupied PVB hostplants will be avoided when possible. To prevent
impacts to PVB eggs, larvae, and pupae, PVB hostplants and a 5-foot border around hostplants
will be avoided. Where PVB is detected and impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, the
Wildlife Agencies will be provided the opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice) to relocate
larvae, pupae, and/or adults.
Once three separate populations are established in the Preserve, impacts will be authorized with
appropriate minimization measures. Populations for PVB are defined as occupied habitat patches
on separate Preserve properties that show evidence of reproduction through observation of
immature PVB (e.g., eggs, larvae, or pupae). Occupied patches on the same Preserve segment can
be considered separate populations if they are separated by at least 2,000 feet on the larger
segments such as Portuguese Bend. No more than one population will be impacted annually
provided it is not the only occurrence with a particular Reserve Area. Prior to any impact, the
population boundary will be delineated based on hostplant distribution, and no more than 10% of
that boundary based on current surveys will be impacted for any Covered Project and Activity. If
impacts are temporary, PVB hostplants will be included in the restoration plans. If impacts are
permanent, equivalent offsite PVB habitat will be restored within the Preserve through the PHMP.
It is possible that habitat management actions (such as clearing for restoration, etc.) inside the
Preserve could result in the removal of very small amounts of coastal sage scrub, which may
impact some hostplants for PVB. The net benefit of these impacts will be evaluated in annual work
plans submitted to the Wildlife Agencies.
For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where PVB hostplants exists or PVB may
occur in the future, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities
(Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. Where any unavoidable impacts occur, they would
be mitigated in accordance with the NCCP/HCP. Overall, the Plan is expected to facilitate
establishment and continued support of PVB populations within the Plan Area, thereby expanding
the distribution of PVB and significantly contribute to the conservation and recovery of PVB.
The conservation required by the Plan will contribute to the viability of the species by removing
invasive plants within the Preserve, active planting of PVB hostplants, and protecting existing
C-50
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-40
populations. It is anticipated that the PHMP will enhance habitat for PVB, lead to the establishment
of this species, and promote an expansion of the species’ distribution and overall numbers within
the Preserve over time. Habitat restoration is expected to improve habitat quality and help PVB
colonize the Plan Area (naturally or through active reintroduction). PVPLC will focus habitat
enhancement and reintroduction efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by covered
projects. Prior to any habitat enhancement efforts for this species, PVPLC shall coordinate with
the City to verify that the proposed location is not anticipated to be impacted by any Covered
Projects/Activities.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs in
areas within coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats that have ocean locoweed and deerweed in
sufficient amount with appropriate structure. These areas could be subject to direct and/or indirect
effects from covered projects and activities that could occur throughout the Preserve. However,
the NCCP/HCP includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and
Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) and measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to
the Preserve (Section. 5.6 of the Plan) that would be implemented for projects in existing and/or
potential habitat for PVB to increase the likelihood that direct and indirect edge effects within the
Preserve would not occur. Hostplants for PVB will be included in the PHMP seed mix, where
appropriate, to aid in establishing more suitable habitat for this species within the Preserve. The
majority of historical point locations for PVB and ocean locoweed are included within the
Preserve. The Preserve will be managed for PVB and other coastal sage scrub associate species.
Effects on Population Viability and Species Recovery. With implementation of the Plan, very few
impacts to PVB’s hostplants (ocean locoweed and deerweed) are anticipated to occur, and where
impacts would occur they would be small and limited in scope/distribution to not substantially
affect the viability of the existing hostplant population in the Plan Area. Active management for
this species, which is the best safeguard against indirect impacts that are likely the primary threats,
would also occur under the Plan’s PHMP. The PHMP will create and enhance habitat for the
species in suitable locations throughout the Preserve and provide opportunity to expand the
population size and distribution in the Preserve to increase the regional population viability. The
Plan will encourage the active reintroduction of PVB into its historic range and may be a primary
factor in its recovery range wide. For Covered Projects/Activities located in suitable areas within
coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered
Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed to further minimize potential
impacts to PVB.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already included PVB hostplants in restoration
efforts throughout the Preserve. PVPLC will continue to monitor PVB hostplant populations and
will respond with habitat enhancement restoration, active planting and/or propagation of ocean
locoweed and deerweed as necessary. As part of recommended research on this species (where
grants are available), the Plan will contribute to conducting taxonomic research combining
morphological, ecological, and genetic analyses to help determine its relationship to other known
populations.
C-51
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-41
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
USFWS: Threatened
CDFW: Species of Special Concern, NCCP Focal Species
Background
The coastal California gnatcatcher or gnatcatcher typically occurs in or near coastal sage scrub,
which is composed of relatively low-growing, dry-season deciduous and succulent plants.
Characteristic plants of these communities include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonade
berry (Rhus integrifolia), Salvia spp., Encelia spp., and Opuntia spp. (Atwood 1990, Beyers and
Wirtz 1997, Braden et al. 1997, Weaver 1998). Gnatcatchers are found in moderately dense stands
of coastal sage scrub (Atwood 1980, 1988). Beyers and Wirtz (1997) found that nesting territories
typically have greater than 50% shrub cover and an average shrub height that exceeds 1 m (3.28
ft). The relative density of shrub cover influences gnatcatcher territory size, with territory size
increasing as shrub cover decreases, likely due to limited resource availability. Gnatcatchers will
use sparsely vegetated coastal sage scrub as long as perennial shrubs are available, although there
appears to be a minimum cover threshold below which habitat becomes unsuitable (Beyers and
Wirtz 1997).
The gnatcatcher is found on the coastal slopes of southern California, from southern Ventura
southward through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties into
Baja California, Mexico to approximately 30 degrees North latitude near El Rosario (Atwood
1980, 1990; USFWS 2000). Within its range, the distribution of coastal California gnatcatcher is
further defined by relatively narrow elevation limits (Atwood and Bolsinger 1992). Atwood and
Bolsinger (1992) found that of 324 sites occupied by the gnatcatcher between 1960 and 1990, 84%
were located below 250 m (820 ft) elevation. In general, inland populations of the gnatcatcher can
be found below 500 m (1,640 ft) elevation and coastal populations tend to be found below 250 m
(820 feet) elevation.
In 1993, the USFWS estimated that approximately 2,562 pairs of gnatcatchers remained in the
United States. Of these, 30 pairs (1.2%) occurred in Los Angeles County, 757 pairs (29.5%)
occurred in Orange County, 261 pairs (10.2%) occurred in Riverside County, and 1,514 pairs
(59.1%) occurred in San Diego County. Based on surveys conducted from 1993-1997, the
gnatcatcher population within the Plan Area was estimated at 35 to 46 pairs (Atwood et al. 1998).
This range is consistent with subsequent surveys throughout the Preserve, which documented 65
territories in 2006, 40 in 2009, and 33 in 2012 (PVPLC 2013).
The abundance of gnatcatchers at a given locale can fluctuate extensively on an annual basis
(Atwood et al. 1998, Erickson and Miner 1998, Preston et al. 1998). These fluctuations can be
relatively extreme, resulting in population sizes that double or halve in a single year (Atwood and
Bontrager 2001). Cold, wet winters appear to reduce over-wintering survivorship, and wet springs
increase gnatcatcher reproductive success through increased plant productivity and corresponding
increases in food availability (Erickson and Miner 1998, Patten and Rotenberry 1999). Drought
C-52
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-42
conditions may reduce gnatcatcher productivity, as suggested by reduced levels of nest success
and reduced number of broods during drought conditions (Grishaver et al. 1998).
Gnatcatchers were considered locally common in the mid-1940s, but they had declined
substantially in the United States by the 1960s (Atwood 1980). The direct loss of habitat reduces
the amount of breeding, sheltering and foraging area available, thereby reducing reproductive
capacity and ultimately the population size. Development within and near gnatcatcher habitat has
increased recreational use of habitats, fire frequency, waste dumping, air pollution, exotic plant
and animal species, predators, cowbird parasitism, domestic pets, and night lighting, all of which
can have adverse impacts on the quality of habitat for the gnatcatcher. In addition, changes in
global climate conditions have the potential to alter the quality and distribution of habitats suitable
for the gnatcatcher.
Large blocks of habitat on public and private lands have been secured and are being managed for
the benefit of the gnatcatcher. Long-term management will likely be required in most conserved
areas to address the numerous threats posed by the urban edge and ensure the persistence of the
species. Some long-term management actions that will address identified threats include predator
control, cowbird trapping, routine invasive vegetation removal, limited public access in areas of
high quality habitat, and control of irrigation water and other urban run-off adjacent to preserved
habitat. Monitoring of the species’ distribution over time will assist in determining the
effectiveness of management actions at reducing threats and will allow for management to be
adapted in the event that threats have not been adequately reduced.
Potential habitat for the gnatcatcher is defined as coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and
southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 1,259.0 acres of gnatcatcher habitat in the Plan Area, of
which 730.1 acres (51%) are in the Preserve and 429.3 (34%) acres are in Neutral Lands. Of the
730.1 acres of gnatcatcher habitat within the Preserve, 113.7 acres (15%) are within Previous
Mitigation Lands.
According to Table 2, surveys covering the Plan Area, there were 191 observations of gnatcatchers
within the Plan Area, of which 148 (77%) were within the Preserve and 39 (20%) were within
Neutral Lands. Of the 148 observations in the Preserve, 27 (18%) were within Previous Mitigation
Lands. Gnatcatchers have been documented in all Preserve areas except Pelican Cove and Lower
Point Vicente Property within the Vicente Bluffs Reserve, and Malaga Canyon Reserve. With the
exceptions of the Crestridge Property within the Vista Del Norte Reserve, the Filiorum Reserve,
and the Donation Parcel, each of these Preserve areas have been consistently occupied in recent
surveys (PVPLC 2013).
Conservation Goals
Ensure species persistence within the Plan Area and contribute to local metapopulation viability
and species recovery by ensuring genetic and demographic connectivity within the Plan Area.
Conservation Strategy
C-53
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-43
Conserve and manage sufficient breeding habitat in relatively large, contiguous patches,
and sufficient habitat linkages and dispersal stepping-stones between breeding areas to
maintain connectivity within the Plan Area.
Target suitable area in the Preserve for restoration and active planting with coastal sage
scrub to establish or re-establish additional viable population(s) of gnatcatcher across the
Preserve to protect against catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Restoration and/or enhancement of 250 acres of degraded and disturbed areas throughout
the Preserve will include substantial areas high quality gnatcatcher habitat, at locations
which will increase gnatcatcher carrying capacity of the Preserve, and functionality of
linkages between areas occupied by gnatcatchers.
Areas within the Preserve that have known populations of gnatcatcher will be surveyed
(standardized surveys every 3 years) and the occupied habitat will be evaluated for
potential threats including the presence of exotic plants, recreation impacts, urban edge
effects, or risk of fire.
Implement species-specific management actions (e.g., invasive species removal) to protect
or enhance habitat quality in order to increase the Preserve population size for gnatcatcher.
Limit impacts to occupied gnatcatcher habitat within the Preserve and implement habitat
avoidance and minimization measures where unavoidable impacts from Covered Projects
and Activities could occur.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. 1,159.4 of 1,259.0 acres (92%) of gnatcatcher habitat and 187 of 191 gnatcatcher
observations (98%) within the Plan Area are in either the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Although
there is no commitment for active gnatcatcher management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are
authorized. Although the Neutral Lands are expected to contribute to the overall gnatcatcher
population in the Plan Area, they are primarily recognized to contribute to functional connectivity
between Preserve areas supporting populations of the gnatcatcher and other Covered Species. The
City has committed to limiting impacts within the 730.1 acres of gnatcatcher habitat to no more
than 73.5 acres throughout the Preserve (66.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 5 acres of southern cactus
scrub, and 2 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub) (NCCP/HCP Table 5-1, Total Loss of Habitat
by City-Covered Projects and Activities). Based on the latest surveys, gnatcatchers are broadly
distributed throughout the Preserve (PVPLC 2013). For proposed impacts to habitat within the
Preserve where gnatcatcher exists or may occur, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for
Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed.
Given the broad distribution of gnatcatchers throughout the Plan Area, it is likely that Covered
Projects and Activities will impact this subspecies by loss of habitat rather than by direct loss of
individuals. With implementation of the Plan, very limited direct impacts to gnatcatcher are
anticipated of occur, and where impacts would occur they would be small and limited in
scope/distribution to not substantially affect the viability of a local population, nor the overall
population in the Plan Area. In addition, the PHMP will manage and restore habitat specifically
for the benefit of gnatcatchers, and this is anticipated to result in a net increase in occupied
C-54
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-44
gnatcatcher habitat throughout the Preserve. The PHMP will create and/or enhance up to 250 acres
of habitat for the species in locations chosen to expand the size and distribution of the gnatcatcher
population in the Preserve, thereby increasing the regional population viability. We do not
anticipate any impacts to gnatcatchers within Neutral Lands, but habitat quality may degrade over
time without active management. The remaining 99.6 acres of gnatcatcher habitat outside of the
Preserve and Neutral Lands is scattered throughout the Plan Area in fragments smaller than 5 acres
(Figure 5). Presence of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) will be monitored, and
restrictions (or other off-setting measures) will be implemented on new equestrian facilities as
required in the PHMP.
Conditions. Surveys will be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve to monitor trends in
population dynamics and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions to benefit this species.
The Preserve Manager shall regularly evaluate potential opportunities to expand and enhance
gnatcatcher habitat, and the Plan will provide a net increase in gnatcatcher habitat within the
Preserve. Implementation of species-specific management actions as part of the PHMP (e.g.,
invasive species removal) will also occur under the Plan.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential gnatcatcher habitat.
Construction for Covered Projects and Activities that may impact gnatcatchers will be scheduled
to avoid the bird breeding season (February 15-August 31). If, due to an urgent or emergency
public health or safety concern determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must
occur from February 15-August 31 within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-
project surveys will be conducted to determine nesting activity. Survey results will be submitted
to the Wildlife Agencies for review. If nesting activity is detected, then all construction activity
must occur outside of a 300-foot buffer surrounding each nest. Reductions in the nest buffer may
be possible depending on site-specific factors (e.g., topography, screening vegetation, ambient
noise levels, etc.), in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Construction noise levels should
not exceed 60 dBA Leq within the 300-foot buffer zone unless authorized by the Wildlife
Agencies. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the
nest fails. Status of the nest will be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted
to the Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. If
grubbing or other construction related activities associated with Miscellaneous Drain Repair, Palos
Verdes Drive South Road Repair, or Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente) must occur from
February 15-August 31 within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-project
surveys will be conducted to determine nesting activity. If nesting activity is detected, all
construction activity must occur outside of a 50-foot buffer surrounding each nest. Construction
noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the 50-foot buffer zone. The buffer zones and
noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. Status of the nest will
be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted to Wildlife Agencies for review
prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. Trails will be maintained, posted, and
patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into suitable habitat.
Conservation Analysis
C-55
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-45
Conservation and Take Levels. For this analysis, we use the definition of “territory” from PVPLC
(2013), which includes “any discrete location where a territorial bird (male, in the case of the
gnatcatcher) or pair was present on at least one visit.”
Because gnatcatchers are broadly distributed throughout the Plan Area, Covered Projects and
Activities are likely to impact portion(s) of a gnatcatcher use area. Most impacts will be very small
relative to the size of a pair’s use area and not expected to reduce habitat quality/resources to the
point of affecting its viability. Given the measures that will be implemented to minimize and avoid
impacts to gnatcatchers within the Preserve, we anticipate that the maximum 73.5 acres of impacts
within suitable gnatcatcher habitat will be concentrated in unoccupied habitat. The 99.6 acres of
suitable gnatcatcher habitat outside of the Preserve and Neutral Lands is scattered in small
fragments that are both unlikely to be targeted for development and unlikely to render territories
non-viable.
As a worst case scenario, this analysis assumes that impacts will be randomly distributed
throughout suitable habitat, and up to 14% of the habitat will be impacted by Covered
Projects/Activities. By extrapolating the latest survey results within the Preserve, which found
between 33 and 65 territories in the 730 acres of suitable habitat surveyed, there are between 57
and 114 territories in the total 1,259 acres of suitable habitat in the Plan Area. In a worst case
scenario, a loss of up to 14% of these territories would leave between 49 and 98 territories if we
consider only impacts from Covered Projects and Activities. Due to the nature of the individual
Covered Projects and Activities, it is not expected a loss of habitat (14%) would cause such a
commensurate decline in the gnatcatcher population.
The City and PVPLC have committed to restore or enhance a minimum of 250 acres of native
habitat within the Preserve. Although restoration will not exclusively target gnatcatcher habitat,
most of the native vegetation is dominated by shrub communities, and most of the restoration is
expected to directly benefit gnatcatchers. Gnatcatchers successfully colonized and bred following
habitat restoration at Ocean Front Estates within the Vicente Bluffs Reserve and Ocean Trails
Reserve, and similar results are expected from implementation of the PHMP. Through
coordination with the City, PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement and reintroduction efforts in
areas that are unlikely to be impacted by Covered Projects and Activities. Overall, it is anticipated
the Plan will result in a net increase in gnatcatcher habitat within the Reserve and increase the
number of gnatcatcher territories.
Active management and recovery of suitable habitat in the Preserve is considered the best
mechanism to off-set the threats from non-native plants, indirect impacts, and local minor direct
impacts from covered projects. The PHMP will create and enhance habitat for the species in
suitable locations of the Preserve and provide opportunity to expand the population size and
distribution in the Preserve to increase the regional population viability. For Covered
Projects/Activities located in gnatcatcher occupied areas, the impact avoidance/mitigation
measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed to further
minimize potential impacts to the gnatcatcher.
C-56
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-46
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs in
areas within coastal sage scrub with appropriate structure. These areas could be subject to direct
and/or indirect effects from Covered Projects and Activities. However, the NCCP/HCP includes
impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan)
and measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve (Section 5.6 of the Plan)
that will reduce direct and indirect effects on gnatcatchers and their occupied habitat within the
Preserve. Restoration will occur throughout designated Preserve areas. Restoration and/or
enhancement and management of 250 acres of coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and
southern coastal bluff scrub will benefit the gnatcatcher by maintaining and creating suitable
habitat within the Preserve. Preserve areas will subsequently indirectly benefit gnatcatchers
elsewhere on the Peninsula.
Effects on Population Viability and Species’ Recovery. Because vegetation restoration under the
PHMP will be targeted to provide suitable breeding habitat in important locations, it is expected
to benefit local gnatcatcher populations, increasing the overall number and distribution of
gnatcatchers in the Reserve. This will increase the regional (i.e., Peninsula-wide) population
viability. Conversely covered projects and activities are generally expected to have minor effects
on gnatcatchers and not substantially affect local populations. Cowbird parasitism will be
monitored and managed within the Preserve, also improving the conservation of the species. For
Covered Projects/Activities located in suitable areas within occupied gnatcatcher habitat, the
impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan)
would be followed to further avoid/minimize potential impacts to the gnatcatcher.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already initiated habitat restoration throughout the
Plan Area that has and will continue to benefit gnatcatchers, and they have adjusted the restoration
targets in response to a recent fire. PVPLC will continue to monitor gnatcatcher populations and
will respond with habitat enhancement restoration, active planting and/or propagation of coastal
sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub habitat as necessary. PVPLC
also coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies and other regional entities performing monitoring and
adaptive management activities related to California gnatcatcher conservation. This will ensure
that efforts in Palos Verdes will be integrated with results from other efforts in coastal southern
California.
C-57
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-47
Figure 5. Distribution of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat within the Plan Area.
Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)
USFWS: No status
CDFW: Species of Special Concern, NCCP Focal Species
Background
The cactus wren is a resident species from southern California south to southern Baja California,
southern Nevada, southwestern Utah, western and south central Arizona, southern New Mexico,
and central Texas south to Mexico (Hamilton et al. 2011). The coastal population is found in arid
parts of westward-draining slopes from San Diego County northwest to Ventura County. Occupied
areas occur on mesas and lower slopes of the coastal ranges below elevations of approximately
460 meters (1,290 feet). Coastal populations of cactus wrens occur in stands of coastal sage scrub
(or similar scrubland types such as maritime succulent scrub, or sometimes delineated as cactus
C-58
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-48
scrub) dominated by thickets of cholla (Opuntia prolifera) and prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis,
Opuntia oricola). This species nests only in cactus patches at least 1-3 feet tall. Unoccupied
potential habitat may be recolonized in future years.
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 1993). Removing observations outside of the Plan Area from
Atwood et al. (1997), the cactus wren population was estimated at 47 to 58 pairs from 1993 to
1997. In the Plan Area, there were 279 observations of cactus wrens, of which 189 (67%) were
within the Preserve and 71 (25%) were within Neutral Lands. These surveys documented cactus
wrens throughout the Preserve except the Vicente Bluffs Reserve (Ocean Front Estates Property,
Pelican Cove, and Lower Point Vicente) Reserve, Crestridge Property (Vista Del Norte Reserve),
and the Malaga Canyon Reserve. With the exception of the Abalone Cove Reserve, each of
Reserve Area has been consistently occupied in recent surveys (PVPLC 2013). Although variation
in previous survey methodology makes comparisons difficult, it appears that the cactus wren
population size in the Preserve dropped by 2006 (11 pairs and 41 additional adults) and 2009 (18
pairs excluding Alta Vicente Reserve and Upper Filiorum within the Filiorum Reserve) but
recovered by 2012 (48 territories; PVPLC 2013). Because the surveys from the 2000s were not
designed to distinguish mating pairs, they are poor approximations of carrying capacity for the
Plan Area, and Atwood et al. (1997) is believed to be the best data to estimate cactus wren pair
abundance for the purposes of the conservation analysis.
The primary threats to the cactus wren are habitat loss and fragmentation from urbanization,
agricultural development, and wildfires. Increasing habitat fragmentation and isolation of
populations decreases dispersal ability and inter-population connections of the cactus wren and
reduces the overall genetic viability of the species (Ogden 1993). Cactus wrens that are confined
to isolated patches of habitat in urban areas are subject to increased levels of predation pressures
as reductions in the populations of keystone predators are replaced by higher population levels of
smaller predators and domestic animals (e.g., Crooks and Soulé 1999). As a result of invasive plant
competition, grazing, weather patterns, and other natural and human-influenced disturbances, the
reestablishment of cactus patches essential to this species may take many years. Intense fires may
kill cactus plants and eliminate habitat for the cactus wren for extended periods of time. This
species is therefore especially vulnerable to stochastic events, especially wildland fires which are
the chief limiting factor in the distribution of cacti in southern California (Rea and Weaver 1990,
Benson 1969).
Potential habitat for the cactus wren in the Plan Area is defined as coastal sage scrub, southern
cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 1,259.0 acres of cactus wren habitat in
the Plan Area, of which 730.1 acres (51%) are in the Preserve and 429.3 acres (34%) are in Neutral
Lands. Of the 730.1 acres of cactus wren habitat within the Preserve, 113.7 acres (15%) are within
Previous Mitigation Lands. Due to the cactus wren’s specific micro-habitat requirements (e.g.,
extensive cacti patches with individual cactus being at least 1-3 feet tall), much of the native
shrublands (i.e., coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub) in the
Plan Area are not suitable for occupation by cactus wrens.
C-59
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-49
Conservation Goals
Ensure this species’ persistence within the Plan Area by maintaining habitat patches that support
cactus wren breeding as well as connectivity for dispersal between occupied patches. As part of
the coastal sage scrub restoration requirement, incorporate planting of cactus to foster
establishment of additional habitat suitable, throughout the Preserve, for occupation by cactus
wrens.
Conservation Strategy
Conserve existing large populations of cactus wrens and all coastal sage scrub, southern
cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub habitats with patches of tall cacti (at least 1-
3 feet) in the Plan Area.
Conserve and manage sufficient breeding habitat in relatively large, contiguous patches,
and sufficient habitat linkages and dispersal stepping-stones between breeding areas to
maintain connectivity within the Plan Area.
Target suitable area in the Preserve for restoration and active planting with cacti (cholla,
prickly pear) to establish or re-establish populations of cactus wren to protect against
catastrophic events (e.g., fire, landslides, bluff retreat).
Create or enhance cactus habitat to increase the carrying capacity (population size) and
distribution of cactus wrens across the Reserve.
Include cacti in portions of the 250 acres of restoration and/or enhancement that is required
under the Plan to increase the size of breeding populations and functionality of linkages.
Cactus wren monitoring will be performed every 3 years as part of the coastal California
gnatcatcher monitoring.
Remove invasive species which threaten cactus habitat; particularly in proximity to cactus
wren populations.
Limit impacts to occupied habitat within the Preserve and implement habitat avoidance
and minimization measures where unavoidable impacts will occur.
• Retain mature cacti stands in fuel management areas to provide potential nesting and
dispersal habitat for cactus wren. Taller (1-3 feet) cactus that cannot be avoided should be
salvaged where feasible and transplanted to suitable areas within the Preserve.
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.
As part of recommended research on this species, if funding or collaborations allow,
contribute to conducting taxonomic research combining morphological, ecological, and
genetic analyses to help determine its relationship to other regional populations.
Coverage Determination
Coverage Determination. Covered
Rationale. 1,159.4 of 1,259.0 acres (92%) of cactus wren habitat and 260 of 279 cactus wren
observations (93%) within the Plan Area are in either the Preserve or Neutral Lands. Although
C-60
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-50
there is no commitment for active cactus wren management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are
authorized. The City has committed to limiting impacts within the 730.1 acres of cactus wren
habitat to no more than 73.5 acres throughout the Preserve (66.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 5
acres of southern cactus scrub, and 2 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub) (NCCP/HCP Table 5-
1).
Based on the latest surveys, cactus wrens are broadly distributed throughout the Preserve (PVPLC
2013). Given the broad distribution, it is likely that Covered Activities will impact habitat used by
this species; however, cactus wren habitat is concentrated in the Preserve and Neutral Lands, and
impacts from Covered Projects and Activities will not exceed 73.5 acres. For Covered
Projects/Activities located in suitable areas within occupied cactus wren habitat, the impact
avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would
be followed to further minimize potential impacts to the cactus wren.
Active management for this species would also occur under the Plan’s PHMP. The PHMP will
create and enhance cactus in suitable locations in order to expand the population size and
distribution of cactus wrens in the Preserve. This in turn will increase the regional population
viability. By also including cactus in habitat restoration plant palettes, the Plan will further provide
potential cactus wren habitat throughout the Preserve. The remaining 99.6 acres of cactus wren
habitat outside of the Preserve and Neutral Lands is scattered throughout the Plan Area in
fragments smaller than 5 acres and generally considered to be of low value to cactus wrens (Figure
5).
Conditions. Surveys will be conducted every 3 years by the Preserve Manager within the Preserve
to monitor trends in population dynamics and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions that
may benefit this species. The Preserve Manager shall evaluate potential opportunities to expand
and enhance cactus wren habitat, and the expectation is that the Plan will increase cactus wren
habitat within the Preserve. Implementation of species-specific management actions as part of the
PHMP (e.g., invasive species removal, cactus planting) will also occur under the Plan, which will
protect and enhance existing habitat.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential habitat for the cactus wren.
Construction or constructions related activities for Covered Projects and Activities that may impact
cactus wrens will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding season (February 15-August 31) and to
avoid or minimize direct impacts to mature cactus (i.e., greater than 1 foot in height), and
preferentially avoid the most mature cactus in a particular stand). If, due to an urgent or emergency
public health or safety concern determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must
occur from February 15-August 31 and within 100 feet of any coastal sage scrub and cactus wren
pre-project surveys will be conducted to determine nesting activity. Pre-project surveys will
consist of 3 survey days over a one-week period, including one survey within 3 days of
construction. Survey results will be submitted to the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies. If
nesting activity is detected, then all construction activity must occur outside of a 100-foot
avoidance buffer/barrier zone to attenuate noise surrounding each nest. No birds shall be disturbed
or taken. Construction noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the buffer zone. The
buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge. The status of the nest
C-61
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-51
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.
Conservation Analysis
Conservation and Take Levels. Atwood et al. (1997) is used to estimate cactus wren abundance
within the Plan Area for the purposes of this analysis as it is the most recent comprehensive survey
effort of lands throughout the Plan Area. More recent data are available for within Preserve areas,
but they were not collected in a manner that provides meaningful demographic comparisons.
Because of their broad distribution throughout the Plan Area, Covered Projects and Activities may
impact occupied cactus wren habitat. Although true territory sizes are typically smaller, for the
purposes of estimating impacts, this analysis assumes that cactus wren pairs are evenly spaced
within suitable habitat throughout the Plan Area. This assumption produces an estimate of between
12 (730 acres of habitat in the Preserve/60 pairs) and 15 (730 acres/47 pairs) acres of territory size
based on the data in Atwood et al. (1997). Thus, while most impacts to cactus from individual
projects are very small, and there would be a concerted effort to avoid the more mature (taller)
cactus individuals, and thus it is unlikely a Covered Project or Activity would to lead to the direct
loss of a viable territory, the cumulative loss of cactus wren habitat within the Plan Area may
reduce carry capacity of the local environment and lead to an overall reduction in the number of
pairs. Given the inter-annual variability in cactus wren distribution within the Plan Area, it is not
possible to directly measure the long-term impact of Covered Projects and Activities on cactus
wren pairs. Using the estimate of territory size, this analysis assumes no more than six (6) pairs
will be lost due to the loss of 73.5 acres of cactus wren habitat in the Preserve, and up to an
additional eight (8) pairs could be lost due to impacts to 99.6 acres of cactus wren habitat outside
of the Preserve and Neutral Lands. Thus, this analysis estimates that a maximum of 14 pairs could
be lost as a result of Covered Projects and Activities. This estimate assumes the smallest recorded
average territory size, 12 acres, which would predict 105 pairs (1,259 acres of cactus wren
habitat/12 acres per pair) within the Plan Area. By this reasoning, up to 13% of the cactus wren
pairs in the Plan Area could be lost as a result of Covered Projects and Activities.
The City and PVPLC have committed to restore and/or enhance a minimum of 250 acres of native
habitat within the Preserve. Although restoration will not exclusively target cactus habitat, most
C-62
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-52
of the native vegetation is dominated by shrub communities, and most of the restoration will
directly benefit cactus wrens. By including cactus in habitat restoration plant pallets, PVPLC will
further the recovery of cactus wren breeding habitat. Following the habitat restoration at Alta
Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente) and Portuguese Bend Reserve, cactus wrens successfully
colonized and bred, and similar results are expected from implementation of the PHMP elsewhere
in the Preserve. Through coordination with the City, PVPLC will focus habitat enhancement and
reintroduction efforts in areas that are unlikely to be impacted by future covered projects. Overall,
it is anticipated the Plan result in a net increase in cactus wren habitat within the Plan Area and a
corresponding increase in cactus wren pairs.
Preserve Configuration Issues. Within the Plan Area, potential habitat for this species occurs in
areas within coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub with
appropriate cacti structure. These areas could be subject to direct and/or indirect effects from
covered projects and activities that could occur throughout the Preserve. However, the NCCP/HCP
includes impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5
of the Plan) and measures for Covered Projects and Activities adjacent to the Preserve (Section
5.6 of the Plan) that would be implemented for projects in suitable habitat for cactus wren; these
will reduce direct and indirect effects within the Preserve. Restoration will occur throughout
designated Reserve Areas. Restoration of shrub communities will occur throughout the Preserve,
which will increase carrying capacity for cactus wrens by providing foraging habitat. Targeted
restoration that includes cactus will maintain or expand nesting habitat for cactus wrens. The
configuration of the Preserve will maintain connectivity between potential habitat areas on the
Peninsula for the cactus wren.
Effects on Population Viability and Species Recovery. The cactus wren population is expected to
increase as a result of an increase of suitable habitat restored during the permit period. With
implementation of the Plan, few impacts to cactus wren are anticipated of occur, and where impacts
would occur they would be minimized to not substantially affect the viability of the existing
territory. Additionally, the PHMP will create and enhance habitat for the species in suitable
locations throughout the Preserve and provide opportunity to expand the population size and
distribution in the Preserve to increase the regional population. For Covered Project/Activities
located in suitable areas within occupied cactus wren habitat, the impact avoidance/mitigation
measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed to further
minimize potential impacts to cactus wren. The conservation actions included in the Plan are
therefore considered to maintain and subsequently improve the viability of the cactus wren
population by creating, restoring, and enhancing habitat within the Preserve.
Adaptive Management Program. PVPLC has already initiated cactus wren habitat restoration and
control of invasive plants in the Preserve. Monitoring of these actions, particularly in regard to the
number and distribution of cactus wrens, will guide decisions for future restoration/enhancement
actions to benefit cactus wren and other covered species. As part of recommended research on this
species (where grants are available), PVPLC will participate in taxonomic research combining
morphological, ecological, and genetic analyses to help determine its relationship to other known
populations. PVPLC also coordinates with the Wildlife Agencies and other regional entities
performing monitoring and adaptive management activities related to cactus wren conservation.
C-63
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-53
This will ensure that efforts in Palos Verdes will be integrated with results from other efforts in
coastal southern California.
C-64
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-54
Literature Cited
Arnold, R.A. 1987. Decline of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly in California. Biological
Conservation 40: 203-217.
Arnold, R.A. 2009. Report of El Segundo Blue Monitoring Activities in 2009 at the Los Angeles
International Airport. Prepared for Los Angeles World Airport and the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Arnold, R.A. 2014. Report: Los Angeles International Airport El Segundo blue butterfly 2013.
Prepared for Environmental Management Division Los Angeles World Airports.
Atwood, J. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western
Birds 11:65-78.
Atwood, J. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Manomet
Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts.
Atwood, J. and J. S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California gnatcatchers in the
United States. Journal of Field Ornithology 63(2):159-168.
Atwood, J. L. and D. R. Bontrager. 2001. California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In The
Birds of North America, No. 574 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America,
Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Atwood, J.L., D.R. Bontrager, M. Fugagli, R. Hirsch, D. Kamada, M. Madden, C, Reynolds, S.
Tsai, and P.A. Bowler. 1997. 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., Tsai, S., Reynolds, C., and Fugagli, M. 1998. Distribution and population size of
California gnatcatchers on the Palos Verde Peninsula, 1993-1997. Western Birds 29: 340-
350.
Benson, L. 1969. The Native Cacti of California. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA.
Beyers, J. and Wirtz, W. 1997. Vegetative characteristics of coastal sage scrub sites used by
California gnatcatchers: implications for management in a fire-prone ecosystem.
Proceedings: Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats Conference, Nov.
13-16, 1995. Coeur d’ Alene, Idaho.
C-65
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-55
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
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
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 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.
CNDDB 2003. California Natural Diversity Database.
CNDDB 2010. California Natural Diversity Database.
Crooks, K.R. and Soule, M.E. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a
fragmented system. Nature 400: 563-566.
Erickson, R., and Miner, K. 1998. Six years of synchronous California gnatcatcher population
fluctuations at two locations in coastal Orange County, California. Western Birds 29: 333-
339.
Gilpin, M.E. and Soulé, M.E. 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.
Grishaver, M., Mock, P. and Preston, K. 1998. Breeding behavior of the California gnatcatcher in
southwestern San Diego County, California. Western Birds 29: 299-322.
Hamilton, R.A., Proudfoot, G.A., Sherry, D.A. and Johnson, S. 2011. Cactus Wren
(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.).
Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/558.
Henrickson J. 1979. Crossosoma californicum. Madroño 26: 100–101.
C-66
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-56
Junak, S., Ayers, T. Scott, R., Wilken, D. and Young, D. 1995. A flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa
Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 397 pp.
Longcore, T., and K. H. Osborne. 2015. Final Report for 2014 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly adult
surveys on Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. Los Angeles: The Urban
Wildlands Group (Defense Logistics Agency Agreement # N62473-12-2-2101).
Mattoni, R. 1990. The endangered El Segundo blue butterfly. Journal of Research on
the Lepidoptera 29: 277-304.
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., Longcore, T., George, J. and Rich, C. 1997. Down Memory Lane: The Los Angeles
Coastal Prairie and Its Vernal Pools. Poster presented at 2nd Interface Between Ecology
and Land Development in California (Occidental College, Los Angeles, California, April
18-19).
McArthur, E.D. and Sanderson, S.C. 1984. Distribution, systematics, and evolution of
Chenopodiaceae: an overview. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of Atriplex
and Related Chenopods (eds A.R. Tiedmann, E.D. McArthur, H.C. Stutz, R. Stevens &
K.L. Johnson), pp. 14–24. General Technical Report INT172. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment station, Provo, Utah.
McCabe, S.W. 2013. Dudleya, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora,
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=80220, accessed on Mar 10 2015
Moran, R.V. 1995. The subspecies of Dudleya virens (Crassulaceae). Haseltonia 3: 1-9.
Nee, M.H. 2013. Lycium, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora,
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=61563, accessed on Mar 10, 2015.
[Ogden] Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1999. Palos Verdes Peninsula Subarea NCCP
Program Phase I Summary Report. January. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
56 pp.
[Ogden] Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1993. Population viability analysis of the
coastal cactus wren within the MSCP study area. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 19
pp.
C-67
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-57
[PVPLC] Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. 2013. Comprehensive managment and
monitoring report 2010-2012 for the Rancho Palos Verdes draft Natural Communities
Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan.
Patten, M. and Rotenberry, J. 1999. The proximate effects of rainfall on clutch size of the
California gnatcatcher. The Condor 101: 876-880.
Perkins, E. M. and Emmel, J. F.. 1977. A new subspecies of Glaucopsyche lygdamus from
California (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proclamations of the Entomological Society of
Washington 79: 468-471.
Preston, K., Mock, P.,Grishaver, M., Bailey, E. and King, D. 1998. California gnatcatcher
territorial behavior. Western Birds 29: 242-257.
Preston, R.E and Shevock, J.R. 2013. Crossosoma, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora,
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=21075, accessed on Mar 10, 2015.
[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1992a. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 640596.
Collector: Steven A. Junak. June 3.
[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1992b. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 597460.
Collector: Angelika Brinkmann-Busi. May 29.
[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1991. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 628645. Collector:
Steven A. Junak. July 31.
[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 1996. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 641202. Collector:
Steven A. Junak. April 3.
Rea, A.M., and Weaver, K.L. 1990. The taxonomy, distribution, and status of coastal California
cactus wrens. Western Birds 21: 81–126.
Reiser, C.H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA: Aquafir Press. 180 pp.
Schenk, H.J. and Ferren, W.R. Jr. 2013. Suaeda, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora,
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=45855, accessed on Mar 10, 2015.
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Listing the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly as an
Endangered Species with Critical Habitat; Final Rule. Federal Register 45:44939-44942.
C-68
APPENDIX B Species-Specific Conservation Analyses
and Conditions for Coverage
B-58
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
Determination of threatened status for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher; Final Rule.
Federal Register 58:16742-16757.
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the El Segundo blue butterfly
(Euphilotes battoides allyni). Portland, Oregon. 67 pp.
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
Final determination of critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher; Final Rule.
Federal Register 65:63680-63743.Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication No. 1 (fifth
edition). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. vi + 338 pp.
Wetherwax, M., Shultz, L.M and Wilken, D.H. 2013. Aphanisma, in Jepson Flora Project
(eds.) Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_IJM.pl?tid=13611, accessed
on Mar 10, 2015.
Wyatt, R. 1983. Pollinator-plant interactions and the evolution of breeding systems; in Pollination
biology (ed.) L Real (Orlando: Academic Press) pp 51-95.
C-69
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
June 22, 2004 Staff Report to Finance Advisory Committee P. C-01
May 26, 2004 Staff Report to Finance Advisory Committee P. C-14
Management Budget Analysis P. C-33
Estimated Stewardship Costs and Endowment Needs for Property
Subject to a Conservation Easement P. C-42
C-70
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-1
C-71
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-2
C-72
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-3
C-73
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-4
C-74
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-5
C-75
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-6
C-76
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-7
C-77
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-8
C-78
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-9
C-79
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-10
C-80
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-11
C-81
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-12
C-82
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-13
C-83
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-14
C-84
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-15
C-85
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-16
C-86
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-17
C-87
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-18
C-88
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-19
C-89
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-20
C-90
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-21
C-91
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-22
C-92
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-23
C-93
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-24
C-94
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-25
C-95
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-26
C-96
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-27
C-97
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-28
C-98
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-29
C-99
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-30
C-100
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-31
C-101
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-32
C-102
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-33
Management Budget Analysis
The NCCP Subarea Plan approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in August 2004
included a discussion (Section 4.3) of funding and financing for the proposed Subarea
Plan. The discussion included estimates on the cost to acquire the properties needed
to complete the proposed Preserve Design (Alternative C) and the costs of ongoing
restoration and management. In addition, the City of Rancho Palos estimated additional
costs to the City (new Assessment District fees as a result of owning acquired open
space and reduction of Tax Increment Revenue) and potential cost savings to the City
as a result of not having to perform habitat restoration as mitigation for the various City
projects covered by the NCCP. The supporting documentation of this previous financial
analysis was contained in Appendix C of the 2004 Subarea Plan.
The Final NCCP Subarea Plan has been updated to reflect a different proposed
Preserve Design (Alternative D) and actual management costs. As a result, the funding
and financing discussion of the Plan has been clarified and updated (Chapter 8).
Provided below is a summary of the differences between the 2004 and current funding
and financing discussion along with the supporting materials.
Preserve Acquisition Costs
The 2004 Plan proposed the acquisition of 684.5 acres of privately held open space (the
422.3-acre Portuguese Bend property, the 43.8-acre Agua Amarga property and the
218.4-acre Upper Filiorum property) to complete the Preferred Preserve Design
(Alternative C). The Plan estimated that the cost of acquiring this open space would be
between $22.3 and $31.3 million.
The preferred alternative in the current plan (Alternative D) is the same as Alternative C
in the 2004 Plan except that 27 acres of the 218.4-acre Upper Filiorum property and 40
acres of the former RDA Archery Range property have been excluded and 61 acres of
open space in Malaga Canyon have been added. All the properties needed to complete
Alternative D have been acquired and the costs of acquiring said properties are as
follows:
Portuguese Bend $16.845 million
Agua Amarga $680,000
Upper Filiorum $6.5 million
Malaga canyon $1.115 million
C-103
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-34
The total cost of acquiring the open space to complete Alternative D was $25,140,000.
Preserve Management Costs
Based on a PAR Analysis that was prepared by the City and PVPLC, that is included in
Exhibit C-1, the 2004 Plan estimated that the total annual cost of managing the
proposed Preserve would amount to $311,949 per year with $220,049 being the
responsibility of the PVPLC and $91,899 being the responsibility of the City.
Since active management of the Preserve by the City and PVPLC began in 2006, the
actual costs of managing the preserve began to be tracked by both the PVPLC in the
City. An updated Preserve Management Budget was prepared that is attached as
Exhibit C-2. Based on the updated budget, the total cost of managing the Preserve is
now estimated at $1,785,438 per year, with the PVPLC contributing $250,019 and the
City contributing $1,535,419. The bulk of the costs, $1,305,669 ($19,460 for PVPLC and
$1,286,209 for the City) go toward public access and land ownership while the
remaining $478,769 ($230,559 for PVPLC and $249,210 for the City) go toward
conservation. This City’s cost for conservation includes $144,300 of funding provided to
PVPLC annually.
City Costs
As described in attached Exhibit C-1, in 2004, the City estimated its annual cost of
having to pay annual Landslide Abatement District assessments since a majority of the
property to be acquired for the proposed Preserve would be located in two separate
Abatement Districts. The City estimated its annual assessment cost as $25,126 per
year. In addition, since some of the property to be acquired was located in the City’s
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) area, the City estimated that there would be a loss of
$25,000 of tax increment revenue to the City.
In August 2016, the City’s Landslide Abatement Assessments were calculated at
$84,000 per year. These assessment costs tend to increase on an annual basis. In
2010, the City’s RDA was abolished as a result of state law. Therefore, there is no
longer any loss of tax increment revenue to report. However, since one of the former
RDA-owned parcels (Abalone Cove Park) that reverted to City ownership is in the
Preserve and located within a Landslide Abatement District, the City will be responsible
for the annual assessment costs of this parcel.
City Mitigation Savings
C-104
APPENDIX C
Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-35
As described in the attached Exhibit C-1, as a result of the mitigation that the Plan is
providing the City for covered City projects, it will not be necessary for the City to
conduct the typical re-vegetation mitigation on a project by project basis. This was
identified as a major long-term cost savings to the City in 2004. Specifically, it was
estimated that over the life of the Plan (50 years) the City would save $3,566,250 in
habitat restoration costs and $1,575,000 in restoration plan preparation/monitoring costs
for a total savings of $5,141,250. The habitat restoration savings was calculated by
applying the restoration cost of $25,000/acre identified in the Plan to the acres of
restoration needed (142.65 acres) to mitigate for the loss of CSS and Grassland
(mitigated at 0.5:1) for all the City covered projects identified in the Plan ($25,000 x
142.65 acres (95.50 acres of CSS plus 47.15 acres of grassland). The restoration
plan/monitoring savings was calculated by applying the estimated habitat restoration
plan preparation/monitoring cost per City covered project ($75,000) to the number of
covered City projects (21).
The current Plan includes updated habitat restoration costs, an updated list of Covered
City Projects and updated mitigation acreages for Covered City Projects. In addition, the
current Plan does not identify a mitigation ratio for Grassland or CSS losses. Based on
this updated information, it is now estimated that over the life of the Plan (50 years) the
City would save $6,375,000 in habitat restoration costs and $1,350,000 in restoration
plan preparation/monitoring costs for a total savings of $7,725,000. The updated
habitat restoration savings was calculated by applying the updated restoration cost of
$50,000/acre to the number of mitigation acres that the City would have to provide to
mitigate the total CSS loss (127.5 acres) that would result by implementing all of the
Covered City Projects identified in the Plan ($50,000 x 127.5 acres = $6,375,000). The
restoration plan/monitoring savings was calculated by applying the same estimated
habitat restoration plan preparation/monitoring cost per City covered project of $75,000
to the updated number of covered City projects (18).
C-105
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-41
Exhibit C-2: ANNUAL COSTS
During Permit
Term
Post Permit
Term*
Costs Related to Fulfilling Conservation Requirements
BIOTIC SURVEYS Specifications unit number cost / unit interval PVPLC City FY 16-
17 Costs Total PVPLC City Total
PVPLC Staff biologists, project mgrs. hours 200 $90 1 $18,000 $0 $18,000 $0 $0 $0
Plant Ecologist Restoration Ecologist hours 330 $90 3 $9,900 $0 $9,900 $0 $0 $0
Wildlife Biologist outside expert hours 220 $90 3 $6,600 $0 $6,600 $0 $0 $0
Entomologist outside expert hours 80 $75 3 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Conservation Director PVPLC staff hours 120 $75 1 $9,000 $0 $9,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $45,500 $0 $45,500 $0 $0 $0
HABITAT RESTORATION Specifications unit number cost / unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Misc. City Restoration Activities annual budget n/a n/a n/a n/a $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000
AA/Open Space Manager (15%) permit monitoring/management hr n/a 150.15 n/a $0 $43,784 $43,784 $0 $43,784 $43,784
Recreation Specialist (10%) permit monitoring/management hr n/a 108.67 n/a $0 $21,126 $21,126 $0 $21,126 $21,126
Site Analysis field survey & report hours 16 $90 1 $1,440 $0 $1,440 $0 $0 $0
Restoration Plan plan/report hours 200 $90 3 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0
Organic Debris Removal 5 acres clearing acre 5 $1,200 1 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0
Soil Amendments misc. yard 5 $75 1 $375 $0 $375 $0 $0 $0
Straw for erosion control bale 50 $10 1 $500 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0
Seed Collection native seed hours 200 $75 1 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0
Seed Purchase native seed lb 45 $50 1 $2,250 $0 $2,250 $0 $0 $0
Plant Procurement native plants 4" pot 1,500 $5 1 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $0 $0 $0
Revegetation flag plant locations hours 24 $40 1 $960 $0 $960 $0 $0 $0
Revegetation plant installation hours 324 $35 1 $11,340 $0 $11,340 $0 $0 $0
Seed Installation hydroseeding acre 5 $6,000 1 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0
Irrigation System DriWater/Irrigation acre 5 $12,000 1 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $0
Irrigation water and meter Cal Water cubic foot 2,500 $4 1 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0
Exotic Plant Control hand removal, or backpack spray hours 1,000 $35 1 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0
Exotic Plant Control herbicide gallon 10 $100 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
C-106
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-42
Subtotal $187,365 $94,910 $282,275 $0 $94,910 $94,910
SITE CONSTRUCTION/MAINT Specifications unit number cost / unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Salvage Plant Materials hours 40 $28 1 $1,120 $0 $1,120 $0 $0 $0
Salvage /stockpile Topsoil hours 40 $28 1 $1,120 $0 $1,120 $0 $0 $0
Fence, Protective Plastic high visibility feet 2,000 $1 3 $833 $0 $833 $0 $0 $0
Fence - Installed chain link for plant yard feet 200 $50 30 $333 $0 $333 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $3,406 $0 $3,406 $0 $0 $0
HABITAT MAINTENANCE Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Erosion Control slope stabilization hours 20 $28 1 $560 $0 $560 $0 $0 $0
Straw erosion control bale 50 $10 1 $500 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0
Exotic Plant Control hand removal , weed whip or herbicide app hours 1,760 $35 1 $61,600 $0 $61,600 $0 $0 $0
Exotic Plant Control herbicide gallon 20 $100 1 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Other misc. supplies item 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $67,160 $0 $67,160 $0 $0 $0
FIELD EQUIPMENT Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
GPS, Rover & Base Unit gps w. mapping capability item 2 $1,000 5 $400 $0 $400 $0 $0 $0
Vehicle pickup truck item 0.5 $16,000 5 $1,600 $0 $1,600 $0 $0 $0
Vehicle mileage mile 12,000 $0.55 1 $6,600 $0 $6,600 $0 $0 $0
Vehicle Insurance insurance year 0.5 $3,500 1 $1,750 $0 $1,750 $0 $0 $0
Camera 35mm lens digital item 1 $350 5 $70 $0 $70 $0 $0 $0
Chemical Sprayer backpack sprayer item 1 $200 3 $67 $0 $67 $0 $0 $0
Other misc. supplies item 1 $2,047 1 $2,047 $0 $2,047 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $12,534 $0 $12,534 $0 $0 $0
VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Volunteer Coordinator coordination, outdoor workdays hours 300 $35 1 $10,500 $0 $10,500 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $10,500 $0 $10,500 $0 $0 $0
REPORTING Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Database Management data input hours 80 $80 1 $6,400 $0 $6,400 $0 $0 $0
GIS/CAD Management data management hours 40 $90 1 $3,600 $0 $3,600 $0 $0 $0
Photodocumentation field survey hours 80 $65 1 $5,200 $0 $5,200 $0 $0 $0
Agency Report annual report hours 60 $90 1 $5,400 $0 $5,400 $0 $0 $0
C-107
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-43
Monitoring Reports monitoring documentation hours 120 $90 1 $10,800 $0 $10,800 $0 $0 $0
Report Production labor hours 20 $60 1 $1,200 $0 $1,200 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $32,600 $0 $32,600 $0 $0 $0
OFFICE MAINTENANCE Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Administrative operations hours 80 $90 1 $3,240 $0 $3,240 $0 $0 $0
Telephone Charges, Annual phone charges item 2 $600 1 $600 $0 $600 $0 $0 $0
Office Supplies, Year stationery item 1 $100 1 $100 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0
Office Supplies, Year supplies item 1 $200 1 $200 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0
Copier copier item 0.5 $500 8 $31 $0 $31 $0 $0 $0
Fax Machine fax item 0.5 $400 5 $40 $0 $40 $0 $0 $0
Deskjet Printer printer item 1 $500 6 $83 $0 $83 $0 $0 $0
Other misc. supplies item 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $5,294 $0 $5,294 $0 $0 $0
OPERATIONS Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Audit CPA audit item 0.5 $11,000 1 $5,500 $0 $5,500 $0 $0 $0
Contracts produce contracts hours 50 $80 1 $4,000 $0 $4,000 $0 $0 $0
Conservation Easement Monitoring* $0 $0 $0 $22,030 $0 $22,030
Other misc. items item 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $10,500 $0 $10,500 $22,030 $0 $22,030
ENDOWMENT* Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Non-Wasting Endowment $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0
City Payment to PVPLC annual rate n/a n/a n/a n/a ($144,300) $144,300 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal ($144,300) $144,300 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL: COSTS RELATED TO FULLFILLING
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS $230,559 $249,210 $479,769 $22,030 $94,910 $116,940
COSTS RELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND LAND OWNERSHIP
PUBLIC SERVICES Specifications unit number Cost / unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Public Safety** Enforcement/Patrol contract 80hrs/wk n/a 1 $0 $567,000 $567,000 $0 $567,000 $567,000
AA/Open Space Manager (50%) personnel hr n/a 150.15 n/a $0 $145,946 $145,946 $0 $145,946 $145,946
C-108
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-44
Recreation Specialist (50%) personnel hr n/a 108.67 n/a $0 $105,628 $105,628 $0 $105,628 $105,628
PT OSM Staff Positions personnel n/a ~85 hrs/wk n/a n/a $0 $113,900 $113,900 $0 $113,900 $113,900
Reporting Line/Phone Service 24-7 call service n/a n/a n/a n/a $0 $2,400 $2,400 $0 $2,400 $2,400
Docent Training meetings hours 40 $25 1 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
Interpretive Literature labor hours 40 $45 1 $1,800 $0 $1,800 $0 $0 $0
Interpretive Literature copy page 2,000 $0.20 1 $400 $0 $400 $0 $0 $0
Regulatory Literature printing costs n/a n/a n/a n/a $0 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $2,500
Community Outreach meetings hours 80 $40 1 $3,160 $0 $3,160 $0 $0 $0
Other Misc. Operating supplies n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,000 $31,000 $32,000 $0 $31,000 $31,000
Subtotal $7,360 $968,374 $975,734 $0 $968,374 $968,374
GENERAL MAINTENANCE Specifications unit number cost/unit interval PVPLC City Total PVPLC City Total
Maintenance Superintendent (5%) personnel n/a n/a 166.94 hr $0 $16,227 $16,227 $0 $16,227 $16,227
Maintenance Supervisor (5%) personnel n/a n/a 125.32 hr $0 $12,181 $12,181 $0 $12,181 $12,181
Maintenance Worker (5%) personnel n/a n/a 83.69 hr $0 $8,135 $8,135 $0 $8,135 $8,135
Vehicles Pickup and Polaris' item 2 n/a n/a $0 $2,197 $2,197 $0 $2,197 $2,197
Brush Management fuel modification zones annual
budget n/a n/a 1 $5,000 $108,000 $113,000 $5,000 $108,000 $113,000
Bird Surveys As needed annual
budget n/a n/a 1 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000
Sanitation Control collection & disposal item 1 $ - 1 $0 $16,000 $16,000 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Portable Restrooms rental and cleaning item 4 $2,500 1 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000
Landslide Abatement Districts maintenance n/a 2 n/a 1 $0 $60,096 $60,096 $0 $60,096 $60,096
Road Maintenance Burma Road item 1 $25,000 1 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $25,000
Trail/Misc. Maintenance maintenance as needed n/a n/a 1 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000
Trail maintenance hours 200 $28 1 $5,600 $0 $5,600 $0 $0 $0
Sign access and regs item 80 varies 1 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000
Sign, Metal metal item 40 $50 10 $200 $0 $200 $0 $0 $0
Sign, Metal trail markers item 25 $20 1 $500 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0
Sign interpretive item 4 $2,000 10 $800 $0 $800 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $12,100 $317,835 $329,935 $5,000 $317,835 $322,835
SUBTOTAL: COSTS RELATED TO PUBLIC
ACCESS AND LAND OWNERSHIP $19,460 $1,286,209 $1,305,669 $5,000 $1,286,209 $1,291,209
C-109
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-45
TOTAL PRESERVE MANAGEMENT COSTS $250,019 $1,535,419 $1,785,438 $27,030 $1,381,119 $1,408,149
*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, which began in 2006 and will continue throughout the permit term. These funds are projected to yield $22,030 annually.
The PVPLC shall manage the endowment to cover its costs for post-Permit conservation management.
Additionally, the City is required to maintain a habitat restoration fund as part of the City budget, with at least $50,000 adjusted annually for inflation to fund planned
responses to changed circumstances pursuant to Section 6.9.2 of the Plan.
The PVPLC regularly expends additional funds beyond those shown. Annual Costs are a representation of minimum projected expenditures.
City costs shown are from FY 16-17
C-110
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-42
Estimate Stewardship Costs and Endowment Needs for Property Subject to a Conservation Easement
The worksheet accounts for up to three classes of employees engaged in stewardship activities. Staff #1 is assumed to be the key person
engaged in easement stewardship work. Staff #2 is assumed to be secondarily involved, perhaps an assistant or the executive director. Support
staff is assumed to be a person who provides administrative assistance and would not travel to the eased property.
Property:
A. Estimations Annual
stewards
hip costs
(includin
g the
cost to
respond
to minor
violation
s)
Travel Expenses Endowm
ent
needed
to fully
cover
annual
stewards
hip costs
Miles from office to property (one-
way)
8.0
Average travel time in hours to
property (one-way)
0.3
C-111
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-43
Reimbursement per mile $0.565 The IRS issues standard mileage rates based on the study of the costs of
operating an automobile. Find current rates at http://irs.gov. Annual
costs
needed
to
defend
against
major
violation
s
Other reimbursable travel expenses
(e.g., tolls, parking, meals, lodging)
$0.00 Endowm
ent
needed
to fund
easeme
nts
against
major
violation
s
Annual Monitoring Expenses
Staff #1: Hours of preparation time
per inspection
30.0
Staff #1: Hours of monitoring time
per inspection-excluding travel time
80.0
Staff #1: Hours of reporting and
follow up
25.0
C-112
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-44
Staff #2: Hours of preparation time
per inspection
1.0
Staff #2: Hours of monitoring time
per inspection-excluding travel time
1.0
Staff #2: Hours of reporting and
follow up per inspection
40.0
Support staff: Hours per inspection 1.5
Equipment and supplies per
inspection
$14.00 Easement holders may depreciate the costs of equipment (e.g., gps device,
camera, computer) as appropriate for the equipment and its use for each
property.
Number of regular monitoring visits
per year
1
Number of cars used per monitoring
trip
1 Staff may travel separately to the property
Consultant costs per year $0.00 Depending on the features of the property and the easement, the holder
occasionally may need outside expertise.
Drive By and Flyover Monitoring Expenses
(used occasionally)
Number of drive-by monitoring trips
per year
0 Occasional monitoring from the public road is sometimes desirable to
supplement on-site inspections.
Staff #1: Average time (in hours)
needed per drive-by monitoring trip
(excluding travel time to and from
the property)
0.00
C-113
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-45
Staff #2: Average time (in hours)
needed per drive-by monitoring trip
(excluding travel time to and from
the property)
0.00
Cost of aerial flyover $0.00 Some organizations use aerial monitoring to supplement onsite visits.
There will be an aerial flyover
approximately every ____ years
0 For example, entering the number 20 would mean the land trust expects 1
aerial flyover per 20 years.
Landowner Communication
Expenses
Staff #1: Hours per year 25.00
Staff #2: Hours per year 120.00
Support staff: Hours per year 0.75
Materials and supplies per year $7.00 For example, printing of educational materials and postage
Landowner Communication
Expenses: Change in Landowner
These costs should reflect the time and costs associated with one change in
ownership.
Staff #1: Hours for establishing a
relationship with new landowners,
excluding travel time
1.75
C-114
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-46
Staff #2: Hours for establishing a
relationship with new landowners,
excluding travel time
20.00
Support staff: Hours for establishing
a relationship with new landowners
0.50
Staff #1: Number of site visits
needed to establish a relationship
with new landowner
1.00 This number may reflect an average for all properties and therefore is not
necessarily a whole number.
Staff #2: Number of site visits
needed to establish a relationship
with new landowner
3.0
Supplies $3.00 For example, a copy of the easement and materials about the land trust's
stewardship program
It is estimated that there will be one
change in land ownership every
____ years
1.0 This should not be zero.
Review of Reserved and
Permitted Rights and Approvals
The conservation easement document may specify that the landowner will
pay for the land trust's costs at the time of review. If this is the case, enter
zeros in this section.
It is estimated that there will be one
review every ___years
0.5 If the easement does not contain reserved or permited rights, place a zero
here.
Staff #1: Hours needed per action
subject to review
4.00
Staff #2: Hours needed per action
subject to review
4.00
Support staff: Hours needed per
action subject to review
1.50
C-115
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-47
Staff #1: Number of site visits
required to complete one review
1.50
Staff #2: Number of site visits
required to complete one review
0.00
Consultant costs per review $100.0
0
Land Trust Initiated Amendment
Expenses
If the landowner seeks an easement amendment, the landowner would
normally be expected to pay the costs associated with the amendment at the
time of amendment.
Staff #1: Hours needed to complete
an amendment, excluding travel
time
80.00 Occasionally a holder will want to initiate an amendment.
Staff #2: Hours needed to complete
an amendment, excluding travel
time
20.00
Support staff: Hours needed to
complete an amendment
2.00
Staff #1: Number of visits required
per amendment
4.00
Staff #2: Number of visits required
per amendment
4.00
It is estimated that there will be one
land trust initiated amendment every
____ years.
25
C-116
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-48
Legal Expenses
Legal fees per year $200.0
0
Minor and miscellaneous legal expenses may be incurred as the easement
holder seeks to reconcile monitoring findings with easement terms, the
landowner seeks clarification on easement terms, etc. These costs are
expected to occur with no particular frequency.
Minor Violation Incidents
(resolved without resort to the
courts)
It is estimated that there will be one
minor violation every ____ years.
1.0 This should not be zero
Staff #1: Hours needed to address
the violation, excluding travel time
25.00
Staff #2: Hours needed to address
the violation, excluding travel time
35.00
Support staff: Hours needed to
address the violation
2.00
Staff #1: Number of site visits
required per violation
2.30
Staff #2: Number of site visits
required per violation
0.00
Legal costs per incident $1,000.
00
Consultant costs per incident $0.00 Depending on the complexity and provisions of the easement, easement
holders should plan for the costs of hiring a consultant.
C-117
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-49
Major Violation Incidents
(requiring litigation)
It is estimated that there will be one
major violation every ____ years
15 This should not be zero
Average cost to address major
violation (staff, attorney, court fees
& other)
$8,000
Conservation defense insurance
annual premium
$720.0
0
The PVPLC participates in the Terrafirma Risk Retention Group Insurance
program. This line is included for future reference.
Annual Rate of Return
Average annual return on
Stewardship Fund investments less
inflation rate
4.00%
Staff and Overhead Rates
Staff #1: Hourly rate, including
benefits
$26.00
Staff #2: Hourly rate, including
benefits
$40.00
C-118
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-50
Support staff: Hourly rate, including
benefits
$22.00
Office overhead costs (rent,
insurance, equipment) as a
percentage of staff costs
20%
Stewardship Needs-Final Calculations (This will
automatically calculate based on your entries in
the estimations section)
Annual stewardship costs
(including the cost to respond
to minor violations)
$19,001
Endowment needed to fully
cover annual stewardship
costs
$475,015
Annual costs needed to
defend against major
violations
$533
Endowment needed to fund
easements against major
violations
$13,333
C-119
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-51
Formulas used in this calculator to calculate total stewardship needs (the formalas are here to show users how total stewardship needs
were calculated and may be adjusted if needed to suit individual land trust needs)
These are all calculated automatically, you don't
need to do anything!
Formulae Used
Staff Costs
Staff #1: Hourly rate, including
overhead and benefits
$31.20 B94+(B94*B97)
Staff #2: Hourly rate, including
overhead and benefits
$48.00 B95+(B95*B97)
Support staff: Hourly rate, including
overhead and benefits
$26.40 B96+(B96*B97)
Travel Costs
Roundtrip mileage cost $9.04 B15*B17*2
Other reimbursable travel expenses $0.00 B18
Staff #1: Cost of staff time to travel
to and from eased property
$18.72 (B112*B16*2)
Staff #2: Cost of staff time to travel
to and from eased property
$28.80 (B113*B16*2)
C-120
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-52
Total Annual
Stewardship
Costs Formulae
Annual Monitoring Costs
Staff time per regular inspection $6,315.
12
((B21+B22+B23)*B112)+((B24+B25+B26)*B113)+(B27*B114)+IF(B22=0,0,B
119)+IF(B25=0,0,B120)
Travel costs per regular inspection $9.04 (B117+B118)*B30
Consultant costs per regular
inspection
$0.00 B31
Supplies per regular inspection $14.00 B28
Annualized cost of drive-by
monitoring
$0 IF(B34=0,0,(B35*B119)+(B36*B120)+B117+B118)
Annualized cost of aerial flyover $0 IF(B38=0,0,(1/B38)*B37)
Total annual monitoring costs $6,338.16 (B124+B125+B127)*B29+B128+B129
Annual Costs of General Landowner
Communications
C-121
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-53
Staff time $6,559.
80
(B41*B112)+(B42*B113)+(B43*B114)
Supplies $7.00 B44
Total costs of general landowner
communications
$6,566.80 B133+B134
Annualized Costs of Landowner Communications-Change
in Landownership
Staff time $1,132.
92
(B47*B112)+(B48*B113)+(B49*B114)+(B50*B119)+(B51*B120)
Travel costs $36.16 B50*(B117+B118)+B51*(B117+B118)
Supplies $3.00 B52
Likelihood of a new landowner in
any given year
100% 1/B53
Annualized cost associated with
new landowner
$1,172.08 (B138+B139+B140)*B141
Annualized Costs for Review of Reserved and Permitted Rights and Approvals
Staff costs $384.4
8
(B112*B57)+(B113*B58)+(B114*B59)+(B60*B119)+(B61*B120)
C-122
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-54
Travel costs $13.56 (B60*(B117+B118))+(B61*(B117+B118))
Consultant Costs $100.0
0
B62
Likelihood of an exercise of a
reserved right in any given year
200% IF(B56=0,0,1/B56)
Annualized cost for review and
approval of reserved rights
$996.08 (B145+B146+B147)*B148
Annual Costs of Holder Initiated
Amendments
Staff time per amendment $3,698.
88
(B65*B112)+(B66*B113)+(B67*B114)+(B68*B119)+(B69*B120)
Travel costs per amendment $72.32 (B68*(B117+B118))+(B69*(B117+B118))
Likelihood of a holder initiated
amendment in any given year
4% 1/B70
Total annualized holder initiated
amendment costs
$150.85 (B153+B154)*B155
Annual Legal Costs
C-123
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-55
Legal fees per year $200.0
0
B73
Total annual legal costs $200.00 B159
Total Annual Regular
Stewardship Expenses
$15,423.97 C130+C135+C142+C149+C156+C160
C. Calculation of Costs Associated with Violations
Minor Violations
Staff costs to address violation $2,555.
86
(B112*B77)+(B113*B78)+(B114*B79)+(B80*B119)+(B81*B120
Travel costs $20.79 (B80*(B117+B118))+(B81*(B117+B118))
Legal costs $1,000.
00
B82
Likelihood of violation in any given
year
100% 1/B76
C-124
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-56
Total annualized cost to deal with
minor violations
$3,576.65 (B167+B168+B169)*B170
Major Violations
Cost to address violation $8,000 B87
Likelihood of major violation in any
given year
7% 1/B86
Annualized cost to deal with
major violations
$533.33 B174*B175
D. Endowment Calculations
Annual stewardship and minor
violation costs
$19,001 C162+C171
Average annual return on
stewardship fund investments less
inflation rates
4.00% B91
C-125
APPENDIX C Management Budget Analysis
C-57
Endowment needed to cover
annual stewardship costs
$475,015.40 C182/C183
Annual costs needed to defend
against major violations
$533.33 C176
Average annual return on
stewardship fund investments less
inflation rates
4.00% B91
Endowment needed to fund
easements against major
violations
$13,333.33 C187/C188
C-126
APPENDIX D
Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
C-127
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-1
C-128
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-2
C-129
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-3
C-130
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-4
C-131
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-5
C-132
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-6
C-133
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-7
C-134
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-8
C-135
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-9
C-136
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-10
C-137
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-11
C-138
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-12
C-139
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-13
C-140
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-14
C-141
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-15
C-142
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-16
C-143
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-17
C-144
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-18
C-145
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-19
C-146
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-20
C-147
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-21
C-148
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-22
C-149
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-23
C-150
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-24
C-151
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-25
C-152
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-26
C-153
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-27
C-154
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-28
C-155
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-29
C-156
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-30
C-157
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-31
C-158
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-32
C-159
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-33
C-160
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-34
C-161
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-35
C-162
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-36
C-163
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-37
C-164
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-38
C-165
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-39
C-166
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-40
C-167
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-41
C-168
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-42
C-169
APPENDIX D Exotic Pest Plant Species List (CalIPC 2006)
____________________________________________________________________________________
D-43
C-170
APPENDIX E
Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in CA
Coastal Zone
C-171
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-1
C-172
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-2
C-173
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-3
C-174
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-4
C-175
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-5
C-176
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-6
C-177
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-7
C-178
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-8
C-179
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-9
C-180
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-10
C-181
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-11
C-182
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-12
C-183
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-13
C-184
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-14
C-185
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-15
C-186
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-16
C-187
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-17
C-188
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-18
C-189
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-19
C-190
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-20
C-191
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-21
C-192
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-22
C-193
APPENDIX E Guidance for the Review of Wetlands Projects in CA Coastal Zone
E-23
C-194
APPENDIX F
Summary of Preserve Protection Provided by the
City’s General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and
Municipal Code
C-195
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
As a regulatory document, the City’s Municipal Code provides another layer of environmental protection
(either directly or indirectly) to lands located in the preserve. Each cited section of the Code in effect at
the time of adoption of the Subarea Plan by the city addresses a different aspect of environmental
protection.
Title 3, Chapter 20, Section 010 establishes an Environmental Excise Tax:
In that construction of new residential living units and of new commercial or industrial
structures within the city creates an immediate and present danger to the existing quality of
life and ecology of the city and threatens to contaminate and pollute the air, water and land
within and surrounding the city…[therefore] the imposition and collection of a special,
nonrecurring tax upon the occupancy and construction of new residential dwelling units and
of new commercial and industrial buildings within the city is the most practical and equitable
method of providing revenues with which the city may meet and deal with and solve the
serious ecological and environmental problems created by the occupancy and construction
of such facilities within the city. This tax indirectly protects the preserve by providing a
source of revenue that the City may use in paying for its share of annual preserve
management costs.
Title 13 Chapter 10, Section 010 – 070:
Establishes standards and procedures for reducing pollutants in storm water discharges into
preserve areas to the maximum extent practicable by; regulating illicit connections and illicit
discharges and thereby reducing the level of contamination of storm water and urban runoff
into the municipal storm water system; and regulating non-storm water discharges to the
municipal storm water system; and setting forth requirements for the construction and
operation of certain commercial development, new development and redevelopment and
other projects) that are intended to ensure compliance with the storm water mitigation
measures prescribed in the current version of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This ordinance
indirectly protects the preserve by establishing standards and procedures for reducing
pollutants in storm water discharge for major projects throughout the City, thus reducing the
likelihood of contaminated storm water entering the preserve.
Title 15 Chapter 34, Section 010:
This ordinance indirectly protects the preserve by establishing standards and procedures for
the design, installation and management of water-conserving landscapes thereby reducing
problems of over-watering and the resultant change in hydrologic regimes in adjacent more
xeric preserve lands.
Title 17, Chapter 32
This ordinance indirectly protects the preserve by establishing open-space hazards districts
that provide the regulatory foundation for many lands located in the preserve. The ordinance
requires that lands [such as those found in the preserve] be placed in the open-space hazard
C-196
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-2
district when the use of said land would endanger the public health, safety and welfare.
Open-space hazard districts shall include the following:
A. Areas where the existing natural slope exceeds 35 percent, areas experiencing down
slope movement, areas unstable for development, areas where grading or development
of the land may endanger the public health and safety because of erosion or flooding,
and the ocean bluffs; and
B. Areas subject to flooding or inundation from storm water.
It also stipulates that land in open-space hazard districts in the preserve may be used
(provided, that the applicable natural overlay control district performance criteria is satisfied)
for:
The preservation of areas of outstanding scenic, geologic, historic or cultural value; the
preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to plant and animal life; and the
conservation of water supply land, including but not limited to watershed and groundwater
recharge areas.
Title 17, Chapter 40, Section 040
This ordinance directly protects the preserve by establishing a natural overlay control district
that encompasses most of the preserve and serves to:
1. Maintain and enhance land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land
and marine-based wildlife and vegetation; and
2. Enhance watershed management, control storm drainage and erosion, and control the
water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies within the city.
This overlay district identifies the following lands and waters included in this district:
1. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under category
RM-5 (Old Landslide Area) and all lands identified in the coastal-specific plan under
categories CRM-3 (Hazard), CRM-4 (Marginally Stable) and CRM-5 (Insufficient
Information);
2. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under category
RM-6 (Hydrologic Factors); and all lands identified in the coastal-specific plan under
categories CRM-7 (Flood/Inundation Hazard) and CRM-8 (Hydrologic Factors),
including all identified major and minor natural drainage flows, storm channels and
storm drains existing on April 25, 1975, the effective date of Ordinance No. 78 of the
city, storm channels and drains proposed after that date, and outfall areas;
3. All water areas identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under
category RM-7 (Marine Resource), including all intertidal marine resources, tide pools,
C-197
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-3
and the ocean waters and bottom within the projected boundaries of the city to the legally
established, 3-mile offshore limit, and all ocean beaches, bluffs and cliffs;
4. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under category
RM-8 (Wildlife Habitat) and lands identified in the coastal-specific plan under category
CRM-9 (Wildlife Habitat);
5. All lands identified in the natural environment element of the general plan under category
RM-9 (Natural Vegetation) and all lands identified in the coastal-specific plan under
category CRM-10 (Natural Vegetation), also including such areas as are within category
RM-8 (Wildlife Habitat) described in this section; and
6. All such lands and water areas that may be added to any of the above categories, pursuant
to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments).
These lands are to be maintained in compliance with the following criteria:
1. Cover or alter the land surface configuration by moving earth on more than 10 percent
of the total land area of the portion of the parcel within the district, excluding the main
structure and access;
2. Alter the course, carrying capacity or gradient of any natural watercourse or drainage
course that can be calculated to carry over 100 cubic feet per second once in 10 years;
3. Fill, drain or alter the shape or quality of any water body, spring or related natural
spreading area of greater than 1.0 acre;
4. Develop otherwise permitted uses within 50 feet of the edge of a watercourse or drainage
course that can be calculated to carry more than 500 cubic feet per second once in 10
years;
5. Clear the vegetation from more than 20 percent of the area of the portion of the parcel
within the district, or remove by thinning more than 20 percent of the vegetation on the
parcel, excluding dead material and excluding brush-clearance activities necessary for
fire protection;
6. Use herbicides to control or kill vegetation;
7. Remove vegetation within a designated wildlife habitat area;
8. Cover more than 20 percent of a parcel known to contain sand, gravel or other materials
that may aid in natural beach replenishment;
9. Alter the characteristics of the surface soils to allow surface water to stand for over 12
hours; make the soil inadequate as a bearing surface for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle
or motorized emergency vehicle access; make the soil unstable and subject to sliding,
slipping, or water or wind erosion;
C-198
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-4
10. Result in chemicals, nutrients or particulate contaminants or siltation being discharged,
by storm water or other runoff, into a natural or manmade drainage course leading to the
ocean or any other natural or manmade body of water;
11. Propose a sewer or wastewater disposal system involving the spreading, injecting or
percolating of effluent into the ocean or into the soil of a natural or manmade drainage
course, if alternative locations are available;
12. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion or significant change of the area within 100 feet
of an ocean beach or top edge of an ocean bluff or cliff;
13. Alter, penetrate, block or create erosion on the shoreline measured at mean high tide or
alter the characteristics of the intertidal marine environment;
14. Alter, dredge, fill or penetrate by drilling, the ocean floor within the jurisdiction of the
city; or
15. Alter any land area that has previously experienced massive down slope movement, to
reactivate or create conditions that could lead to the reactivation of down slope
movement.
Title 17, Chapter 56, Section 010
This ordinance indirectly protects the preserve by setting tolerance levels for adverse
environmental effects created by any use or development of land, including dust control,
construction fencing, and construction site maintenance.
Title 17, Chapter 70, Section 010
This ordinance directly protects the preserve by establishing a site plan review procedure
enabling the director and/or planning commission to check development proposals for
conformity to the above environmental protections.
The above Ordinances address a wide range of environmental protection. The cumulative effect of these
Ordinances is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands included in this Subarea Plan.
Other City Ordinances
Other City of Rancho Palos Verdes ordinances, including the Grading and Subdivision Ordinance,
address protection of resources.
• Grading Ordinance. The existing grading ordinance provides direct protection to the preserve
because all grading exceeding 20 c.y., on private or public property or any grading which
encroaches on or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes is subject to the Grading Ordinance. Permits are reviewed for compliance with established
controls. Applications for a grading permit can be conditioned, modified or denied to ensure
protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands.
• Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance provides direct protection of the preserve by
ensuring that any proposed subdivisions do not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties.
C-199
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-5
The subdivision ordinance complements the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. CEQA review is required for all subdivisions. A project can be conditioned, modified
or denied if it is found to cause substantial damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. Additionally, all subdivisions must be found consistent with the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
• Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance. This ordinance protects coastal
sage scrub habitat in the City by instituting a permit review process for the removal of any
vegetation on properties 2 acres or greater in size in the City which contain Coastal Sage Scrub
habitat.
Storm water Discharge Ordinance. The intent of the Storm water Discharge Ordinance is to protect
and enhance the quality of the watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in the city and region. A
Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required before major construction activity and
is used as the tool to review proposals for compliance with established guidelines to reduce or
eliminate pollution. If necessary, the City Engineer may require a SWPPP for business-related
activities not already operating under such a plan. The ordinance provides indirect protection of
the preserve by reducing the likelihood of polluted storm water entering the preserve.
Fire Protection. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted the Los Angeles County Fire Code,
which, among other things, establishes regulations for the clearance of brush and combustible
growth. The L.A. County Fire Department or L.A. County Department of Agricultural
Commissioner determines the required clearance width of the fuel management area for existing
and proposed development. The City consults with L. A. County personnel during the
environmental review of proposed projects. The ordinance provides direct protection of the
preserve by setting limits on how much brush clearance is required on properties within the
preserve.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
The City’s General Plan, adopted on June 26, 1975, is organized into the following elements, all of which
provide indirect protection to the preserve since they set goals and objectives that are consistent and
relevant to the Subarea Plan:
Natural Environment Element. This element is a composite of areas requiring considerations of public
health and safety and preservation of natural resources.
Socio/Cultural Element. This element identifies the City’s goals and policies for preservation of its
paleontological, historical, and archaeological resources and for social, service, and cultural
organizations
Urban Environment Element. This element addresses concerns for city areas set aside for development,
with consideration for natural environmental concerns. This element also provides goals and
policies for circulation, noise, visual aspects, public services, and infrastructure.
Land Use Plan. According to the General Plan, the City’s Land Use Plan is a composite of the other
elements and focuses on the City’s overall development, conservation, and fiscal balance.
According to the Land Use Plan, Overlay Control Districts are incorporated into the General Plan
to further reduce impacts that could be induced by proposed and existing development in sensitive
C-200
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-6
areas. Major disruptive treatment of these land areas would alter features, including significant
natural, urban, and socio/cultural characteristics that form the city’s character and environment.
Coastal-Specific Plan
The RPV City Council adopted the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) on December 19, 1978. The CSP
provides a series of polices to guide development, as well as protect natural features in the Coastal Zone
along the 7.5 miles of coastline within the City’s jurisdiction. The coastal specific plan provides indirect
protection of the preserve because it contains elements that enforce and complement the goals and
policies of the Subarea Plan which are directed toward native lands management.
The plan identifies natural habitat “which is not only vital to local animal life, but is the key to the
migratory species” (Page N-1) 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).
To ensure this successful “recovery,” the following policies address the protection of these valuable
resources while providing for the public health, safety, and welfare.
Page N-45 through N-47 of the local CSP identifies 20 polices addressing the Natural Environment.
Policy 1 allows only low intensity activities within the coastal resource management districts.
Policy 2 requires any development within the coastal resource management districts to provide
geotechnical engineering studies to assess soil stability.
Policy 3 prohibits new permanent structures within extreme hazard areas of the coastal resource
management district.
Policy 4 encourages non-residential structures (i.e., Recreational Facilities) within coastal resource
management districts.
Policy 5 calls for stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas with high wild-land fire hazard.
Policy 6 prohibits grading activities or structures within areas having flood or inundation hazards.
Policy 7 prohibits siltation and implements non-point discharge in the resource management districts.
Policy 8 requires disclosure and mitigation for impacts to wildlife habitats.
Policy 9 encourages revegetation within coastal resource management districts.
Policy 10 protects, enhances and encourages restoration of marine resources.
Policy 11 encourages the establishment of marine reserves.
Policy 12 encourages acquisition of rights over offshore tidelands.
Policy 13 encourages the support of activities of other agencies concerned with marine water quality.
Policy 14 encourages the support of activities of other agencies concerned with avoiding thermal
discharge in marine waters.
Policy 15 requires mitigation measures, where possible, to mitigate.
Policy 16 encourages increased enforcement activity of the California Department of Fish and Game.
Policy 17 encourages the exploration of additional enforcement activities to protect the marine
environment.
C-201
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-7
Policy 18 encourages climatic sensitive site and structure design.
Policy 19 supports monitoring of oil and gas extraction activities.
Policy 20 encourages restoration of marine environments.
The cumulative effect of these policies is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands covered in this
Subarea Plan.
Page S/C-7 contains policies addressing Social/Cultural concerns:
Policy 1, although protecting cultural resources, will also as a secondary benefit protect habitat
associated with Native American sites.
Page U-67 contains policies addressing the urban environment:
Policy 6 requires existing trails (where allowed in the reserve) to be left in their natural state.
Policy 7 restricts coastal access points thereby prohibiting habitat destruction via trail “cutting.”
Policy 8 requires sewer pump stations to be minimized thereby protecting native habitat.
Page C-16 contains the major policy protecting Natural Corridors defined as slopes above 35 percent
and all areas having habitat designated as sensitive to human intrusion, both terrestrial and marine.
The CSP then identifies site-specific policies for sub regions within the Plan’s jurisdiction.
Page S 1-10 contains the following policies for Sub region One:
Policy 1 requires that the major drainage course in this sub region be protected.
Policy 2 requires native landscaping in developed areas to be beneficial to migratory and resident bird
species.
Policy 3 calls for the establishment marine reserves.
Policy 5 calls for the coordination in the design and placement of open-space areas.
Policy 6 ensures that flood control improvements do not affect natural habitat.
Page S 2-15 contains the following policies for Sub region Two:
Policy 1 requires native landscaping in developed areas to be beneficial to migratory and resident bird
species.
Policy 2 calls for the establishment marine reserves.
Policy 3 encourages restoration of kelp beds off Point Vicente.
Policy 5 ensures that noise and lighting impacts are mitigated at the point of origin.
Policy 7 allows for the upgrading of Marineland, as long as there are no adverse impacts to surrounding
areas.
Policy 9 restricts access to fragile beach areas.
Page S 3-14 contains the following policies for Sub region Three:
Policies 1 and 2 encourage the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) relocate development
away from coastal bluffs.
C-202
APPENDIX F Summary of Preserve Projection Provided by City Plans and Codes
F-8
Page S 4-14 contains the following policy for Sub region Four:
Policy 2 requires development abutting natural drainage areas to maintain that character of the
watercourse.
Page S 5-16 contains the following policy for Sub region Five:
Policy 1 ensures that flood control improvements within the sub region will be carried out in a manner
consistent with preserving natural habitats.
Policy 3 encourages that a carrying capacity for beaches be established so that impacts to fragile marine
environments are minimized.
Page S 6-12 contains the following policy for Sub region Six:
Policy 1 requires that that native vegetation of the two major canyons in the areas is protected.
Policy 2 encourages the establishment marine reserves to protect fragile marine environments.
Policy 4 ensures that flood control improvements are carried out in manner consistent with the
preservation of natural habitat.
Policy 5 prohibits new structures in hazard areas.
Page S 7-12, 13 contains the following policy for Sub region Seven:
Policy 1 requires that natural vegetation be maintained and protected in major drainage courses.
Policies 2 and 3 initiate and support the establishment marine reserves to protect fragile intertidal
marine environments.
Policy 9 requires sewer pump stations to be minimized thereby protecting native habitat.
Policy 10 requires that the natural drainage course in this sub region be protected and where flood
control is necessary, sensitive to the natural environment.
Policy 12 prohibits dirt fill for traversing identified drainage courses.
The above policies address a wide range of environmental protection. The cumulative effect of the
Coastal Specific Plan is to safeguard and enhance the natural lands covered by this Subarea Plan.
C-203
APPENDIX G
Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC
Biology Report (2009)
C-204
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-1
C-205
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-2
C-206
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-3
C-207
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-4
C-208
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-5
C-209
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-6
C-210
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-7
C-211
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-8
C-212
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-9
C-213
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-10
C-214
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-11
C-215
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-12
C-216
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-13
C-217
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-14
C-218
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-15
C-219
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-16
C-220
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-17
C-221
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-18
C-222
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-19
C-223
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-20
C-224
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-21
C-225
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-22
C-226
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-23
C-227
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-24
C-228
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-25
C-229
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-26
C-230
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-27
C-231
APPENDIX G Plumtree Parcel Wildlife Agency Letters and NRC Biology Report
G-28
C-232