Environmental Assessment

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Carlsbad, California

May 26, 2018

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose And Need For The Federal Action ...... 1-4 1.3 Regulatory Background ...... 1-5 1.4 Developing the NCCP/HCP ...... 1-6 1.4.1 Permitting Process upon Approval of NCCP/HCP ...... 1-6 1.4.2 Decisions to be Made ...... 1-7 1.5 Scoping and Public Review ...... 1-8

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2-1

2.1 Introduction...... 2-1 2.2 Features Common to all Action Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives ...... 2-3

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1

3.1 Project Setting ...... 3-1 3.2 Biological Resources ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Sensitive Habitats ...... 3-5 3.2.3 Wildlife ...... 3-5 3.2.4 Sensitive Species ...... 3-5 3.2.5 Wetlands ...... 3-16 3.3 Geology and Soils ...... 3-17 3.4 Air Quality ...... 3-18 3.5 Land Use ...... 3-18 3.6 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 3-21 3.7 Cultural Resources ...... 3-21

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1

4.1 Introduction...... 4-1 4.2 Biological Resources ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 4-1 4.2.2 Sensitive Habitats ...... 4-5 4.2.3 Wildlife ...... 4-11 4.2.4 Sensitive Species ...... 4-11 4.2.5 Wetlands ...... 4-26

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.3 Geology/Soils ...... 4-26 4.4 Air Quality ...... 4-27 4.5 Land Use ...... 4-27 4.6 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 4-28 4.7 Cultural Resources ...... 4-29 4.8 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-30

SECTION 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 5-1

SECTION 6 LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS ...... 6-1

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED ...... 7-1

APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... A-1

APPENDIX B SENSITIVE HABITATS PRESENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA ...... B-1

ii Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map 1-2 Figure 2. Location Map 1-3 Figure 3. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative A 2-5 Figure 4. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative B 2-10 Figure 5. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative C 2-12 Figure 6. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative D 2-14 Figure 7. Vegetation Map 3-2 Figure 8. Neutral Lands 3-4 Figure 9. Sensitive Plant Species Locations 3-7 Figure 10. Existing Land Use 3-20 Figure 11. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative A Preserve Design 4-16 Figure 12. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative B Preserve Design 4-17 Figure 13. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative C Preserve Design 4-18 Figure 14. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative D Preserve Design 4-19

TABLES Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Preserve 2-6 Table 2. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities under Alternative D 2-16 Table 3. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered Private 2-16 Table 4. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes (Permit Area) 3-3 Table 5. Existing Land Uses within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3-19 Table 6. Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity 3-23 Table 7. Vegetation Types Conserved Under Each Action Alternative 4-2 Table 8. Comparison of Sensitive Habitats Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives 4-6 Table 9. Comparison of Covered Species Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives 4-14 Table 10. Comparison of Other Sensitive Species Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives 4-15

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Rancho Palos Verdes CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CSP Coastal Specific Plan CSS Coastal Sage Scrub CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act ESB El Segundo Blue Butterfly FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GIS Geographic Information System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IA Implementing Agreement ITP Incidental Take Permit LAX Los Angeles International Airport LCP Local Coastal Program NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Peninsula Palos Verdes Peninsula PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Fine particulate matter, less than 2.5 micrometers in size PM 10 Particulate matter up to 10 micrometers in size PPM Pacific (Little) Pocket Mouse PTP Preserve Trails Plan PUMP Public Use Master Plan PVB Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly PVPLC Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy RPV Rancho Palos Verdes RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SSC State Species of Concern State State of California

iv Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USC U.S. Code Service or USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Wildlife

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP v

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4341 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations contained in C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508. The draft EA describes the potential environmental effects of approving and implementing a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (NCC/HCP or Plan) and issuing Incidental Take Permits (ITP) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV or City) and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) under section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.).

The proposed NCCP/HCP planning area encompasses the 13.6-square-mile coastal City of Rancho Palos Verdes located on the southwest side of the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Peninsula) in Los Angeles County, California (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The City, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (jointly referred to as the Wildlife Agencies), has developed a Draft NCCP/HCP for the planning area, which would provide for the protection and management of natural wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth.

The issuance of an ITP is a Federal action implemented by the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Take authorization is requested for the federally endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis), federally endangered El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), and federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Issuance of the ITP would provide incidental take coverage for specific public and private projects in RPV, as well as for specific activities relate to operation and maintenance, passive recreation, and Preserve management (e.g., monitoring, restoration, species control, research), that could occur within the approved Preserve. For an ITP to be issued, the NCCP/HCP must satisfy the issuance criteria for incidental take coverage outlined in section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA.

In addition to the three listed species, the Draft RPV NCCP/HCP addresses the conservation of seven additional species, six plant species and one bird species, that are not currently listed under the ESA or California Endangered Species Act (CESA) but have specific known locations or appropriate habitat in the City. The six plant species proposed for coverage include the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank 1B (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) and Rank 4 (limited distribution) plants: aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), south coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum), island green dudleya (Dudleya virens subsp. insularis), Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei), and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia). The other non-listed species proposed for coverage is the cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), a State Species of Concern (SSC) that is also a NCCP focal species. The 10 species listed above are hereby referred to as the “Covered Species.”

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

1-2 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

Figure 2 – Location Map

Figure 2. Location Map

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 1-3

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

As a condition of receiving an ITP, a landowner must prepare and submit to the Service for approval an HCP containing the mandatory elements of section 10(a)(2)(A). An HCP must specify: 1) the impact that will likely result from the taking; 2) what steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts, the funding available to implement such steps, and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances; 3) what alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered, and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be used; and 4) such other measures that the Director may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. The HCP is accompanied by an Implementing Agreement (IA) with the Wildlife Agencies that defines the roles and responsibilities of the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife Agencies with respect to implementation of the plan. Under the proposed action, the PVPLC would act as Preserve Habitat Manager to the Rancho Palos Verdes Habitat Preserve for the City. As result, the City would be issued Take Authorizations for Covered Projects and Activities under the NCCP/HCP that require local land use authority, and the PVPLC would be issued Take Permits related to implementation of specified biological management and monitoring activities as agreed to by the City and PVPLC under the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Management Agreement and the NCCP/HCP.

In accordance with the purposes of the Draft NCCP/HCP, the selected Preserve design would conserve regionally important habitat areas and provide habitat linkages to benefit sensitive plants and wildlife, including two species listed as endangered and one species listed as threatened under the ESA. To provide a reasonable range of alternatives, four alternatives which address different Preserve designs, have been developed and are evaluated in the EA. The No Action Alternative is also evaluated. Each of the action alternatives identify properties and habitats to be conserved through acquisition and/or recordation of conservation easements. The alternatives also address current and future management, maintenance, and compatible uses of the conserved lands.

Some of the information considered in the analysis for this EA was incorporated by reference from the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), prepared and certified by the City in 2004 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR is available for review at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. To summarize, the FEIR is an informational document intended for use by City decision makers, other local and State agencies with discretionary authority, and members of the public to evaluate the potential effects of implementing the RPV NCCP Subarea Plan. The analysis within the FEIR focused on biological resources, land use, recreation, and cumulative impacts.

Subsequent to the City’s approval of the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP and certification of the FEIR, the City became aware that not all of the Upper Filiorum property would be available for acquisition from the private landowner, other acquisitions were possible, and landslide and legal constraints reduced the viability of including a former City Redevelopment Agency-owned coastal property in the proposed Preserve. In response, the Preserve design was revised to remove approximately 27 acres of the Upper Filiorum parcel and approximately 40 acres of a former City Redevelopment Agency Archery Range property from the Preserve design, while approximately 68 acres of open space land in Malaga Canyon, acquired by the City through a Service Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition grant (Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund), was added to the proposed Preserve design. The City prepared an Addendum to the FEIR to address these changes in the proposed Preserve design.

1.2 Purpose And Need For The Federal Action

The purpose and need for issuing an ITP is to protect sensitive and important habitats for listed and sensitive species within the planning area in response of the City of Rancho Palos Verde’s application. Listed species present or historically present within the City include the federally endangered El Segundo Blue Butterfly

1-4 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

(ESB), the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue (PVB) Butterfly, and the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. The inclusion of other sensitive species within this action is intended to protect the diversity of species, including threatened and endangered species, present within the City, while also preserving the area’s native habitats and wildlife for future generations.

Two confirmed populations of the endangered ESB (Pratt 2006) occur within the City’s coastal dune and bluff slope areas where sufficient numbers of coastal buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) persist. Protecting and managing these areas to ensure suitable habitat for ESB occupation would facilitate the existing trend for ESB recolonization in the area.

Although PVB was historically observed through the mid-1980s within the City, this butterfly is not currently known to be present within RPV. The areas of designated critical habitat for the endangered PVB (Service 1980) within the City support ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus), one of the two obligate host plants that support the PVB. Protection of areas where ocean locoweed occurs is essential to the persistence of PVB as it provides habitat for potential recolonization of this species within the plan area.

The population of threatened coastal California gnatcatchers that occurs in RPV and in other areas within the Peninsula is considered isolated from the remainder of the United States population. Providing year- round protection of suitable habitat for this non-migratory bird species within the NCCP/HCP plan area is considered essential for the long term persistence of this population.

1.3 Regulatory Background

Within RPV, a variety of City and private projects, as well as various activities proposed within already conserved lands within the City, have the potential to incidentally take listed species or their habitat. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any federally listed species of wildlife unless authorized under provisions of section 7, section 10, or section 4 of the ESA. Section 3 of the ESA defines take as to harass, harm1, pursue, shoot, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA defines incidental take as take that is incidental to and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Federal law requires the Service to review activities on both public and private lands that could result in the take of species or their habitat. Without Service authorization for such take, individuals may be subject to civil or criminal penalties under the ESA. Also provided under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA is the legal authority for the Service to issue permits (ITP) for the incidental take of species. An ITP must be accompanied by an HCP, which is intended to provide a long-term commitment to species conservation and assurance that the effects of the permitted action on listed species are adequately minimized and mitigated.

In addition to listed species and designated critical habitat, Preserve planning area often provide habitat for a number of sensitive species that are not listed as threatened or endangered. Legislative history of section 10(a)(1)(B) clearly indicates that Congress also intended that the Service approve HCPs that protect unlisted species as if they were listed under the ESA and in so doing the Service would provide section 10(a)(1)(B)

1Federal regulations define the terms harass and harm as follows: harass means an intentional or negligent act or omission, which 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. Harm means an act that actually kills or injures wildlife and 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.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 1-5

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

assurances for protection of such unlisted species (H.R. Rep. No. 97-835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 30-31,1982). As a result, a Draft NCCP/HCP, as is the case for the RPV NCCP/HCP, can include both listed and unlisted sensitive species, with the intent of maximizing benefits to wildlife and habitat while accompanying appropriate economic development within the Preserve planning area.

Take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA and cannot be authorized under a Federal ITP. However, the Service encourages applicants to address the needs of plant species in HCPs and will include adequately covered plant species on an incidental take permit in recognition of the conservation benefits accorded the species in the underlying HCP. The Service extends "No Surprises" regulatory assurances to both covered animal and covered plant species.

1.4 Developing the NCCP/HCP

The NCCP subregion includes the entire Peninsula; however, only RPV has entered into an NCCP/HCP planning agreement. As the lead agency for the RPV NCCP/HCP, the City developed a landscape scale database of biological resources and land use information that allowed the Wildlife Agencies and the City to make informed land use and conservation decisions for future projects. The primary goal of this process was to provide a biological analysis for the remaining natural open space within and adjacent to the City.

Based on extensive discussions with the Wildlife Agencies and the NCCP/HCP Rancho Palos Verdes working group, as well as evaluations of potential development on the largest properties supporting natural vegetation, the City chose to emphasize the conservation of existing habitats on City-owned lands along with the acquisition of key private properties as the primary form of conservation. Another important component of the Draft NCCP/HCP conservation strategy is habitat restoration of disturbed areas within the proposed Preserve, with a required minimum level of restoration and enhancement to be accomplished each year. For information about the NCCP/HCP process and its proposed implementation, refer to the Draft Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP (CDFW and Service 2018).

1.4.1 Permitting Process upon Approval of NCCP/HCP

Should the RPV City Council and Wildlife Agencies approve and adopt the proposed NCCP/HCP and IA, the Wildlife Agencies would issue a 40-year authorization to the City to take species covered by the NCCP/HCP. The proposed NCCP/HCP contains new standards for protection of sensitive species (included in Section 6 of the Draft NCCP/HCP); this potentially would eliminate most Service and CDFW involvement in project-specific review and approval.

The proposed Preserve will likely include up to 2.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, although none of the Covered Species are wetland-dependent. Regardless of whether wetlands are located within or outside of the Preserve, any impacts to State and/or Federal jurisdictional wetlands would not be covered under the proposed NCCP/HCP. Wetlands are afforded protection under existing Federal and State law and regulatory programs. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. provide protection to wetland habitats through Federal and State regulatory permits and agreements. Where applicable, project proponents must submit an application for and receive Federal Section 404, Section 401, and State Section 1600 permits prior to impacting any jurisdictional wetlands. Applicants must also apply to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Waste Discharge Requirements prior to any discharges, including discharges from land that may affect any waters of the State. Water Discharge requirements must implement Basin Plans that designate beneficial uses and water quality criteria for bodies of water, including wetlands.

1-6 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

Third-parties under the direct control and jurisdiction of the RPV (owners/developers of land covered by the NCCP/HCP) would be allowed to take Covered Species and habitats incidental to project construction, operation, and maintenance as described under Covered Projects/Activities in the NCCP/HCP based on approvals extended to the proposed project by the City through the local project permitting process.

After approval and adoption of the proposed RPV NCCP/HCP and IA and issuance of the Permits, any proposed development of land in the City would require consistency with the appropriate provisions of the updated Municipal Code, General Plan, and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Consistency with the NCCP/HCP would be a mandatory finding of CEQA review and the planning processes, and any potential environmental effects of the proposed development (e.g., water quality, cultural resources) would be addressed through the CEQA process.

1.4.2 Decisions to be Made

This subsection describes how the Service determines whether its needs are met with respect to species protection and conservation. Discussions between the City and the Service during the development of the ITP and HCP proposal were conducted with the knowledge and understanding that specific criteria must ultimately be met before a permit issuance decision can be reached. The determination as to whether the ITP has met these criteria is made after the HCP is developed and subsequently revised, as appropriate, based on public input. After public review, the determination as to whether the criteria have been met will be documented in the Service’s decision documents. The decision documents will be an ESA section 10 Findings Document, an ESA section 7 biological opinion, and a NEPA decision document.

ESA Section 10. The Issuance Criteria for an ITP are contained in section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and again in the Service’s implementing regulations for the ESA (50 CFR 17.22(b)(2) and 17.32(b)(2)). The issuance criteria are: 1) the taking will be incidental; 2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; 3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the conservation plan and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided; 4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and, 5) such other measures the Service may require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. The ESA section 10 assessment will be documented in a section 10 Findings Document.

ESA Section 7. The issuance of an ITP is also a Federal action subject to section 7 of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) requires all Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action "authorized, funded, or carried out" by any such agency "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat. Because issuance of a section 10 Permit involves an authorization, it is subject to this provision. In this case, since the Service is the action agency, it will perform an internal consultation.

Although the provisions of section 7 and section 10 are similar, section 7 and its regulations introduce several considerations into the HCP process that are not explicitly required by section 10(a)(2)(B) specifically, indirect effects, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on critical habitat. The results of this consultation will be documented in a biological opinion.

NEPA. Issuance of an ITP is a Federal action subject to NEPA compliance. The purpose of NEPA is to provide analysis and disclosure of the environmental issues surrounding a proposed Federal action and to strive for harmony between human activity and the environment. Environmental documents prepared pursuant to NEPA must be completed before Federal actions can be implemented. NEPA

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 1-7

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

requires careful evaluation of the need for the action, and a comparison of all reasonable alternatives to the action, including the No Action Alternative. It also requires consideration of potential impacts for each alternative.

1.5 Scoping and Public Review

Publication of this draft EA is an important step in the environmental review process for the proposed RPV NCCP/HCP. Prior to publication of the draft EA, the Service conducted internal scoping activities with our section 7 and section 10 coordinators to address key components of the alternative descriptions and to decide on the level of impact analysis.

Following the close of the 60-day comment period, the Service and the City will review all comments received during the comment period and develop responses. Revisions to the RPV NCCP/HCP and EA will be considered during this time. The Service will document responses to comments, as well as changes to the EA and NCCP/HCP in its Findings and Recommendations on whether or not to issue the ITP. The Service will also prepare a NEPA decision document. If the Service issues a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), then no further NEPA documentation will be prepared. If the Service determines that the proposed action will result in a significant impact on the human environment, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared.

1-8 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to maximize benefits to wildlife and vegetation communities and Preserve the biodiversity of RPV, while accommodating appropriate economic development within the City. A key step in developing an NCCP/HCP for the City was to prioritize the most critical biological resource areas for potential conservation so that: 1) conservation is maximized; 2) acquisition, restoration, and management funds are efficiently used; and 3) relatively less important habitat areas can be developed.

The approach taken to develop a range of alternatives that would result in a functional Preserve was to identify various properties where conservation would best achieve biological goals with the least detrimental effects on other land use, property rights, or economic goals. This approach involved examining opportunities and constraints, incorporating biologically valuable lands into the various alternative designs, and incorporating other actions, such as habitat restoration, in the Preserve management NCCP/HCP alternatives. Regionally important habitat areas were identified by the City with the involvement of Wildlife Agencies’ staff through the overlay of vegetation and target species information during the early workshops and stakeholder meetings. The areas include lands with relatively extensive native vegetation supporting concentrations of target species. Linkage areas that provide habitat connections between larger habitat areas were also identified. The information gathered during this process formed the basis for the four Preserve designs that are analyzed in the draft EA.

The No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are evaluated in this draft EA. The proposed action (Action Alternative D) and the other action alternatives were all developed with input from a range of interested parties and are intended to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that can be considered and evaluated at a comparable level of detail.

2.2 Features Common to all Action Alternatives

The following features are common to all action alternatives (Alternative A - D):

 Incidental Take Authorization is requested by the City for the federally endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly, El Segundo blue butterfly, and federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher.

 Coverage under the Federal and State permits to be issued under any of the action alternatives is also requested for seven species including six plants and one bird that are not currently listed under the CESA or ESA but have specific known locations or appropriate habitat in the City and would benefit from conservation under the NCCP/HCP. These species include the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B and List 4 plants: aphanisma, south coast saltscale, Catalina crossosoma, island green dudleya, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and woolly seablite and the cactus wren, a State Species of Concern (SSC) that is also a NCCP focal species.

 Implementation of the NCCP/HCP under any of the action alternatives would involve the execution of an IA to identify roles and responsibilities. The term of the IA would be 40 years. After execution of the IA, Service and CDFW would issue to the City a Federal ITP and a State NCCP Permit/Authorization for Covered Species under the Plan for all Covered Projects/Activities

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

identified in the final Plan. The Service would also extend “No Surprises” regulatory assurance to both covered animal and covered plant species.

 It is foreseeable that during the life of the NCCP/HCP under any of the action alternatives, the City would undertake a City project similar in character and impacts to other Covered City Projects and Activities not specifically listed as a Covered Project/Activity in the NCCP/HCP. Such projects would be considered Covered Projects and Activities provided the total loss of CSS habitat and non-native grassland for said Miscellaneous City Projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres of non-native grassland.

 Public access within the Preserve under any of the action alternatives would be conditionally allowed for passive recreational purposes and to promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources. In order to balance the public’s passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) has been developed jointly by the City, the public, and PVPLC to address public access issues.

 Management of the Preserve would be considered a Covered Activity under any of the action alternatives.

 Various short- and long-term operation and maintenance requirements or emergency situations, as defined in Section 5.4.1 of the Draft NCCP/HCP, conducted by the City, other public agencies, or others such as utility companies seeking Third-Party Participant status are also defined as Covered Projects/Activities under all of the action alternatives.

 Under all of the action alternatives, mitigation for City and Private Covered Projects/Activities primarily would consist of dedicating currently unprotected, biologically valuable, City-owned land and PVPLC-owned land. Lands, or portions thereof, which were purchased using State and/or Federal funding, would not serve as mitigation for impacts under the various Preserve designs; however, these lands may be subject to habitat restoration where such actions would benefit Covered Species. The City and PVPLC would also perform other functions as specified in Section 8 of the Draft NCCP/HCP to enhance habitat value within the Preserve.

 All action alternatives include habitat impact avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented for all Covered Projects and Activities.

 Species-specific conservation measures for Covered Species would also be incorporated into the final NCCP/HCP (refer to Appendix B of the Draft NCCP/HCP for details).

 For projects abutting and adjoining the Preserve, avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources and retention of native habitats would occur during site plan review.

 The City and the PVPLC would enhance/restore a minimum of 5 acres per year of disturbed habitats within the Preserve (minimum of 250 total acres).

 Under each of the action alternatives, those lands dedicated to the proposed Preserve by the City would receive a conservation easement held by the PVPLC with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-party beneficiaries. Lands dedicated to the proposed Preserve by the PVPLC would also receive a conservation easement, in this case it would be held by the City with the Wildlife Agencies named as third-party beneficiaries.

2-2 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

 None of the permits issued pursuant to the Final NCCP/HCP are intended to satisfy mitigation requirements for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or the State. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and/or CDFW.

2.3 Detailed Description of the Alternatives

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the NCCP/HCP would not move forward for approval. All public and private projects proposed in RPV would continue to be reviewed in accordance with existing State land use and environmental regulations, but without an approved NCCP/HCP for the City, only Federal- and State-listed species would be protected under the mandates of the ESA and CESA. Effects to other sensitive species and their habitats would be addressed through local regulations and the CEQA process, while the potential for adverse effects to riparian and other wetland habitats would continue to be regulated by the ACOE and CDFW in accordance with existing “no net loss” policies.

Habitats not occupied by a listed species, although still subject to environmental review under CEQA, may not receive the level of protection that would be provided through the NCCP/HCP process. In other situations, existing local and State regulatory practices might result in requirements to set aside undisturbed habitat to mitigate for impacts to sensitive species, but because these lands are set aside on a project-by-project basis, the configuration of preserved lands have the potential to be isolated islands with inadequate or non-existent habitat linkages. This type of habitat conservation can result in species decline and local extirpation. A project-by-project pattern of planning would likely occur on both public and private lands within the City under the No Action Alternative. The resulting fragmented pattern of conserved lands would likely lack coordinated funding, monitoring, and land management. Additionally, without a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, activities involving take of listed species normally prohibited under section 9 of the ESA would require project-specific section 10(a) permits or section 7 consultation if a Federal nexus exists under current ESA regulations. This would result in a much longer development and permitting process for any project that has the potential to impact federally listed species.

Alternative A – Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative Preserve Design: Action Alternative A was developed by the NCCP working group between 1996 and 2000. The working group involved various entities including: the South Coast Chapter of the Native Plant Society, Endangered Habitats League, Homeowners Associations, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, Save Our Coastline II, City Departments, Coastal Conservation Coalition, Sierra Club, elected representatives, and developers. The Preserve design proposed by the NCCP Working Group (Figure 3) assumes the conservation of all public and private undeveloped open space considered to have high biological value, and limits the potential for future development within the City.

The lands to be included within the Preserve under Alternative A would consist primarily of existing public lands, including lands owned by the City or the PVPLC, which would be dedicated to the Preserve and perpetually managed by the PVPLC. In addition, land to be dedicated to the City for conservation as mitigation for certain private projects would also be dedicated to the Preserve. Other publicly and privately owned properties have also been identified as Targeted Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve.

Under Alternative A, the Preserve would include approximately 1,559 acres. Of this total, about 1,415 acres would support undeveloped, vegetated land, representing about 59 percent of the 2,382 acres of

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-3

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

undeveloped, vegetated land that is currently present within the City (Table 1). Of the 968 acres of vegetated land that would be located outside of the proposed Preserve boundary, about 671 acres are identified as “Neutral Lands”2 in the Draft NCCP/HCP.

2 Neutral Lands, as described in the draft NCCP/HCP, are areas of the City with limited development potential and include those areas that are considered to be extreme slopes (35 percent or greater slope - Open Space Hillside), are zoned Open Space Hazard, or contain deed-restricted open space. Such lands are regulated in the City Municipal Code within the open space hazard district to prevent unsafe development of hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety purposes. For the most part, this district provides for limited recreational use of land without permanent structures, although there are some exceptions (refer to Chapter 17.32 of the RPV Municipal Code). Lands are placed in the open space hazard district when the use of the land would endanger the public health, safety and welfare. Open space hazard districts include: areas where the existing natural slope exceeds 35 percent; areas experiencing downslope movement; areas unstable for development; areas where grading or development of the land may endanger the public health and safety due to erosion or flooding; the ocean bluffs; and areas subject to flooding or inundation from stormwater.

2-4 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Figure 3 - Preserve Design Proposed Under Alternative A

Figure 3. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative A Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-5

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

The “Neutral Lands” have limited, if any, development potential due to hazards associated with steep slopes, downslope movement, erosion, and flooding. Therefore, despite their exclusion from the Preserve, these lands would be expected to add biological value to the proposed Preserve.

Table 1. Summary of the Proposed Preserve and Habitat Acreages under Each Action Alternative

Alternatives Total Acreage in Acreage of all Natural Acreage of CSS the Preserve Vegetation Communities in in the Preserve the Preserve*

Action Alternative 1,559.1 1,414.8 748.1 A Action Alternative 1,220.5 1,127.2 693.8 B Action Alternative 1,504.0 1,302.4 728.5 C Action Alternative 1,402.4 1,302.3 737.1 D *Natural vegetation communities in this table do not include developed or agricultural lands, disturbed vegetation, cliff face, or rocky shore/intertidal areas.

The proposed Preserve design would include approximately 748 acres of CCS habitat, representing about 59 percent of the City’s 1,266 acres of remaining CSS habitat, and of the 518 acres of CCS habitat located outside of the proposed Preserve boundary, about 430 acres are located within the “Neutral Lands.” As indicated in Table 1, the Preserve design under Action Alternative A is the largest in terms of both total acreage preserved and total acreage of CCS habitat preserved. This alternative conserves all key habitat linkages in the City and linkages to adjacent jurisdictions.

Species for which Incidental Take Authorization is Requested: ITPs are requested by the City for the federally endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly, El Segundo blue butterfly, and federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. Coverage under the Federal and State permits is also requested for seven additional species including six plants and one bird that are not currently listed under the CESA or ESA but have specific known locations or appropriate habitat in the City and would benefit from conservation under the RPV NCCP/HCP. These species include: aphanisma, south coast saltscale, Catalina crossosoma, island green dudleya, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, woolly seablite, and cactus wren.

Habitat Restoration within the Preserve: A significant portion of the undeveloped lands to be included within the Preserve support non-native plant communities that can be restored to native scrub habitats as funding becomes available. The City and PVPLC are committed to additional enhancement of the Preserve with a long-term habitat restoration program that would restore at least 250 acres over a 40- year period. The focus of this habitat restoration effort would be on enhancing habitat patch size and habitat linkage function (i.e., areas with moderate to high potential for successful restoration).

2-6 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Preserve Management: A variety of specific management Covered Activities would be allowed within the Preserve, including: monitoring of Covered Species; vehicular access; habitat restoration; invasive species control; predator control; reintroduction of Covered Species; photo documentation; installation of signage; trail maintenance; maintenance of fire/fuel buffers; and field research and studies.

Recreation: Public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed for passive recreational purposes and to promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources under the NCCP/HCP and must be consistent with the protection and enhancement of biological resources set forth in this Plan. Excessive or uncontrolled access; however, can result in habitat degradation through trampling and erosion (e.g., along trails) and disruption of breeding and other critical wildlife functions at certain times of the year. In order to balance the public’s passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) has been developed jointly by the City, the public, and PVPLC to address public access issues. The PUMP is a proposed Covered City Project incorporated into the Plan; therefore, it must be approved by the Wildlife Agencies as part of the NCCP/HCP before the activities, including the Preserve Trails Plans, will be allowed. The following public uses and activities are considered conditionally Covered Activities in the Preserve if they conform to the PUMP:

 Public use and implementation of the PTP contained in the Wildlife Agency-approved PUMP. Section 9.2.2.1 of this Plan provides the guidelines that will be used for the PTP and Section 9.2.2.2 of the Plan provides implementation requirements.  Closure of existing trails within the Preserve that are not included in the PTP, as approved by the City Council and Wildlife Agencies.  Passive recreational activities (e.g., horse riding, hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing) as described in the PUMP and approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies.  Subject to the PUMP, the creation and maintenance of passive overlook or vista areas with seating benches and trail markers may be located at key vista points near existing trails in the Preserve, provided no existing habitat will be lost. The location of these overlooks shall be located to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. The location of these overlooks will be approved by City Council.  Installation and maintenance of benches, tie rails, portable toilets, and trash cans, provided no existing habitat would be lost. The location of these facilities shall be sited to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to habitat and Covered Species. Location of overlooks shall be reviewed for consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City Council prior to initiation of any implementation work.  Installation of trailhead signage/kiosks within the Preserve adjacent to Existing Preserve Roads, recreational trails, or other access ways shall be sited away from sensitive resource areas. The location of trailhead signage/kiosks shall be reviewed for consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City prior to initiation of any implementation work.  Operation of the existing agricultural use at Alta Vicente Reserve, totaling 5.5 acres, provided the appropriate City approval is maintained and all agricultural practices and improvements remain consistent with this NCCP/HCP. No other agricultural activities are allowed in the Preserve.  Night use of the Preserve provided use is limited, controlled, monitored, and managed consistent with the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Night Hike Regulations. The City will issue

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-7

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

a permit for night use and any night use of the Preserve shall be consistent with the requirements of this Plan. A summary of night use in the Preserve will be included in the Annual Report.

Covered Projects/Activities: The Preserve design proposed under Action Alternative A would provide coverage for specific City Projects and Activities, Private Projects, and other proposed specific Activities, provided that the projects and activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Activities and Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species outlined in Section 5.5 and 5.6 of the Draft NCCP/HCP. In addition, it is foreseeable that during the life of the NCCP/HCP, the City would undertake a City project similar in character and impacts to other Covered City Projects and Activities. Such projects would be considered Covered Projects provided the total loss of CSS habitat and non-native grassland for said Miscellaneous City Projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres of non-native grassland.

Operations and Maintenance: The following Covered Activities are expected to occur in the Preserve due to short- and long-term operation and maintenance requirements or emergency situations conducted by the City, other public agencies, or utility companies seeking Third-Party Participant status:

 Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or habitat. The regular maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities and Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles within the Preserve that do not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  The maintenance of Existing Preserve Roads or trails that accommodate authorized vehicles in the Preserve provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  Geologic testing and monitoring for public health and safety reasons, provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  Installation, maintenance, and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) that are necessary to serve the Covered Private Projects identified in the Draft NCCP/HCP provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  Maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  The maintenance and repair of existing water quality basins, retention basins, detention basins, and debris basins, provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or their habitat.  Photography and filming, provided a City permit is obtained, no grading is involved, no new access road or trails are created, and impacts to Covered Species and/or their habitat are avoided.  City and Los Angeles County law enforcement activities, including authorized vehicular access.

Avoidance and Minimization Measures: The Draft NCCP/HCP includes a number of avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented for all Covered Projects and Activities. These include: compliance with Preserve Access Protocol; preparation and adherence to erosion control plans; maintaining specified setbacks where construction staging areas are proposed in proximity to conserved habitat or natural drainages; control of dust; appropriate revegetation of cut and fill slopes; shielding of night lighting; protection of nesting birds during the breeding season; pre-construction surveys for raptors during the breeding season; herpetofauna surveys; and siting/conducting Covered

2-8 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Projects/Activities occurring within the Preserve within the least sensitive portions of the site. For a complete listing of these measures refer to Section 5.5 of the Draft NCCP/HCP.

In addition, the Draft NCCP/HCP includes more specific avoidance and minimization measures for Covered Species. The implementation of these measures is required to maintain permit coverage for each Covered Species. In accordance with the Draft NCCP/HCP, the City would be required to ensure that these measures are made enforceable conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects and Activities. Species-specific conservation measures for Covered Species are described in detail in Appendix B of the Draft NCCP/HCP.

Avoidance or minimization of impacts from development that would abut and adjoin the Preserve would be addressed as part of plan design review. The site design review process would consider the locations of access and staging areas, fire and fuel modification zones, predator and exotic species control, fencing, signage, lighting, increased stormwater and urban runoff, increased erosion, increased noise levels, and public access to habitats supporting Covered Species. Avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to biological resources would be incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with work.

Alternative B – Landowner Alternative Preserve Design: The Preserve design proposed under Alternative B (Figure 4) was developed by the major landowners and the City in 1999. It includes proposed open space designs from two major landowners, as well as City-owned properties. The initial design was modified to address comments from the NCCP Working Group. This alternative includes development within the areas of Upper and Lower Point Vicente, Oceanfront, and Lower Filiorum. In addition, a golf course is included within Portuguese Bend.

The proposed Preserve design under Alternative B would conserve approximately 1,221 acres, of which about 1,127 acres are undeveloped, naturally vegetated land (see Table 1). About 47 percent of the City’s 2,382 acres of existing vegetated land would be included within the proposed Preserve. As addressed und Alternative A, about 671 acres of the remaining 1,255 acres of vegetated land outside the Preserve boundary are Neutral Lands. Included within the Preserve boundaries are approximately 694 acres of CSS habitat, representing about 55 percent of the remaining nearly 1,267 acres of CSS habitat in the City. The Preserve design proposed under Action Alternative B represents the smallest of the four Preserve designs and the pattern of conserved lands is fragmented with constrained internal and external habitat linkages.

All other aspects of this proposal would be identical to that described under Action Alternative A.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-9

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Figure 4 - Preserve Design Proposed Under Action Alternative B

Figure 4. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative B

2-10 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative C – The City’s Alternative Preserve Design: Action Alternative C (Figure 5) was developed as a compromise between Alternatives A and B. Alternative C is primarily distinguished from Alternative A by development of a portion of Upper Point Vicente, Gateway Park, and Lower Filiorum. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C is based on a minimal amount of future development.

The proposed Preserve design under Action Alternative C would conserve approximately 1,504 acres, of which about 1,302 acres are undeveloped, vegetated land (see Table 1). About 55 percent of the City’s 2,382 acres of existing vegetated land would be included within the proposed Preserve. As addressed und Alternative A, about 671 acres of the remaining 1,080 acres of vegetated land outside the Preserve boundary are Neutral Lands. As designed, the Preserve under Alternative C would protect about 58 percent (approximately 729 acres) of the nearly 1,267 acres of CSS habitat in the City.

The Preserve size under Alternative C is slightly larger than Action Alternative D, but the total amount of CSS habitat to the protected under Alternative C is slightly lower than that proposed under Alternative D.

Action Alternative C was the proposed project identified in the Draft NCCP/HCP approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council in August 2004. In that document, the City has identified 21 City projects and 9 private projects to be covered by NCCP/HCP. Subsequent to the City’s approval of Alternative C, the owner of an area proposed for inclusion in the Preserve (a portion of the Upper Filiorum area) no longer wished to sell the property. The area in question has yet to be developed; therefore, this alternative has been retained for evaluation in the draft EA for the purpose of providing a reasonable range of alternatives.

All other aspects of this proposal would be identical to that described under Action Alternative A.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-11

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Figure 5Figure - Preserve 5 - Preserve Design ProposedDesign Proposed Under Action Under Alternative Alternative C C

Figure 5. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative C

2-12 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative D - Proposed Action Preserve Design: As described for Alternatives A and C, Alternative D is based on a minimal amount of future development. Similar to Alternative C, some of the habitat connections identified in Alternative A between internal habitat areas and proposed protected areas along portions of the coast are not included in Alternative D (Figure 6). The proposal to conserve habitat at the northern edge of Crestridge, which is included in Alternative C, is also proposed under Alternative D.

The primary differences between Alternatives C and D are: 1) a 27-acre parcel in the Upper Filiorum property (now identified as the Plumtree Parcel Project) that was included in the Preserve under Alternative C has been removed from the Preserve in Alternative D and is instead identified as a Covered Project by the NCCP/HCP; 2) 40 acres of a former archery range property located along the coast to the east of Abalone Cove have been removed from the proposed Preserve under Alternative D due to landslide and legal constraints; and 3) 61 acres in Malaga Canyon, purchased by the City in 2014, have been incorporated into the Preserve design under Alternative D.

The proposed Preserve design under Alternative D would conserve approximately 1,403 acres, of which about 1,302 acres are undeveloped, vegetated land (see Table 1). About 55 percent of the City’s 2,382 acres of existing vegetated land would be included within the proposed Preserve. As addressed under Alternative A, about 671 acres of the remaining 1,080 acres of vegetated land outside the Preserve boundary are Neutral Lands. As designed, the Preserve under Alternative D would protect about 58 percent (approximately 737 acres) of the 1,267 acres of CSS habitat in the City.

Under Action Alternative D, the City’s primary conservation strategy is to dedicate approximately 1,403 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 Service’s Section 6 Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition Program, 263.5 acres were obtained by the City, and 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. The 798 acres were acquired with funds provided by the City, PVPLC, California Coastal Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, and California State Dominquez Hills. Specifically, 499.9 of the 798 acres were purchased using non-State funding or are being dedicated directly by the City. Thus, the City is contributing a total of about 500 acres to mitigate for all Covered City Projects and Activities. 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 would eventually be owned by the City, which has been previously dedicated for conservation as mitigation for certain private projects.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-13

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Figure 6 - Preserve Design Proposed Under Alternative D

Figure 6. Preserve Design Proposed under Action Alternative D

2-14 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

The City and PVPLC would be responsible for the management of the entire 1,402.4-acre Preserve. The proposed Preserve is designed to be consistent with NCCP conservation and management standards and guidelines and the issuance criteria for an ESA section 10(a) Take Authorization for species covered by the City-wide permit. The Preserve is designed to conserve regionally important habitat areas and provide adequate habitat linkages between patches of conserved habitat. The City and the PVPLC would enhance and/or restore a minimum of 5 acres per year of disturbed habitats within the Preserve (for a minimum of 250 total acres). Alternative D emphasizes habitat restoration to enhance habitat patch size and habitat linkage function (i.e., areas with moderate to high potential for successful restoration).

Covered Projects/Activities: Under Action Alternative D, the proposed Preserve assumes incidental take coverage for 17 City Covered Projects/Activities (Table 2), five Covered Private Projects/Activities (Table 6), and other specific activities in the Preserve (e.g., operation and maintenance activities, public access for passive recreation, Preserve management), which are described in detail in the Draft NCCP/HCP.

The projects presented in Tables 2 and 3 would be covered provided the Projects and Activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, and described under Action Alternative A. The range of proposed City projects include public infrastructure improvements, hazard abatement (e.g., landslide abatement, fuel modification), and new or upgraded facilities to support public recreation, education, and civic activities. The Covered City Projects/Activities, including the unspecified activities, are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve.

Under Alternative D, once the 1,402.4 acres of City and PVPLC lands have been dedicated to the Preserve and are permanently managed for conservation purposes, the City will have fulfilled its mitigation for the impacts of all of the Covered City Projects/Activities addressed in the NCCP/HCP. Proposed restoration and enhancement activities would be directed to those areas with moderate to high potential for successful restoration with a focus on expanding core areas and improving function for habitat linkages.

Habitat Restoration within the Preserve: Additional habitat restoration may be performed as funding becomes available from mitigation payments into the City’s habitat restoration fund described in the Draft NCCP/HCP. The City also proposes the removal of exotic plants on 5 acres or 20 small sites selected for treatment each year during the permit term. Thus, the dedicated lands would be referred to as “City Mitigation Lands.” City Mitigation Lands do not provide mitigation for privately Covered Projects/Activities.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-15

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Table 2. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities under Alternative D Total Habitat Loss Habitat Loss In City Project Name (Acres) Preserve (Acres) CSS Grassland CSS Grassland 1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0.0 0.0 2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9 4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9 5. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 5.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 6. Misc. Drainage Improvements 20.0 60.0 6.6 20.0 7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 8. *RPV Trails Plan Implementation 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.0 9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 0.0 0.0 0.34 0.0 10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0.0 0.0 11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 12. Upper Point Vicente 2.0 22.0 1.0 11.0 13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18 12.0 18 14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0 15. Unimproved City Park Projects 10.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 16. Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 17. Other Miscellaneous City projects 20.0 60.0 10.0 30.0 **Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 115.5 303.7 60.3 148.3 *Part of the PUMP, a Covered City Project (see Section 9.2 of the Draft NCCP/HCP) **Total habitat loss (CSS and Grassland) is 419.2 acres, of which 208.6 acres (50 percent) would occur in the Preserve. Included in the CSS loss are losses associated with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be minimal. No more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost within the Preserve associated with Covered City Projects and Activities.

Table 3. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered Private Projects under Alternative D

HABITAT LOSS (ACRES) COVERED PRIVATE PROJECT CSS GRASSLAND 1. Lower Filiorum Development 11.9 70.0 2. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading 3.0 10.0 3. Fuel Modification for Private Projects 10.0 20.0 4. Miscellaneous Private Projects throughout the City 71.8 143.1 5. Plumtree Development 2.8 19.7 Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 99.5 262.8

Preserve Management: In addition to habitat preservation and targeted restoration and enhancement, Alternative D includes proposals to manage and maintain the approved Preserve in accordance with specific biological objectives related to: 1) maintaining or increasing populations of Covered Species within the Preserve; 2) maintaining or increasing the acreage of habitat need to support Covered Species within the Preserve; 3) annually document loss of and protection of habitats and Covered Species; 4) manage non-native invasive plant species; 5) describe and disseminate new biological data collected

2-16 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

within the Preserve; and 6) applying adaptive management when necessary to enhance effective conservation of the Preserve.

As described under Alternative A, Alternative D also identifies an additional 170.7 acres of publicly and privately owned properties that have been identified as Targeted Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve. Adding the Targeted Lands properties to the Preserve will require approval from the underlying fee owner, the recordation of acceptable conservation easements (except for properties in Federal ownership), and available funding for active habitat management by the PVPLC. A memorandum of understanding will be sought by the City and PVPLC for management of Targeted Lands under Federal ownership.

All other aspects of the Draft NCCP/HCP related to this alternative are identical to the management proposals presented in Alternative A, with the exception of the following additional public use activities that would be considered conditionally Covered Activities in the Preserve under Alternative D if they conform to the PUMP:

 Operation of the existing agricultural use at Alta Vicente Reserve, totaling 5.5 acres, provided the appropriate City approval is maintained and all agricultural practices and improvements remain consistent with this NCCP/HCP. No other agricultural activities are allowed in the Preserve.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 2-17

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Project Setting

The coastal community of RPV, with a total acreage of 8,616.6 acres, is located on the southwest side of the Peninsula. It is bounded to the north by Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estates and to the east by San Pedro, with the high-density, urbanized core of South Bay communities farther to the north (see Figure 1). Beginning in the early 1900s, the Peninsula enjoyed prosperity as a cattle ranch and rich farming area. By 1913, the residential future of RPV was envisioned as the “most fashionable and exclusive residential colony” in the nation. The 1940s saw 300 acres of the northern Peninsula used for mining of diatomaceous earth. The first wave of municipal incorporations occurred during the 1950s and 1960s with the founding of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates. The estimated population of RPV in 2013 was 42,500 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). The land uses in RPV consist primarily of low density single family residential development, scattered higher density residential, and neighborhood-oriented commercial. Industrial activities are mostly excluded on the Peninsula.

3.2 Biological Resources

3.2.1 Vegetation Communities

The initial vegetation mapping and gnatcatcher and cactus wren distribution data of the Peninsula were prepared by Atwood et al. (1994) and updated and verified during the first phase of the NCCP program (Ogden 1999). The vegetation map was compiled from 1 inch = 1,200 feet color aerial photographs and from field mapping efforts that used U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps enlarged to a scale of 1.0 inch = 1,000.0 feet. The vegetation mapping was ground-verified, and vegetation polygons were assessed for plant cover. A vegetation category was assigned to each polygon according to plant species cover based on Holland (1986). These vegetation data were digitized into the geographic information system (GIS) database. Additional source data were also obtained from representatives of the local chapters of the CNPS, Audubon Society, and Endangered Habitats League, and digital information was obtained from the major landowners and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). These data sources were collated and reviewed for spatially relevant information for inclusion in the GIS database. Ogden (1999) updated this base vegetation map using project-specific vegetation data from existing environmental reports. Minor updates to the vegetation map were made during formation of the Draft NCCP/HCP document to account for changes in vegetation cover associated with recently completed development projects (RPV 2004).

Approximately 2,382 acres within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes support a mix of native (i.e., coastal sage scrub [CSS], saltbush scrub, southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, riparian scrub) and non-native (i.e., grassland, exotic woodlands) habitats. The vegetation communities of RVP are shown in Figure 7 and listed in Table 4.

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 7 - Vegetation Map

Figure 7. Vegetation Map

3-2 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 4. Vegetation Communities in Rancho Palos Verdes (Permit Area)1 Vegetation Community Existing Acres within the City of RPV (approx.) Coastal Sage Scrub Sub-associations CSS – Artemisia Dominated 94.4 CSS – Baccharis Dominated 7.2 CSS – Encelia Dominated 8.3 CSS – Eriogonum Dominated 13.9 CSS – Rhus Dominated 234.4 CSS – Salvia Dominated 26.0 CSS – Undifferentiated 642.6 Subtotal CSS 1,026.8 Saltbush Scrub 7.3 Southern Cactus Scrub 99.7 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub 133.2 Grassland2 950.2 Riparian Scrub 2.5 Exotic Woodland 75.4 Disturbed Vegetation (includes ruderal) 86.9 Total Acres of Undeveloped Vegetated Land 2,382.0 Other Land Covers Cliff Face 8.8 Rocky Shore/Intertidal 58.8 Disturbed Areas 170.0 Agriculture 12.5 Development 5,984.5 Subtotal Other Land Cover 6,234.6 Total Acres in the City of RPV 8,616.6 1 Vegetation inventory from Ogden (1999) with minor updates in 2003. 2 Includes both non-native and a small amount native grassland.

Some of the vegetated areas included within the total vegetated acreages presented in Table 1 are “Neutral Lands.” The Neutral Lands designation has been applied to privately owned properties in RPV that contain development constraints due to existing zoning code or other restrictions (Figure 8). The Neutral Lands designation is not intended to prohibit development, it only recognizes the development constraints that already exist pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code or other legal constraint. By definition, “Neutral Lands” are those areas that are considered to be extreme slopes (35 percent or greater slope - Open Space Hillside), are zoned Open Space Hazard, or contain deed-restricted open space. If any of these three conditions exist on a private property, then the area has been designated Neutral Lands. About 671 acres of undeveloped, vegetated land (of which 430 acres support CSS habitat) are included in the Neutral Lands. These vegetated areas support a range of native plant and animal species and facilitate wildlife movement between other open space areas in the City.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-3

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 8 - Neutral Lands

Figure 8. Neutral Lands

3-4 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.2.2 Sensitive Habitats

Sensitive habitats within the RPV NCCP/HCP planning area are those that are considered rare in the region, support sensitive species of plants and animals, and/or are subject to regulatory protection through various Federal, State, or local policies or regulations. Sensitive habitats in RPV include wetland habitat types (riparian scrub) and all upland scrub habitats (i.e., coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, saltbush scrub). The location of these sensitive habitats is depicted in Figure 7, and additional information about each of the sensitive habitat types is provided in Appendix B. No native grassland have been delineated in RPV, but if patches of native grassland occur, this habitat would also be considered sensitive if the patch exceeded 0.3 acres and supported at least 10 percent cover of native grassland plant species.

Habitats dominated by non-native plant species (i.e., non-native grassland, exotic woodland, disturbed vegetation) are generally not considered sensitive. Non-native grassland; however, is considered sensitive where it occurs in large, contiguous areas because it may provide vital foraging habitat for raptors and support other sensitive plant and wildlife species. Because most grassland in southern California is now dominated by non-native annual grasses, conservation of some non-native grassland is necessary to achieve NCCP planning goals for the multiple habitat Preserve design. Patches of non-native grassland that exceed 5 acres are considered to have some conservation value. Smaller patches of non-native grassland that are contiguous with larger areas of biological open space are also important because they contribute to a habitat mosaic that can be used by sensitive species. For these reasons, native and non-native grassland is addressed in this section.

The sensitive habitats found within the planning area are described here and their locations within RVP are indicated in Figure 3. For additional information about these habitats, refer to the Draft RPV NCCP/HCP (RPV 2018).

3.2.3 Wildlife

Wildlife found in the RPV NCCP/HCP planning area is typical of CSS, rocky coastal beach, and open field habitats in coastal suburban areas of southern California. Mammalian predators including coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and the nonnative European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) have all been documented in the planning area. Other observed wildlife species include Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), western fence-lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oregonus), striped racer (Coluber Lateralis), and Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) (Cooper 2011). A variety of seabirds, shorebirds, and hummingbirds, as well as western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) and various songbirds are routinely observed within suitable habitats in the planning area. A few bird species of note include coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) (Cooper 2011).

3.2.4 Sensitive Species

Sensitive species, through the circumstance of natural distribution or habitat destruction, are species that have declined in population to a level so low that professional biologists are concerned about the longevity or vitality of the species. Sensitive species include species listed by the Federal or State Wildlife Agencies under the ESA or CESA, by CDFW as a State Species of Concern (SSC), or on the CNPS inventory of rare or endangered plants (CNPS 2001). The distribution of sensitive species is based on cumulative sighting data compiled during the Phase I NCCP program and focused rare plant surveys conducted in spring 1998. Butterfly habitat was also assessed during the NCCP program. It is only recently that the El Segundo blue

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-5

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

butterfly been documented in RPV (Pratt 2006). All the sensitive species are associated closely with scrub habitats on the Peninsula. The sensitive species known to occur within the planning area are listed below and their approximate locations within the planning area are illustrated in Figure 9.

Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) Federal: Endangered State: No status

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). PVB was federally listed as endangered in 1980 (45 FR 44939) due primarily to the threats of habitat destruction and small population size. Three populations were identified in the listing rule, and six more discovered over the following 2 years. Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with agriculture and residential development, fire suppression (e.g., fuel modification activities), severe weather conditions, and over-collecting by butterfly enthusiasts have all contributed to the current endangered status of the PVB (Arnold 1987; Mattoni 1992).

The final listing rule for PVB also included the designation of critical habitat for the butterfly (45 FR 44939). The federally designated critical habitat includes the Switchbacks, Agua Amarga Canyon, and Fred Hesse Park (Service 1980) in RPV; however, these sites are not currently occupied by PVB.

PVB is restricted to habitats that support larval hostplants, including ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) and deerweed (Acmispon glaber) (Mattoni 1992). Habitat for PVB is typified by open coastal sage scrub and ecotone areas between sage scrub and grasslands.

PVB was historically observed in RPV through the mid-1980s in the Agua Amarga Canyon, Upper Filiorum, Portuguese Bend, Forrestal, Switchbacks, and the Neutral Lands near Ocean Trails Reserve. PVB is not currently known to be present in RPV; however, ocean locoweed, one of the hostplants for PVB, has been observed in all areas within the City where PVB was historically recorded, as well as within the Three Sisters/Barkentine Reserve, Ocean Trails Reserve, and Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente) (see Figure 2 for place locations). Ocean locoweed is an early successional or disturbance-associated species; as a result, species presence declines in areas in which no disturbance (e.g., mechanical, fire) occurs for extended periods of time. Deerweed has not been mapped in RPV, but it is generally less common than ocean locoweed in this area.

Historically, the PVB occurred throughout the Peninsula, however, 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 (Service 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 (Service 1984). By the early 1980s, PVB were found at only 10 locations (Arnold 1987). Until its rediscovery in 1994 on the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) San Pedro, which is located to the east of the northeastern most part of the RPV, the PVB had not been seen since 1983 and was thought to be extinct (Arnold 1987; Mattoni 1992).

PVB surveys conducted on DFSP San Pedro from 1994 to 2015 and on the adjacent Palos Verdes Navy housing area from 1999 to 2015 (Longcore and Osborne 2015) found that the estimated population size varied annually. At both sites for 1994 to 2015, the estimated population ranged from between 0 and 282 individuals. In 1994, a captive rearing program was established from the population at the DFSP San Pedro (Longcore et al. 2002). This captive breeding facility provides stock for reintroductions and acts as a safeguard against extinction. Based on observations made in 2014 and 2015, reintroduction at the Chandler Preserve in Rolling Hills Estates has resulted in successful breeding by reintroduced PVB at this site.

3-6 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 9 - Sensitive Plant Species Locations

Figure 9. Sensitive Plant Species Locations

3-3-7 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) Federal: Endangered State: No status

The El Segundo blue (ESB) butterfly 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 (Service 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.)(Osborne 2010).

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 (Service 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 (Service 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 (Service 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.

The primary cause of the decline of the ESB is attributed to the loss of habitat from urban development and loss of host plants (Mattoni 1990). Competition with plants which are not native to the coastal dunes ecosystem can also have a detrimental impact on the ESB host plant, coast buckwheat (Service 2008). Arnold (2009) expressed concern about a long-term trend of senescence (deterioration with age) 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.

3-8 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Small and isolated populations can be particularly sensitive to even the most mild habitat disturbance, as well as disease outbreak, natural catastrophe, or demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and Soulé 1986).

Areas of southern coastal bluff scrub are identified as potential habitat for ESB, and there are 133.2 acres of potential ESB habitat in the plan area. 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.

There is no dune habitat within RPV; 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).

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Federal: Threatened State: SSC, NCCP focal species

The coastal California gnatcatcher (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), flat-topped 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 percent shrub cover and an average shrub height that exceeds 1 m (3.28 feet). 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; Service 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 percent were located below 250 m (820 feet) elevation. In general, inland populations of the gnatcatcher can be found below 500 m (1,640 feet) elevation and coastal populations tend to be found below 250 m (820 feet) elevation.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-9

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Service listed the gnatcatcher as threatened on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16742), stating that the “habitat and range of the gnatcatcher [had] been significantly reduced,” and further noting that coastal sage scrub was “one of the most depleted habitat types in the United States” (Service 1993 [58 FR 16751]). A final rule establishing critical habitat for the gnatcatcher was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 72010) and went into effect on January 18, 2008. As a result, 197,303 acres (79,846 hectares) of Federal, State, local, and private land divided among eleven critical habitat units was designated as critical habitat, including approximately 4,462 acres (1,806 hectares) on the Peninsula, the majority of which is within RPV. In 1993, the Service estimated that approximately 2,562 pairs of gnatcatchers remained in the United States. Of these, 30 pairs (1.2 percent) occurred in Los Angeles County, 757 pairs (29.5 percent) occurred in Orange County, 261 pairs (10.2 percent) occurred in Riverside County, and 1,514 pairs (59.1 percent) occurred in San Diego County. Based on surveys conducted from 1993-1997, the gnatcatcher population within RPV was estimated at 35 to 46 pairs (Atwood et al. 1998a). This range is consistent with subsequent surveys, which documented 65 territories in 2006, 40 in 2009, and 33 in 2012 (PVPLC 2013). For more information about this species, refer to the Draft Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP.

Potential habitat for the gnatcatcher is defined as coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub. Gnatcatchers have been documented in various undeveloped areas in RPV, except Pelican Cove, Lower Point Vicente, and Malaga Canyon.

Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) Federal: No status State: Species of Special Concern, NCCP focal species 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. 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 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.

Habitat within the plan area that may be occupied by cactus wren includes coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub; however, due to the cactus wren’s specific micro-habitat requirements (e.g., extensive cacti patches with individual cactus being at least 1 to 3 feet tall), only certain portions of the native shrublands in the plan area are suitable for occupation by cactus wrens.

Based on data from Atwood et al. (1997), the cactus wren population within the plan area was estimated at 47 to 58 pairs from 1993 to 1997. Within the plan area, there were 279 observations of cactus wrens, of which 189 (67 percent) were within the propose Preserve. These surveys documented cactus wrens scattered throughout much of the proposed Preserve; however, no observation were made in the Vicente Bluffs Reserve (Ocean Front Estates Property, Pelican Cove, and Lower Point Vicente) Reserve, Crestridge Property (Vista Del Norte Reserve), or the Malaga Canyon Reserve. With the exception of the Abalone Cove Reserve, each of the areas occupied by cactus wren has been consistently occupied in recent surveys (PVPLC 2013).

Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) Federal: No status State: No status, CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2

3-10 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

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 within Abalone Cove 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 at Abalone Cove 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 and immediately north of Ocean Trails/Trump property south to the City- owned Shoreline Park.

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).

South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) Federal: No status State: No status, CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2

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 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. According to surveys conducted in RPV through 1997, this species has been observed in nine locations; four in the Ocean Trails/Trump area, two in Shoreline Park, and three in the Abalone Cove area. Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC show highly variable abundance with 136 individuals counted in 2006, 0 in 2007, 376 in 2008, 5 in 2010, and 17 in 2011.

Catalina Crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum)

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-11

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2

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 m (1,600 feet) elevation (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Preston and Shevock 2013). It is known from the 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).

This species is ranked by CNPS as rare throughout its range and moderately threatened in California. 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 RPV, potential habitat for Catalina crossosoma is coastal sage scrub and southern coastal bluff scrub. According to surveys conducted through 1997 within RPV, four locations of Catalina crossosoma have been documented, all within the Forrestal area. Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC that counted each individual found 540 individuals in 2006, 198 in 2008, and 783 in 2010. This species was also observed in 2015 within and adjacent to the Forrestal area.

Island Green Dudleya (Dudleya virens spp. insularis) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.2

Island green dudleya is a succulent perennial with a basal rosette of leaves from a caudex [i.e., a short woody stem at or below the ground (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, 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 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, within RPV, it is primarily restricted to steep slopes vegetated with southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 133.2 acres of island green dudleya habitat in RPV. According to surveys conducted through 1997, there were 34 observations of island green dudleya within RPV including 13 in the Ocean Trails/Trump area, 3 in Shoreline Park, and 5 in the Pelican Cove and Abalone Cove areas. Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC found 3,430 individuals in 2006, 550 in 2007, 408 in 2008, and 240 in 2010. PVPLC introduced island green dudleya to the Abalone Cove area in 2013.

Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1

Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is a deciduous shrub that can reach 4 meters (13 feet) in height (Nee 2013). This plant species, which relies on insects for pollination, is found on slopes in coastal bluff scrub

3-12 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

and coastal sage scrub habitats at elevations below 300 m [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 within RPV is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub. There are 133.2 acres of potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat in RPV. Due to its specific habitat requirements, this species often occurs in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal bluff slopes) within southern coastal bluff scrub habitat. According to surveys conducted through 1997, there were three observations of Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn within RPV, all within the Abalone Cove area. 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. PVPLC planted Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn at Abalone Cove and in Ocean Front Estates property in 2013.

Woolly Seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

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 m (CNPS 2001) or below 15 m 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). Due to its specific habitat requirements, woolly seablite occurs in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal bluff slopes) within southern coastal bluff scrub. On the 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 within the area.

Potential habitat for woolly seablite is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub. There are approximately 133 acres of woolly seablite habitat in RPV. Woolly seablite is found in Abalone Cove Reserve and Pelican Cove (within the Vicente Bluffs Reserves) 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. According to PVPLC (2013), woolly seablite is broadly distributed throughout the bluffs where it is found.

The sensitive species listed below have been documented in RPV, but are not proposed for inclusion in the Draft RPV NCCP/HCP as Covered Species.

Catalina Mariposa Lily (Calochortus catalinae) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

Catalina mariposa lily is a perennial bulb species that flowers from February to May (CNPS 2001). It occurs below 700 meters (2,300 feet) in open chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and CSS (Hickman 1993; Reiser 1994; CNPS 2001). Ranked as fairly endangered in

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-13

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

California (CNPS 2015), Catalina mariposa lily occurs in CSS near the RPV City Hall, in the canyon north of Barkentine Road, in the Forrestal area, in the northern part of the Portuguese Bend landslide near the closed portion of the Crenshaw Road extension, Ocean Trails/Trump area, and in the Switchbacks enhancement area north of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drives North and East.

Seaside cistanthe (Cistanthe maritime) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

Seaside cistanthe is an annual herb that flowers from February to August (CNPS 2015). It occurs between 5 and 300 meters (16.4 and 984.3 feet) in sandy soil within coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitat in coastal areas of California and Baja California, Mexico. It is ranked by CNPS as fairly endangered in California and by the State as vulnerable. This plant has been identified in the Ocean Trails/Trump area of the RPV.

Small-flowered Morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

Small-flowered morning-glory is found between 30 to 700 meters (100 to 2,300 feet) on clay soils typically devoid of shrubs, in chaparral, sage scrub, and grassland (Reiser 1994; Hickman 1993). Occurrences have been recorded in San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Kern, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, San Benito, and Stanislaus counties, as well as on Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands and in Baja California, Mexico (CNPS 2001). In RPV, small- flowered morning-glory occurs at two locations: north of Forrestal Drive and northwest of the terminus of Coolheights Drive.

Western Dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

This perennial herb generally occurs at elevations from 50 to 500 meters (165 to 1,650 feet) on dry, sandy banks in CSS, chaparral, grassland, or southern oak woodland and often proliferates on recently burned slopes (CNPS 2001; Reiser 1994). This species occurs in Sonoma and Marin counties, disjunct to San Barbara County, and south along the coast to northern Baja California, Mexico (Reiser 1994). In RPV, western dichondra occurs in CSS northwest of Coolheights Drive.

The sensitive species listed below have not been document in RPV, but are known from other locations within the Peninsula.

Pacific (Little) Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) Federal: Endangered State: SSC

The Pacific (little) pocket mouse (PPM) is endemic to the immediate coast of southern California from Marina del Rey and El Segundo in Los Angeles County, south to the vicinity of the Mexican border in San Diego County (Service 2010b). The subspecies has not been recorded outside of California and has not been reliably reported more than 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) from the ocean (Service 1998b).

3-14 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Two key habitat components that appear to be important to the distribution of PPM are vegetation and soils. PPM is commonly associated with coastal sage scrub vegetation, but has also been found in a range of other plant communities, including coastal strand, coastal dunes, and ruderal vegetation on river alluvium (Service 2010b). Within these vegetation associations, PPM is thought to prefer open, sparsely vegetated areas and small open patches within dense vegetation. Several authors have noted that this species is found in fine, alluvial, sandy soil near the ocean and adjacent terraces dominated by open sage scrub (Brylski 1993).

Only eight definite localities for this subspecies have been documented, most of which were subsequently lost to development (Service 1994). Few records are known after the 1930s, and the species was not definitively identified by trapping studies after 1971 until a small population was discovered on the Dana Point Headlands, Orange County in 1993 (Brylski 1993). Three populations were subsequently located on Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County. Potential habitat beyond Camp Pendleton is very limited and highly fragmented by coastal land development and agriculture. Despite at least 82 survey efforts that have been performed within its historical range between the time of listing and 2009 (2009 CFWO Survey Report Data Base), no additional locations for PPM have been identified (Service 2010b).

A number of trapping surveys have been conducted on the Peninsula within potentially suitable habitat, but none have detected PPM. In fact, there are no records of PPM from Los Angeles County since 1938 (Service 2010b). PPM is therefore not expected to occur in RPV (Dudek 1994; Marquez and Associates 1995; BonTerra Consulting 1997; Ogden 1999).

Lyon’s Pentachaeta (Pentachaeta lyonii) Federal: Endangered State: Endangered CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1

Lyon’s pentachaeta is an annual herb that blooms from March to August (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; CNPS 2001). This species typically occurs on clay soils in transitional (ecotonal) pocket valley and foothill grassland sites to shrublands within openings in the chaparral, CSS, and along edges of roads and trails (Service 1997, 1999; CNPS 2001) near the coast at elevations below 150 meters [500 feet (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Hickman 1993)].

Lyon’s pentachaeta is endemic to coastal southern California and as of 2008 was only present in the Santa Monica Mountains and in the western Simi Hills in Ventura County (Service 2008b). As of 2008, there are 30 presumed extant occurrences, with several occurrences reported as declining (Service 2008b). Based on historical records, it once occurred on the Peninsula and on Santa Catalina Island, but the species has not been seen at these locations since 1910 and 1931, respectively (Service 2008b).

Peirson’s Morning-glory (Calystegia peirsonii) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

Peirson’s morning-glory, believed to be endemic to Los Angeles County, occurs primarily in chaparral, CSS, chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grassland (CNPS 2010). This plant is a perennial rhizomatous herb that blooms from April to June. The elevation range of this species is 30 to 1,500 meters [100 to 5,000 feet (CNPS 2001)]. Peirson’s morning-glory was previously known only from Antelope Valley in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles County (Hickman 1993); however,

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-15

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

recent studies indicate that this species frequently intergrades with other Calystegia species (CNPS 2001). This species has not been observed in RPV, but is known to occur in the San Pedro area of the Peninsula.

Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi australis) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 1B.1

Southern tarplant occurs in the margins of salt marsh, mesic valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools, and alkaline areas below 425 meters (1,400 feet) elevation (CNPS 2001). It ranges from Santa Barbara County to northern Baja California, Mexico, and possibly occurs on Santa Catalina Island (CNPS 2001; Reiser 1994). This summer blooming annual occurs mostly in seasonally moist saline grassland. Southern tarplant is severely declining throughout its range because of development and recreation (Reiser 1994). This species has not been detected in RPV, but occurs northeast of the City near Machado Lake.

Suffrutescent Wallflower (Erysimum insulare suffrutescens) Federal: No status State: No status; CNPS Rare Plant Rank: 4.2

Suffrutescent wallflower is a perennial herb that occurs at elevations of less than 150 meters [500 feet (Hickman 1993)]. It is found in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and CSS habitats along the coast from San Luis Obispo County to Los Angeles County (CNPS 2001). Suffrutescent wallflower occurs on the Peninsula, but has not been detected in RPV.

San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) Federal: No status State: SSC

This subspecies is endemic to extreme southwestern California (Stebbins 1985), from south of the Transverse Ranges to Baja California. This species is relatively widespread and locally common from the coast to the western edge of the desert, where extensive suitable habitat is still available—mostly in Orange and San Diego counties (San Diego Herpetological Society 1980). Where it is found, this horned lizard occurs from sea level to elevations over 8,000 feet and frequents a variety of habitats from coastal dune, sage scrub, and chaparral to coniferous and broadleaf woodlands (Stebbins 1985). It is most often found on sandy or friable soils with open scrub. Habitat requirements include open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, and fine loose soil for rapid burial. Harvester ants are the primary food item of the horned lizard and the presence of harvester ants in an area also indicate a potential for the lizard to be present in the same area. This horned lizard has been reported in the Malaga Cove area of the Peninsula (Mattoni et al. 1997) but was not observed in RPV during any of the gnatcatcher studies or spring plant surveys.

3.2.5 Wetlands

RPV supports limited wetland resources beyond the coastal beaches. Most drainages within the City function as flood flow channels during major storm events and do not support the necessary hydrological resources or soils to support wetland vegetation. The only riparian vegetation still present within the City occurs in Agua Amarga Canyon and south of Palos Verdes Drive South on the Ocean Trails project

3-16 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

property. Collectively, these areas support approximately 2.5 acres of riparian scrub habitat, consisting of black and arroyo willow shrubs and a variety of non-native weedy understory species.

3.3 Geology and Soils

The Palos Verdes Peninsula bedrock is composed of a metamorphic (schist) core covered by sequences of younger sedimentary rock. The bedrock has been altered by smaller‐scale folding and the intrusion of irregular masses of basaltic volcanic rocks into the schist and sedimentary layers. This entire block has been uplifted by movement on two sub‐parallel bounding faults, the Palos Verdes fault on the northeast and the San Pedro fault offshore on the southwest (RPV 2010). The folding and up-lifting of the Peninsula has produced an anticlinal structure in which the sedimentary rocks are inclined generally to the north on the northerly flanks of the Palos Verdes Hills and inclined to the south on the southerly side. This particular structural relationship is one of the major factors responsible for the large-scale landslides present on the Peninsula. Soils in the RPV area consist primarily of combinations of Diablo and Altamont soils, both of these clay soils have a high shrink-swell potential and poor percolation characteristics.

Five geologic formations are present on the Peninsula including the Catalina Schist, Monterey Formation, San Pedro Formation, intrusive volcanic rocks, and marine terrace deposits. The Miocene Monterey Formation, more than 2000 feet thick on the Peninsula, is the most widely exposed and the most significant in terms of slope stability. It has been divided into three members on the basis of rock type: the Altamira Shale, the Valmonte Diatomite (fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae), and the Malaga Mudstone (from oldest to youngest). Altamira Shale consists largely of thin‐bedded sedimentary rocks formed by the deposition of successive layers of clay, along with numerous layers of tuff (volcanic ash) that have been largely altered to weak clays. Thick layers of volcanic ash deposited millions of years ago were compressed over time into bentonite. In the presence of water, bentonite becomes very slippery and has been a contributing factor for landslides in Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV 2010).

The City is located in a seismically active area and near several of the active and potentially actives faults, all capable of producing seismic shaking that may cause damage to structures. There are two faults present on the Peninsula: the Palos Verdes and Cabrillo Faults. The Palos Verdes Fault is considered a source of significant earthquake hazard and the Cabrillo Fault is a potentially moderate earthquake hazard. The hard rock substrata of the Peninsula Hills, where RVP is situated, helps this area to be seismically safer than surrounding areas that have more soft sandy soils subjecting them to ground acceleration due to liquefaction. However, movement of existing landslides in the area that are in a metastable condition could be triggered by strong seismic shaking (RPV 2010).

A significant geologic hazard within the City is the presence of currently stable and active landslides, which are influenced by rock type, rock structure, the quantity of available water, and topographical conditions. Landslides have occurred on the Peninsula along a fault that resulted in surface displacement during the Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs (approximately 11,000 and up to 1.6 million years ago, respectively) (RPV 2010).

The Portuguese Bend system is the most studied landslide in the area, identified as a large complex that extends from the top of the ridge of the City to the ocean. The Portuguese Bend System became recently active in 1956 as a result of grading operations and the stability of the area continues to be debated. Another landslide system, the South Shores, have been at equilibrium for some time. Both of these landslide systems could be affected by human activities, heavy rain periods that cause an increase in hydrostatic pressure and weight load, and erosion. As a consequence of these geologic conditions, existing and potential slope

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-17

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

stability must be recognized as a prime consideration in determining what activities are appropriate in the City’s landslide areas (RPV 2010).

3.4 Air Quality

RPV is included within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency responsible for developing plans and regulations for the region that will lead to the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment deadlines. Currently, Los Angeles County exceeds the NAAQS for PM-2.5 (fine particulate matter), 8-hour ozone levels, and lead; and exceeds the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10 (particulate matter up to 10 micrometers). Ozone, a major component of smog, is a reactive gas capable of damaging the tissues of the lungs and respiratory tract. Particulate Matter (PM) consists of tiny particles that are easily inhaled deep into the lungs and may cause a variety of harmful health effects.

According to the RPV General Plan, the Pacific Ocean is the primary air recharge area for the region and this continuing daily flow of clean ocean air over the Peninsula provides the high level of air quality, which is prevalent in RPV. Inland cities within the region also depend on this ocean airflow for their clean air. The strength, direction, frequency, and degradation of the quality of this air as it passes inland are factors in the air pollution levels experienced by inland areas. The general airflow pattern for the region, as described by SCAQMD and other sources, indicates that the Peninsula splits the sea breeze in such a fashion that the majority of the air, which reaches inland areas, crosses other coastal plain cities. This is not to indicate that air pollution generated on the Peninsula does not reach the inland areas, but rather that the impact is estimated to be less in comparison to other coastal cities.

3.5 Land Use

The 13.6 square mile coastal community of RPV is bounded to the north by Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estates and to the east by San Pedro (see Figure 1). Existing land uses in the City are dominated by low-density residential and vacant land, but also include other uses such as recreational lands and commercial development (Figure 10). Table 5 depicts the acreages of existing land uses within the City.

Land development within the City is guided by the City of RPV General Plan (RPV 1975) and Specific Coastal Plan (RPV 1978) and regulated by the City of RPV Municipal Code. The City’s General Plan, adopted on June 26, 1975, provides guidance for environmental management and land use decisions within the community. It is organized into various elements including: natural environment, socio/cultural, urban environment, and land use. The goal of the City’s General Plan is to conserve, protect, and enhance the City’s natural resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region.

3-18 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 5. Existing Land Uses within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes

City Total Existing Land Use (approximate acres)

Agriculture 12.5 Commercial 115 Industrial 0.5 Low-Density Residential 4,760 Medium- to High-Density Residential 263 Open Space and Recreation 555 Public Facilities and Institutions 260 Transportation and Utilities 110 Under Construction 10 Vacant 2,530 Total 8,616 acres Source: SCAG 1991, modified by Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Dept.

The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), adopted by the RPV City Council in 1978, provides a series of polices to guide development and protect natural features in the California Coastal Zone along the 7.5 miles of coastline within the City’s jurisdiction. The CSP includes all land on the coastal side of Palos Verdes Drive South and West. The CSP identifies natural habitat "which is not only vital to local animal life, but is the key to the migratory species" 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."

As a regulatory document, the City’s Municipal Code provides an important layer of environmental protection for lands located within the City. Specific City ordinances including the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16) regulate grading and development proposals to ensure compliance with established regulations and controls that include natural habitat protection. Other City ordinances, such as the stormwater discharge ordinance; off-road vehicle ordinance; and the streets, parks, and recreational facilities ordinance also provide protection for natural areas. The stormwater discharge ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.10) includes standards and procedures for reducing pollutants in stormwater discharge for major projects throughout the City, thus reducing the likelihood of contaminated stormwater entering natural areas. The off-road vehicle ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.24) indirectly protects habitat areas by prohibiting off-road vehicles from driving into conserved areas. The recreational facilities ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.16) prohibits trail use not authorized by the City.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-19

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Figure 10. Existing Land Use

3-20 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Another aspect of land use is recreation. Recreational facilities in the City are grouped into active or passive recreation areas. Active recreation areas are highly structured facilities designed with specific activity areas, such as recreation buildings, tennis courts, baseball fields, and children’s playgrounds. Passive recreational areas are mostly unstructured to minimize disturbance to natural areas and promote compatible uses, such as trail use by hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians; nature viewing, and limited picnicking. The open space areas within the City presently support passive recreational uses such as trail use and picnicking. Although there are some publicly dedicated trails, many of the trails are unimproved, non-dedicated trails, which are used by hikers, bicycle riders, and equestrians. There is no data available as to how many persons currently use this system of trails. According to the City’s General Plan, path and trail networks in RPV function as linear recreation facilities, as well as transportation facilities, and provide a connection between recreational open space and other activity areas.

3.6 Water Resources and Water Quality

As discussed in the City’s General Plan, within the City, all surface waters originate from precipitation falling directly on the land and there are no major continuing stream way systems. This is due to the Peninsula’s single hill formation, which results in a drainage pattern that is dispersed in a number of small watershed systems. Because no major watershed systems are totally confined within the boundaries of the City, all hydrologic processes within the City are affected by runoff from other jurisdictions or affect other downstream jurisdictions. All surface waters within RPV originate from precipitation that falls on the Peninsula (RPV 1975). A central ridge causing runoff to flow in several directions divides the drainage pattern of RPV. Passing through publicly and privately constructed channels and storm drains, the majority of the runoff flows directly south into the ocean. The remaining runoff flows east through San Pedro, north through Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates, or west through Palos Verdes Estates. All runoff, however, eventually flows into the ocean.

Erosion, sedimentation, and siltation are part of the natural drainage processes and are necessary for the development and transportation of sediments for beach replenishment. Little down cutting of drainage canyon bottoms due to erosion is currently taking place because these drainages are already essentially located in bedrock. Erosion, however, is occurring on the canyon walls where weak rock is located or slope wash exists. This material falls, slides, or is washed into the canyon bottoms, and is transported out onto the beach during periods of heavy precipitation. By far, more material is carried to the sea by movement of landslides, such as Portuguese Bend, than by stream erosion. Small amounts of material deposited on the beaches by runoff remain only until the next large storm, when it is then washed away by the larger waves and carried southeast by the longshore current. The coastal shelf around the Peninsula is primarily rocky as most of the beach sand is transported to other areas along the coast.

Soils within the City tend to be rich in clay and have poor percolation characteristics. This results in relatively high runoff. In addition, impermeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and buildings, reduce the amount of land area that naturally absorbs moisture, thereby accelerating runoff and increasing the amount of contaminants flowing into storm drains and subsequently into the ocean.

3.7 Cultural Resources

As discussed in the City’s General Plan, although the land within the City is rich in history and past cultures, the objects, sites, and structures of true historic significance are modest in number (Table 6). Cultural resources include the lighthouse at Pointe Vicente, which has guided sailors since 1924; Portuguese Bend, which served as a pick-up point for smuggling operations when the land was ruled by Spanish Viceroys; Villa Francesca, the estate of Frank Vanderlip, principal founder and developer of much of the Peninsula;

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-21

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

the Harden Estate; and finally, the Portuguese Bend Riding Club, which serves as the hub of a social sector in the area. These sites and structure represent the major historical points in RPV.

Within the incorporated boundaries of RPV, several significant archaeological sites are known to exist. In addition to these known sites, there are areas within RPV that are “probable” archaeological sites. The area around these sites should also be considered as “archaeologically sensitive.” The location of these known sites and probable sites are on file with the City. To reduce the potential for impacts associated with proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas, the RPV General Plan proposes that Overlay Control Districts be placed on lands within RPV that possess special features. Consistent with the General Plan of striving to protect and Preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the City, an Overlay Control District has been placed over the City’s known archaeologically sensitive lands to maintain and promote the cultural heritage of the community.

The most prominent of the archaeological resources known to occur on the Peninsula, are middens left by earlier Gabrielino Indians. Indians of the “...wider Gabrielino group occupied Los Angeles County south of the Sierra Madre, half of Orange County, and the islands of Santa Catalina and San Clemente” (Kroeber 1970:620). There are locations all along RPV’s coastline where the Gabrielinos established campsites. In addition, previous excavations in the area provide evidence of trade centers where Gabrielinos from the mainland traded with the islanders for otter pelts and other goods. For these reasons, the entire coastal area in RPV is considered “archaeologically sensitive” and is designated in the RPV General Plan as an Overlay Control District (RPV 1975).

3-22 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 6. Recorded Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity

Cultural Primary Trinomial Resource Cultural Resource Description # Type Shell and refuse scatter near high bluff; recorded by N.C. CA-LAN- - Prehistoric Nelson (n.d.); this camp site is extensive but shallow; no 140 artifacts were observed. CA-LAN- Shell and refuse scatter on low shelf at base of bluff; - Prehistoric 141 recorded by N.C. Nelson (n.d.). Light shell scatter, mainly abalone; site originally recorded CA-LAN- - Prehistoric by Hector and Rosen (1975a); updated by Hayden (1995); 821 the site has been heavily disturbed by construction. Extensive, but light shell scatter (abalone and mussel) with CA-LAN- waste flakes of chalcedony and Monterey chert; site mostly - Prehistoric 822 destroyed by nearby development, recorded by Hector and Rosen (1975b). An F.H. Racer “Indian Sites in the Harbor District” (LA- CA-LAN- - Prehistoric 103); recorded in 1939 (updated site record in Ballester et 103 al. 2000); the site has been seriously disturbed by looters. 100099 - Prehistoric Two Monterey chert flakes recorded as an isolate. CA-LAN- Shell midden composed of two loci; recorded by Rosen - 999 Prehistoric (1979) and updated by Brown (1991). (Locus B) CA-LAN- Small lithic scatter consisting of three flakes (basalt, chert, - Prehistoric 2584 and chalcedony; recorded by Cerreto [1997a]). A large historic scatter (1910 – 1940s) recorded by Cerreto CA-LAN- - Historic (1997b); consists of concrete and stone foundations; may be 2585 associated with early Japanese tenant farming. Waste flakes, shells, and a pressure flake recorded by CA-LAN- Prehistoric - Cerreto (1997c); occurs with an historic deposit (e.g., brick, 2586 and Historic window glass, ceramics) CA-LAN- Small sparse lithic (Monterey chert) and abalone shell - Prehistoric 859 scatter; recorded by Craib et al. (1976); site disturbed.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 3-23

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction

The evaluation of the impacts presented here has been conducted for those aspects of the environment that are described in Section 3. In evaluating the potential effects of the proposed action (i.e., approving a NCCP/HCP for the City to provide for the protection and management of natural wildlife and habitat diversity while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth), it is important to understand to what extent this action influences future development within the City. The biological objective of approving a NCCP/HCP for the City is to maintain the range of natural biological communities and species native to the region and to conserve viable populations of endangered, threatened, and Covered Species and their habitats, thereby preventing local extirpation. While the actions associated with approving a NCCP/HCP facilitate development by identifying where Covered Projects/Activities can and cannot occur, the NCCP/HCP does not override the necessity for further environmental review for individual actions at the project level either through CEQA for local and State projects or NEPA, if there is Federal agency involvement or Federal funding associated with the project. A take authorization would not automatically be granted to individual projects; rather, each discretionary action would be subject to further environmental review to determine whether the specific action is consistent with the NCCP/HCP and IA, as well as with the City’s General Plan, LCP, Municipal Code ordinances, and any applicable State and/or Federal regulations.

4.2 Biological Resources

4.2.1 Vegetation Communities

The total acreages for the various vegetation types present within the City, as well as the percent and total acreage of each existing vegetation type that would conserved under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D) is presented in Table 7.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no Preserve design would be developed and mitigation for the loss of vegetation would be determined on a case by case basis in accordance with CEQA. Approximately 2,381 acres of undeveloped, vegetated remain within the City, of which about 671 acres are defined as Neutral Lands (refer to Section 2). It is difficult to determine how much land within RPV could be impacted over the next 40 years, but it is likely that mitigation in the form of habitat conservation would be required for some of these impacts. The total acreage and configuration of the conserved areas would likely differ from the more consolidated Preserve designs under Action Alternative A, B, C, and D. As a result, there could be greater edge-affected habitat under the No Action Alternative. As with the other alternatives, impacts to exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation would be considered minor because of the dominance of non-native plant species within these vegetation communities and their lower biodiversity value compared to the City’s native habitats that support sensitive species. Impacts to sensitive habitat types are described below.

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 7. Vegetation Types Conserved Under Each Action Alternative

Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Project)

Acres Acres Vegetation Types within Existing Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Outside Outside Acres Rancho Palos Verdes1 Outside Included Outside Acreages Included Included the the Included the within the within the within the Preserve Preserve within the Preserve3 the Preserve3 Preserve Preserve 3 3 Preserve Preserve

Coastal Sage Scrub2 1,266 748 518 693 573 728 538 737 529 Other Vegetation Grassland 950 559 391 379 571 480 470 471 479 Riparian Scrub 2.5 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 Exotic Woodland 75 53 22 31 44 38 37 38 37 Ruderal Vegetation 87 52 35 22 65 53 34 55 32 Subtotal Other Vegetation 1,114.5 666.3 448.2 434.3 680.2 573.3 541.2 566.3 548.2

Total Vegetated, 2,380.5 1,414.3 966.2 1,127.3 1,253.2 1,301.3 1,079.2 1,303.3 1,077.2 Undeveloped Land

1 All acreages, which the exception of riparian scrub, are rounded to nearest acre; conserved acreages provided in this table do not include developed or agricultural lands, disturbed vegetation, cliff face, or rocky shore/intertidal areas. 2 Includes all upland scrub habitats: coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and saltbush scrub. 3 An estimated 671 acres of vegetated land, of which about 430 acres are CSS, are Neutral Lands, which are not likely to be developed.

4-2 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative A – Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative Under Alternative A, the Preserve would include approximately 1,559 acres. Of this total, 1,415 acres would support undeveloped, naturally vegetated land. Approximately 965 acres of vegetated land that would be located outside of the proposed Preserve boundary, taking into consideration the 671 acres of Neutral Lands, about 294 acres of vegetated land may have the potential to be developed or otherwise subject to impacts associated with public and private land use activities. Some of these potential losses would be the result of Covered Projects or Activities, therefore, these losses would occur in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Draft NCCP/HCP.

Of the four action alternative, the Preserve design for Alternative A includes the largest acreage of coastal sage scrub habitat (748 acres) and the largest acreage of grassland habitat (approximately 560 acres). Consistent with the other action alternatives, Alternative A would include 2.3 of the 2.5 acres of riparian scrub within the City. The amount of edge-affected habitat in the Preserve is similar for both Alternative A and Alternative D. Alternative A conserves all key habitat linkages in the city and linkages to adjacent jurisdictions.

Losses to CSS and grasslands that would result from the implementation of Alternative A are addressed below under sensitive habitats. Approximately 57 acres consisting of 22 acres of exotic woodland and 35 acres of ruderal vegetation would be excluded from the Preserve under Alternative A and could be subject to future development.

A portion of the exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation included within the Preserve under Alternative A could be impacted as a result of the implementation of Covered City Projects/Activities or Other Covered Activities proposed within the Preserve boundary. In some cases, areas of non-native vegetation within the Preserve would be restored to appropriate native vegetation in association with the implementation of one or more Covered City Projects.

Impacts to exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation are considered minor because of the dominance of non-native plant species within these vegetation types and the lower biodiversity value of these vegetation types compared to native plant communities, several of which support sensitive species. Any incremental biological value that these non-sensitive habitats may provide would be offset by the proposed Preserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in the NCCP/HCP.

Alternative B – Landowner Alternative Under Alternative B, the Preserve would include approximately 1,221 acres. Approximately 1,127 acres of currently vegetated, undeveloped land within the City would be included within the proposed Preserve boundary. About 671 acres of this is highly constrained and not likely to be developed. The remainder could be subject to development or otherwise subject to impacts associated with public and private land use activities.

Alternative B would conserve the fewest acres of vegetated, undeveloped lands within the City among the four action alternatives and fewer connections between proposed conserved areas would be provided. This alternative also has the highest amount of edge-affected habitat due to the proposal to construct a golf course within the Portuguese Bend portion of the Preserve.

Losses to CSS and grasslands that would result from the implementation of Alternative B are addressed below under sensitive habitats. Approximately 110 acres consisting of 44 acres of exotic woodland and 65 acres of ruderal vegetation would be excluded from the Preserve and could be available for potential

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-3

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

development, depending upon the presence or absence of hazardous conditions on the property (e.g., Neutral Lands).

As described under Alternative A, some of the exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation within the Preserve would be impacted as a result of the implementation of City-Projects or other City-Covered Activities proposed within the Preserve boundary, including restoration of non-native vegetation to native vegetation. The potential for impacts to exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation as a result of implementing Alternative B are considered minor. Any incremental biological value that these non- sensitive habitats may provide would be offset by the proposed Preserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in the NCCP/HCP.

Alternative C – The City’s Alternative Under Alternative C, approximately 1,079 acres of currently vegetated, undeveloped land within the City could be developed or otherwise subject to impacts associated with public and private land use activities, and 1,504-acre Preserve with 1,302 acres of the existing vegetation communities in the City.

This alternative would include more CSS habitat, grasslands, and ruderal vegetation within the Preserve boundary than would be included in the Alternative B Preserve design, but less CSS habitat and grasslands than would be included within the Alternative A Preserve design. Alternative C also has somewhat fewer linkages between vegetated areas proposed for conservation than are proposed under Alternative A. The amount of edge-affected habitat would be similar to Alternatives A and D.

Losses to CSS and grasslands that would result from the implementation of Alternative C are addressed below under sensitive habitats. Approximately 71 acres consisting of 37 acres of exotic woodland and 34 acres of ruderal vegetation would be excluded from the Preserve and could be available for potential development.

Similar to Alternatives A and B, exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation within the preserve could be impacted as a result of the implementation of Covered City Projects or Other Covered Activities proposed within the preserve boundary. Some of these activities would include restoring areas of non-native vegetation to appropriate native vegetation in accordance with planned restoration activities within the Preserve.

Impacts to exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation are considered minor. Any incremental biological value that these non-sensitive habitats may provide would be offset by the proposed Preserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in the NCCP/HCP.

Alternative D – Proposed Action Under Alternative D, 1,077 acres of currently vegetated, undeveloped land are excluded from the Preserve design. Of this acreage, about 670 acres are part of the Neutral Lands and have limited, if any, potential for development. Approximately 400 acres of vegetated land could be developed or otherwise subject to impacts associated with public and private land use activities, some of which would be Covered Projects and Activities, as described in the Draft NCCP/HCP. Approximately 1,302 acres of vegetated, undeveloped City- and PVPLC-owned lands would be incorporated into the Preserve. Based on these figures, approximately 55 percent of the existing vegetated, undeveloped lands within the City would be conserved within the proposed Preserve boundaries. In accordance with the proposal included as part of Alternative D, the Preserve could be expanded in the future to include an additional

4-4 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

170.7 acres of publicly and privately owned properties that are identified as Targeted Lands for possible future dedication to the Preserve in the Draft NCCP/HCP.

Losses to CSS and grasslands are addressed below under sensitive habitats. Approximately 70 acres consisting of 37 acres of exotic woodland and 32 acres of ruderal vegetation would be excluded from the Preserve and could be available for potential development. As described for the other action alternatives, exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation within the Preserve could be impacted as a result of the implementation of City-Projects or other City-Covered Activities proposed within the Preserve boundary. Some of these activities include restoring areas of non-native vegetation to appropriate native vegetation in accordance with planned restoration activities within the Preserve.

Alternative D would conserve many of the same vegetated areas proposed for conservation under Alternative A, however, as with Alternative C, the linkages between preserved areas are somewhat reduced under Alternative D.

Impacts to exotic woodland and ruderal vegetation are considered minor because of the dominance of non- native plant species within these vegetation communities. Any incremental biological value that these non- sensitive habitats may have would be offset by the proposed reserve design, habitat restoration, and habitat management programs included in the NCCP/HCP.

It should be noted that any potential impacts to properties within the Preserve that were acquired with section 6 grant funding would be subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies to confirm consistency with the section 6 grant. All Covered Projects/Activities would be reviewed by the City to ensure their consistency with the NCCP/HCP. As they are proposed, the projects would be forwarded to and may be reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies during the applicable CEQA review process for consistency with the adopted NCCP/HCP.

4.2.2 Sensitive Habitats

Sensitive habitats are those that are considered rare in the region, support sensitive species of plants and animals, and/or are subject to regulatory protection through various Federal, State, or local policies or regulations. In the case of habitats in the City of RPV, sensitive habitats include all wetland habitat types (consisting primarily of riparian scrub) and all upland scrub habitats. No native grasslands have been delineated within the City, but if patches of native grassland are identified, this habitat will also be considered sensitive. Habitats dominated by non-native plant species (e.g., non-native grassland, exotic woodland, disturbed vegetation) are generally not considered sensitive. However, non-native grassland is considered sensitive where it occurs in large, contiguous areas because it may provide vital foraging habitat for raptors and support other sensitive plant and wildlife species. Smaller patches of non-native grassland that are contiguous with larger areas of biological open space are also important because they contribute to a habitat mosaic that can be used by sensitive species. Most grasslands in southern California are now dominated by non-native annual grasses; nonetheless, these areas support many native species. Therefore conservation of some non-native grasslands contribute to over habitat and species conservation.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to sensitive habitat would be assessed as required by CEQA and if State or federally listed species or their habitats are present within a proposed project site, consultation with CDFW and/or Service would be necessary. If federally listed species are present, it is likely that the preparation of an HCP would be required before an ITP could be issued. Some protection of sensitive habitats would be provided through the provisions of the City’s existing Municipal Code, including grading regulations (Section 17.76.040), natural overlay control district regulations (Section 17.40.040), and the Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance (Chapter 17.41). These City regulations require most grading and vegetation removal to be reviewed Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-5

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

for compliance with established regulations and controls, including natural habitat protection. These regulations provide the City with the authority to deny or request modifications to development proposals affecting properties over 2 acres in size that support coastal sage scrub vegetation, therefore, providing some protection for this sensitive habitat in the absence of an NCCP/HCP. However, the level of protection would be less that that provided by a connected network of habitat areas extending throughout the City as would be provided under the action alternatives.

Based on a worst case estimate, approximately 120 acres of CSS and 320 acres of grasslands could be impacted in future years as a result of implementing various City projects and activities. In addition, at least 100 acres of CSS and 263 acres of grasslands could be lost to future private development. However, because of the presence of listed species and the requirement for an ITP, it is unlikely that this extent of loss would occur. The significance of these impacts to sensitive habitat would depend upon the level of mitigation provided as a result of the environmental review process and/or the protections afforded CSS through existing regulations in the City’s Municipal Code and State and Federal laws. The impacts to sensitive habitat would however be expected to be greater under the No Action Alternative than under any of the action alternatives because of the lack of coordinated mitigation measures and a cohesive Preserve design.

Alternative A – Peninsula NCCP Working Group Alternative The Preserve design proposed under Alternative A would conserve 59 percent (748 acres) of the coastal sage scrub habitat (included within this habitat classification are small areas of southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub) within the City and 59 percent (559 acres) of the grassland habitats (Table 8). For purposes of this impact analysis, it is assumed that similar to Alternatives B, C, and D, Covered City Projects would occur within and outside of the Preserve boundaries and Covered Private Projects, which must be consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures described in the NCCP/HCP, would occur outside of the Preserve boundaries. Approximately 518 acres of CSS and 391 acres of grasslands could be lost under Alternative A.

There is the potential that the City could undertake a City project not specifically listed as a Covered Project that is similar in character and impacts to an approved project. Such projects would be considered Covered Projects provided the total loss of CSS habitat and non-native grassland for said miscellaneous City projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres of non-native grassland.

Table 8. Comparison of Sensitive Habitats Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Sensitive Existing Habitat Acreage Acres in Acres Acres in Acres Acres in Acres Acres in Acres Type with RPV the Subject the Subject the Subject the Subject Preserve to Loss Preserve to Loss Preserve to Loss Preserve to Loss

Coastal Sage Scrub 1266 748 518 694 573 729 538 737 529 Grassland 950 559 391 379 571 480 470 471 479 Riparian Scrub 2.5 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2

Setting aside 748 acres of CSS and 559 acres of grasslands within a Preserve, as proposed under Alternative A, would avoid any adverse effects to sensitive habitat associated with proposed and anticipated future

4-6 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Covered Projects/Activities. Although not considered mitigation for impacts related to development, Neutral Lands, which are located outside the Preserve boundaries and support CSS and grassland, would add biological value to the Preserve.

Future projects would be evaluated through the CEQA process, and any potential unanticipated impacts to sensitive habitats as a result of project implementation would be mitigated under Alternative A through establishment of conservation easements (i.e., additions to the reserve) or restoration of priority areas within the reserve. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive habitats that are provided in accordance with accepted mitigation ratios would reduce any potential impacts to sensitive habitats to below a level of significance.

For new private development projects on vacant land in the City, all required fuel modification would occur outside of the Preserve unless the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department and/or Agricultural Commissioner agree that no other options exist. In situations where fuel modification must occur in the Preserve, impacts to vegetation would be mitigated by the project applicant using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grassland occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. Removal of cacti and other succulents within any required fuel clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to preserve habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other Covered Species. The total amount of mitigation required is calculated by multiplying the total acreage impacted by the required mitigation ratio for each habitat type. The property owner benefiting from the fuel modification shall provide the mitigation by one of the following two methods: 1) Dedication of additional acreage to the Preserve that will add to the biological function of the Preserve (the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies is required for acreage to be dedicated to the Preserve) and the property owner must provide management funding for the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method; or 2) Payment of a Mitigation Fee to the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund described in section 8.2.1.1 in an amount of $50,000 per acre for the total mitigation acreage required (e.g., 3 acres of CSS impact at a 2:1 ratio = $300,000.00). The fee must be paid to the City prior to the fuel modification taking place. The PVPLC and the City have determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the cost to restore and maintain 1 acre of native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and if necessary adjusted to account for inflation and/or higher than expected restoration and management costs.

The anticipated loss from fuel modification resulting from Covered Private Projects/Activities within the Preserve is not expected to exceed 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of grassland. Any loss of CSS beyond 10 acres and 20 acres of grassland is not a NCCP/HCP Covered Project/Activity.

Mitigation fees would be used by the City to manage the Preserve, including the 500 acres the City has dedicated as mitigation for Covered Projects/Activities. Monies in the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund, above the $50,000 balance noted above, may be used by the City for habitat conservation/restoration purposes including but not limited to the following:

1. As payment to the PVPLC to meet the City’s cash obligation for Preserve management; and/or

2. As a contribution toward the City’s non-wasting endowment fund discussed below which is necessary to assure maintenance of the Preserve once the NCCP/HCP Permit expires; and/or

3. As a contribution to the PVPLC to perform habitat conservation activities beyond the requirements of this Plan; and

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-7

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4. The City understands and acknowledges that its obligation to fully fund the Habitat Restoration Fund and to fully fund each of its other obligations under the NCCP/HCP, including, its habitat management, monitoring, and restoration requirements, which are independent of and do not depend on the existence of periodic payments from private project applicants or from Third- Party Participants.

In addition to its annual funding commitments described above, the City will maintain a dedicated Habitat Restoration Fund as part of the approved City budget, with at least $50,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) to be used to fund its share of planned responses to Change Circumstances, as described in Section 6.10.2 of the Draft NCCP/HCP. The Habitat Restoration Fund was established in 2006 and may be periodically augmented by Mitigation Fees paid by applicants of Covered Private Projects/Activities.

Under Alternative A, a very small area of riparian scrub (0.1 acre) is excluded from the Preserve, while a total of 2.4 acres of riparian scrub would be conserved within the Preserve. Additional unmapped riparian habitats, other waters, or native grassland may also occur outside the Preserve. Wetland habitats and streambeds within the planning area would be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404 and Fish and Game Code 1600 permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development. Impacted wetlands would be mitigated in accordance with ACOE and/or CDFW requirements.

To further protect habitat value within the Preserve, habitat impact avoidance and minimization measures must be implemented by all Covered Projects/Activities. Adherence to these measures would be assured through enforceable conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects/Activities. The City will review proposed plans for Covered Projects/Activities within and abutting the Preserve (e.g., access routes, staging areas) to ensure proposed Covered Projects/Activities are consistent with this NCCP/HCP. Avoidance and minimization measures, which are described in detail in the plan, address avoiding damage to habitat quality from construction activities, erosion, weed seeds, dust, and public access.

Impacts to sensitive habitats from the implementation of Covered City and Private Projects/Activities would be reduced through: 1) the establishment of a Preserve that includes 1,559 acres of vegetated, undeveloped land, including approximately 59 percent of the City’s remaining CSS vegetation and approximately 59 percent of the City’s remaining grassland vegetation; and 2) adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures included in a Draft NCCP/HCP.

Alternative B – Landowner Alternative The effects to sensitive habitats of implementing Alternative B would be somewhat greater than those described above for Alternative A. Of the four action alternatives, Alternative B would preserve the least amount of CCS and grassland habitat, reducing to some extent the benefits to sensitive habitats and Covered Species that would be provided by the other alternatives. The Preserve design proposed under Alternative B would include approximately 55 percent of CCS habitat within the City (included within this habitat classification are small areas of southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub) and 40 percent of the grassland habitats.

With the exception of the size of the Preserve and acres of sensitive habitats included within the Preserve, all other aspects of preserve planning, as described under Alternative A, are also assumed to be implemented under Alternative B.

Impacts to sensitive habitats from the implementation of Covered City and Private Projects/Activities would be reduced to a minor level through: 1) the establishment of a Preserve that includes 1,221-acre

4-8 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Preserve, including approximately 55 percent of the City’s remaining CSS vegetation and approximately 40 percent of the City’s remaining grassland vegetation; and 2) adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures included in a Draft NCCP/HCP.

Alternative C – The City’s Alternative The effects to sensitive habitats of implementing Alternative C would be similar to those described above for Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the Preserve design proposes to cover 21 City projects and 9 private projects provided that the projects and activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures described in the NCCP/HCP. It is estimated that the implementation of these projects would result in approximately 48.9 acres of unavoidable loss of CSS and 174.3 acres of non-native grassland within or outside the Preserve. Under Alternative C, mitigation for sensitive habitat loses from City projects (33.7 acres of CSS and 94.3 acres of non-native grassland) would be provided by the dedication of 298.8 acres of City-owned land and 5.6 acres of revegetation within the reserve (with 2.1 acres of revegetation already completed). Mitigation for impacts of Covered Private Projects would be provided by dedication of private land to the Preserve or donation of monies to the habitat restoration fund by the private entities. The Preserve design proposed under Alternative C would include 57.5 percent of CCS habitat within the City (included within this habitat classification are small areas of southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub) and 50.6 percent of the grassland habitats.

Potential unanticipated future project impacts to sensitive habitats would be mitigated through establishment of conservation easements (i.e., additions to the reserve) or restoration of priority areas within the Preserve. In addition, the loss of approximately 15.4 acres of non-native grassland outside of the Preserve and not associated with planned projects would have to be mitigated if these areas are proposed for development in the future. Any potential unanticipated future impacts to non-native grasslands outside the Preserve under Alternative C would be mitigated through dedication of additional acreage to the reserve or restoration of priority areas within the Preserve.

A small area of riparian scrub (0.2 acres) is excluded from the Preserve, while a total of 2.3 acres of riparian scrub would be conserved within the Preserve. Additional unmapped riparian habitats, other waters, or native grassland may also occur outside the reserve. Wetland habitats and streambeds within the planning area would be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404 and Fish and Game Code 1600 permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development. Impacted wetlands would be mitigated per the requirements of the ACOE and/or CDFW.

Impacts to sensitive habitats from the implementation of Covered City and Private Projects/Activities would be reduced to a minor level through: 1) the establishment of a Preserve that includes 1,302 acres of vegetated, undeveloped land, including approximately 58 percent of the City’s remaining CSS vegetation and approximately 51 percent of the City’s remaining grassland vegetation; and 2) adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures included in a Draft NCCP/HCP.

Alternative D – Proposed Action The effects to sensitive habitats of implementing Alternative D would be similar to those described above for Alternative A. Alternative D assumes incidental take coverage for 17 City Projects or other City Covered Activities, 5 private projects, and other specific activities in the Preserve (as described in the Draft NCCP/HCP), provided that the projects and activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures described in NCCP/HCP. All Covered Projects/Activities would be reviewed by the City to ensure their consistency with the NCCP/HCP. As they are proposed, the projects would be forwarded to and may be reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-9

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

during the applicable CEQA process for consistency with the NCCP/HCP. All Covered Projects/Activities would be subject to all applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, as described in the NCCP/HCP. Potential effects to sensitive habitat related to brush management would be the same under Alternative D as described under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the Covered City Projects are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a maximum of 120.5 acres of CSS and 318.7 acres of non-native grassland. Of these total impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the impacted CSS and 155.8 acres of the impacted non-native grassland would occur within the Preserve. Included in the CSS loss are losses associated with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be minimal. No more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost within the Preserve in associated with Covered City Projects/Activities. Under Alternative D, the City would mitigate these impacts by including over 1,402 acres of City and PVPLC lands into the Preserve, if which about 1,302 represent naturally vegetated, undeveloped land, and providing restoration and management funding for the Preserve. Of the 737 acres of CSS (which includes 582.2 acres of coastal sage scrub, 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub, 66.6 acres of southern cactus scrub, and 6.6 acres of saltbrush scrub) within the Preserve, a maximum of 62.5 acres could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 674.5 acres of CSS in the Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of 155.8 acres could be impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 315 acres of non-native grassland in the Preserve to be perpetually conserved. Through the implementation of the NCCP/HCP, non-native grassland within the Preserve may be restored to native habitat.

There are 23.6 acres of exotic woodland, 22.6 acres of disturbed vegetation and 262.8 acres of grassland located outside of the Preserve or Neutral Lands that would be impacted by potential development under this alternative. No mitigation would be required by individual property owners under the Draft NCCP/HCP because the loss of such lands would not affect any of the Covered Species.

Of the 99.5 acres of CSS habitat located outside of both the Preserve (737 acres of CSS) and Neutral Lands (430 acres of CSS), 27.7 acres of CSS would be impacted by four specific private projects discussed in the plan. The remaining 71.8 acres of CSS habitat are likely to be lost as a result of miscellaneous private projects throughout the City.

A small amount of riparian scrub (0.3 acre) is excluded from the preserve, although 0.1 acre of riparian scrub is located within the Neutral Lands. Additional unmapped riparian habitats, other waters, or native grassland may also occur outside the Preserve. Wetland habitats and streambeds within the NCCP/HCP Area would be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404 and Fish and Game Code 1600 permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development. Impacted wetlands would be mitigated at per the requirements of the ACOE and/or CDFW.

Impacts to sensitive habitats from the implementation of Covered City and Private Projects/Activities would be reduced to below a level of significance through: 1) the establishment of a Preserve that includes over 1,402 acres of naturally vegetated, undeveloped land, including approximately 58 percent of the City’s remaining CSS vegetation and approximately 50 percent of the City’s remaining grassland vegetation; and 2) adherence to the avoidance and minimization measures included in the Section 5.5 and 5.6 of the Draft NCCP/HCP.

4-10 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.2.3 Wildlife

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, all future projects within the City would be evaluated on a project- by-project basis. Although habitat protection to support native wildlife would occur through the CEQA process, the amount of habitat to be set aside is likely to be smaller, with less connectivity between native habitat areas.

Wildlife would also benefit to some extent from existing City regulations that require most grading and vegetation removal to be reviewed for compliance with established regulations and controls, including natural habitat protection. These regulations provide the City with the authority to deny or request modifications to development proposals affecting properties over two acres in size the support coastal sage scrub vegetation, therefore, providing some protection for the native species this habitat supports. The level of protection would however be less that that provided by a connected network of habitat areas extending throughout the City as would be provided under the action alternatives.

Alternatives A, B, C and D Future development within the City of RPV, including both City initiated activities and private development, would result in the loss of habitat that supports native wildlife. Although the Preserve designs proposed under the four action alternatives differ in terms of total acreage and the overall connectivity of the lands that make up the Preserve, under each alternative, a combination of habitat types would be preserved that can support a range of native wildlife species. Various species of native birds, lizards, mammals, and insects would benefit from the proposals to provide a connected system of conserved lands, supporting a range of native habitats, as provided in the Preserve designs envisioned under Alternatives A, B, C, and D. The benefits would include larger areas of undisturbed habitat, reduced edge effects, and the provision of wildlife corridors and linkages to support genetic diversity. Under all the action alternatives, the Preserve proposal also includes provisions for restoring and enhancing existing habitats within the Preserve to improve habitat value for native wildlife.

Removing or altering native and non-native habitats may result in the loss of common plant and wildlife species from the areas not designated as Preserve; however, this incremental habitat loss would be considered less than significant because of the amount of proposed habitat conservation and restoration included in any of the four action alternatives. In addition, the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures described in NCCP/HCP would assist in reducing the direct and long-term indirect effects of development on the wildlife supported within the Preserve. Due to the size of the Preserve relative to the remaining undeveloped lands within the City, the loss of a portion of the existing habitat within the City would not contribute to a substantial reduction in any existing species distribution, range, or population within the City. No significant adverse effects to wildlife are therefore anticipated from the implementation of any of the action alternatives.

4.2.4 Sensitive Species

This section analyzes the effects of the alternatives on federally and State listed species and other sensitive species known to occur within RPV, as well as the effectiveness of the alternatives in ensuring the conservation of species and habitats pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and Section 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code. The biological objective of the NCCP/HCP is to maintain the range of natural biological communities and species native to the region and to conserve viable populations of endangered, threatened, and key sensitive species (Covered Species) and their habitats, thereby preventing local extirpation. The NCCP/HCP does not override the necessity for further environmental review for individual

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-11

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

actions at the project level. A take authorization would not automatically be granted to individual projects; rather, each discretionary action would be subject to further environmental review to determine whether the specific action is consistent with requirement of the NCCP/HCP and IA. All the Covered Species (Palos Verdes blue butterfly, El Segundo blue butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, Aphanisma blitoides, Atriplex pacifica, Crossosoma californicum, Dudleya virens spp. insularis, Lycium brevipes var. hassei, and Suaeda taxifolia) are associated closely with scrub habitats present within RVP and the adjoining cities on the Peninsula.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to allow take of listed species in association with various agreements, including the approval of an NCCP/HCP that would result in the setting aside of lands to protect listed and sensitive species, would not be issued. Instead, activities involving take of listed species normally prohibited under section 9 of the ESA would require project-specific section 10(a) permits or section 7 consultation if a Federal nexus exists under current ESA regulations. These would require site specific HCPs and NEPA, there is no guarantee that ITPs would be issued.

The No Action Alternative assumes that impacts to sensitive species would be evaluated and mitigated project-by-project, as is currently done in the City. The existing land use and environmental regulations process followed in the City would continue and would be required for all proposed public and private projects. Through the CEQA process, adherence to State and Federal regulations, and various local ordinances, mitigation for impacts to listed and sensitive species from private development can be addressed, however, under project-by-project review, the configuration of the resulting conserved lands would likely be characterized by fragmentation and constrained habitat linkages. The creation of isolated island preserves increases the risk of species decline and local extirpation.

Mitigation of impacts to sensitive species from public projects within the City are less likely to result in fragmented conserved lands because a substantial portion of City-owned lands are already designated for open space and preserves, providing an opportunity to convert non-native habitat to native habitat needed to support listed and sensitive species. Public lands owned by special districts and agencies whose primary purpose is not open space or resource protection could, however, be subject to the type of piecemeal project- by-project planning that has occurred historically.

Overall, under the No Action Alternative, existing State and Federal regulations would limit impacts to listed species; however, non-listed sensitive species would be not afforded the same level of protection that would be provided through the establishment of an NCCP/HCP for the City, as proposed under the action alternatives.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D Although the Preserve designs differ among the alternatives, the overall purpose of the Preserve and associated mitigation for impacts to sensitive habitat would follow the procedures described in Appendix B of the Draft NCCP/HCP. Under the Draft NCCP/HCP, mitigation for Covered Activities primarily consists of dedicating currently unprotected, biologically valuable, City-owned land and PVPLC-owned land. Lands, or portions thereof, purchased using State and/or Federal funding would not serve as mitigation for impacts; however, these lands may be subject to habitat restoration where such actions would benefit Covered Species. Additionally, approximately 258.7 acres of land that have already been conserved to mitigate for previous projects (Previous Mitigation Lands) will be dedicated to the Preserve. These existing conservation lands are not considered mitigation for Covered Projects and Activities, but are factored into the overall Preserve design as “baseline” conserved lands.

4-12 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Under Alternative D, the City’s primary conservation strategy would be to dedicate 1,402.4 acres of habitat for the NCCP/HCP Preserve assembly. As described previously, the Preserve assembly under Alternatives A, B, and C would consist of more, less, or similar acreages, respectively. Under any alternative, the City and PVPLC would be responsible for the management of the entire Preserve.

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. These data serve as the baseline and were used to develop the impact analysis for this EA. The number of existing locations for each Covered Species, as presented in Table 9, 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 host plant species for the Palos Verdes blue and El Segundo blue, respectively.

Table 10 provides information related to other sensitive plant species within the plan area. None of the proposed Preserve designs include all point locations where Covered Species have been sighted recently or historically (Figures 11-14). If a location for a sensitive species is still occupied and the location is outside of the proposed Preserve, a potential take or loss of a sensitive species is assumed. There is also the potential for loss of an individual species within the Preserve from the implementation of proposed Covered City Projects/Activities.

Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) PVB is not currently present within RPV; however, various areas within RPV support coastal sage scrub habitat that includes ocean locoweed, a host plant for this butterfly. Of the areas supporting ocean locoweed within RPV, the Preserve designs for Alternatives A, B, C, and D include approximately 71 percent, 49 percent, 67 percent, and 62 percent, respectively, of all known locations of ocean locoweed. The conservation goals of the Draft NCCP/HCP for the PVB include protecting existing suitable habitat to support the species and expanding suitable habitat by managing for the host plant to support potential recolonization and future active reintroduction.

Due to the rarity of PVB, the Draft NCCP/HCP requires that special precautions 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), no impacts to occupied PVB habitat would be allowed until three separate populations are established. However, some Covered Projects and Activities 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 would be employed to minimize or avoid impacts. Pre-project surveys within the entire plan area would be conducted throughout potential PVB habitat prior to implementing any Covered Project and Activity to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization measures. If PVB is discovered during surveys, the Wildlife Agencies would be notified immediately. Occupied PVB host plants would be avoided when possible. To prevent impacts to PVB eggs, larvae, and pupae, PVB host plants and a 5-foot border around host plants would be avoided. Where PVB is detected and impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, the Wildlife Agencies would be provided the opportunity to relocate larvae, pupae, and/or adults.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-13

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 9. Comparison of Covered Species Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) Existing Resource Conserved Percent Percent Percent of Locations Percent of Conserved Conserved of Conserved of Conserved Existing Existing Existing Existing Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila 198 154 77.8 131 66.2 153 77.3 153 77.3 californica californica) Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus 281 211 75.1 178 63.3 194 69.0 191 68.0 brunneicapillus) Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche 19 14 73.7 13 68.4 13 68.4 13 68.4 lygdamus palosverdesensis) (sightings) El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes 1 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 battoides allyni) (sightings) Bright green dudleya (Dudleya virens insularis) 34 27 79.4 25 73.5 21 61.8 21 61.8 Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) 27 24 88.9 24 88.9 24 88.9 24 88.9 South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) 9 9 100.0 9 100.0 9 100.0 9 100.0 Catalina crossosoma (Crossosoma 3 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 californicum) Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn (Lycium 3 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 3 100.0 brevipes var. hassei) Woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) 22 15 68.2 13 59.1 12 54.5 12 54.5 Ocean locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus) Host plant for Palos Verdes Blue 85 60 70.6 42 49.4 57 67.1 53 62.4 Butterfly Coast buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) 19 16 84.2 14 73.7 12 63.2 12 63.2 Host plant for El Segundo Blue Butterfly

4-14 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 10Comparison of Other Sensitive Species Conservation under each of the Action Alternatives Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (Proposed Action) Existing Resource Conserved Percent Percent Percent of Locations Percent of Conserved Conserved of Conserved of Conserved Existing Existing Existing Existing Catalina Mariposa Lily (Calochortus catalina) 43 40 93.0 30 69.8 33 76.7 33 76.7 Seaside Calendrinia (Cistanthe maritime) 5 5 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0 Small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus 5 5 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0 simulans) Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) 2 2 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0 2 100.0

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-15

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Figure 11. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative A Preserve Design

Figure 11. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative A Preserve Design

4-16 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Figure 12. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative B Preserve Design

Figure 12. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative B Preserve Design

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-17

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Figure 13. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative C Preserve Design

Figure 13. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative C Preserve Design

4-18 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Figure 14. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative D Preserve Design

Figure 14. Sensitive Species and Habitats Not Included in the Alternative D Preserve Design

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-19

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Once three separate populations are established in the Preserve, impacts would 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, 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 would be impacted annually provided it is not the only occurrence within a particular area. Prior to any impact, the population boundary would be delineated based on host plant distribution, and no more than 10 percent of that boundary based on current surveys would be impacted for any Covered Project/Activity. If impacts are temporary, PVB host plants would be included in the restoration plans. If impacts are permanent, equivalent offsite PVB habitat would be restored within the Preserve.

It is possible that habitat management actions (such as clearing for restoration) inside the Preserve could result in the removal of very small amounts of coastal sage scrub, which may impact some host plants for PVB. The net benefit of restoring the affected area would be addressed in annual work plans submitted to the Wildlife Agencies.

For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where PVB host plants exists or PVB may occur in the future, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities, as described in the Draft NCCP/HCP, would be followed. Where any unavoidable impacts occur, they would be mitigated in accordance with the final NCCP/HCP. Overall, the NCCP/HCP is expected to facilitate establishment and continued support of PVB populations within RPV, thereby expanding the distribution of PVB and significantly contributing to the conservation and recovery of PVB. The implementation of these conservation actions would reduce any adverse effects to PVB and its habitat to below a level of significance under all the action alternatives.

El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) Of the approximately 133 acres of potential ESB habitat in the plan area, 46.7 acres (35 percent) occur on Neutral Lands and 55 acres (41 percent) are included within Previous Mitigation Lands. The Preserve designs under Alternatives A and B would conserve 84 percent and 74 percent, respectively of the coast buckwheat locations known from survey data prior and up to the year 1997. Alternatives C and D would both conserve 63 percent of these locations and 81.6 acres of potential ESB habitat.

The primary conservation goal of the Draft NCCP/HCP is to protect the existing populations of ESB from project impacts and indirect effects from recreation, as well as to manage southern coastal bluff scrub in a manner that would provide suitable habitat for ESB occupation to facilitate the existing trend for ESB to recolonize this habitat throughout the Preserve.

Given the highly restricted distribution of ESB and limitation on anticipated impacts in southern coastal bluff scrub within the various Preserve designs, direct impacts from Covered Projects and Activities are unlikely. For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where ESB or its host plant coast buckwheat exists or may occur, the impact avoidance and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities presented in the Draft NCCP/HCP would be followed. The inclusion of coast buckwheat in habitat enhancement and restoration work to be conducted within the Preserve is expected to benefit ESB and likely result in expansion of its distribution within the plan area. Active management of preserved southern coastal bluff scrub habitat and impact avoidance in accordance with the Draft NCCP/HCP would reduce the potential for adverse effects to ESB and its habitat to a minor level under all action alternatives.

4-20 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Potential habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher is defined as coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub. There are approximately 1,260 acres of gnatcatcher habitat in RVP, of which the Preserve designs for Alternatives A, B, C, and D would conserve about 745 acres, 690 acres, 725 acres, and 730 acres, respectively. Approximately 114 acres (15 percent) of the lands within the proposed reserves are included within Previous Mitigation Lands.

According to Table 8, surveys covering the plan area included approximately 198 observations of gnatcatchers, of which 151 were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternative A and 131 were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternative B. Approximately 153 were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternatives C and D. Another 39 (20 percent) were observed within Neutral Lands.

The conservation goal of the Draft NCCP/HCP for the gnatcatcher is to ensure species persistence within the plan area and contribute to local metapopulation viability and species recovery by ensuring genetic and demographic connectivity within RPV.

The City has committed to limiting impacts within gnatcatcher habitat to no more than 73.5 acres throughout the Preserve (including 66.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, and two acres of southern coastal bluff scrub). For proposed impacts to habitat within the Preserve where gnatcatcher exists or may occur, the impact avoidance and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Draft NCCP/HCP) would be followed.

Given the broad distribution of gnatcatchers throughout RPV, 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 Draft NCCP/HCP, very limited direct impacts to gnatcatcher are anticipated of occur, and where impacts would occur they would be small and limited in scope and distribution to not substantially affect the viability of a local population, nor the overall population in the plan area. In addition, suitable habitat within the Preserve would be managed and restored specifically for the benefit of gnatcatchers, and this is anticipated to result in a net increase in occupied gnatcatcher habitat throughout the Preserve. Up to 250 acres of suitable habitat would be created and/or enhance to support gnatcatchers in locations chosen to expand the size and distribution of the gnatcatcher population in the Preserve. Another conservation strategy would involve monitoring the presence of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and implementing measures to minimize the presence of cowbirds for any new equestrian facilities proposed in the area.

Active management of preserved coastal sage scrub habitat, impact avoidance in accordance with the Draft NCCP/HCP, and restoration and enhancement of habitat to expand the size and distribution of the current gnatcatcher population within the plan area would reduce the potential for adverse effects to this species to below a level of significance under all action alternatives.

Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) Potential habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher is defined as coastal sage scrub, southern cactus scrub, and southern coastal bluff scrub. There are approximately 1,260 acres of gnatcatcher habitat in RVP, of which the Preserve designs for Alternatives A, B, C, and D would conserve about 745 acres, 690 acres, 725 acres, and 730 acres, respectively. Approximately 114 acres (15 percent) of the lands within the proposed reserves are included within Previous Mitigation Lands.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-21

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

According to Table 8, surveys covering the plan area included approximately 281 observations of gnatcatchers, of which 211 were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternative A and 178 were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternative B. Approximately 194 and 191, were observed within the proposed Preserve design for Alternatives C and D. The City has committed to limiting impacts within preserved cactus wren habitat to no more than 73.5 acres (66.5 acres of coastal sage scrub, five acres of southern cactus scrub, and 2 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub.

The conservation goal of the Draft NCCP/HCP for the cactus wren is to ensure this species’ persistence within the plan area by maintaining habitat patches that support cactus wren breeding, as well as maintaining connectivity for dispersal between occupied patches. As part of the coastal sage scrub restoration requirement, planting of cactus will be included to foster establishment of additional habitat suitable, throughout the Preserve, for occupation by cactus wrens. The implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for adverse effects to this species to below a level of significance under all action alternatives.

Aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides) 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. Approximately 47 acres of this habitat occurs in the Neutral Lands and another 82 acres would be included within the Preserve under all of the alternatives. This represents approximately 97 percent of the aphanisma habitat within the City. Of the 82 acres of aphanisma habitat within the Preserve, 55.0 acres (or 67 percent) are within Previous Mitigation Lands.

Surveys conducted for this species since 2006 have involved counting each individual in previously observed locations within the City. No aphanisma observations were made in 2006 or 2007, at least 371 individuals were observed in 2008, at least 250 individuals in 2010, and 300 individuals in 2011.

Under all of the action alternatives, of the 27 known locations of this species, 24 would be included within the Preserve boundaries, and of the approximately 130 acres of potential aphanisma habitat within the plan area, approximately 80 acres would be preserved under any of the action alternatives. An additional 46.7 acres are included within the Neutral Lands. Although there is no commitment for active aphanisma management within Neutral Lands, no impacts are authorized.

To minimize impacts to this species, the Draft NCCP/HCP proposes the implementation of restoration and/or enhancement projects to expand the existing Abalone Cove population of aphanisma. Also proposed is the initiation of 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 is also proposed whenever feasible as part of ongoing restoration efforts within the Preserve. The Preserve design under any of the action alternatives propose to conserve approximately 88 percent of the known species locations within the City and about 61 percent of the City’s aphanisma habitat. Protection of known locations of this species and the implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP conservation strategies for this species would ensure that potential effects to the species under all action alternatives are less than significant.

South Coast Saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) According to surveys through 1997, nine locations of south coast saltscale were observed within RPV, and these locations are included within the Preserve under all of the action alternatives. Of the nine known occurrences, six of the observations are within Previous Mitigation Lands. Subsequent surveys conducted by PVPLC show highly variable abundance with 136 individuals

4-22 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

counted in 2006, 0 in 2007, 376 in 2008, 5 in 2010, and 17 in 2011. Conservation goals for this species in the Draft NCCP/HCP include expanding the Abalone Cove Reserve population (in terms of occupied area as well as number of individuals) and establishing three new populations in suitable habitat within the Preserve. The establishment of south coast saltscale populations into unoccupied habitat as part of ongoing restoration would be considered whenever feasible. Protection of known locations of this species and the implementation of the Draft NCCP/HCP conservation strategies for this species would ensure that potential effects to south coast saltscale under all action alternatives are less than significant.

Catalina Crossosoma (Crossosoma californicum) Mapping in 2015, shows that the largest population is within the Forrestal Preserve, which is part of the Preserve design for all of the action alternatives. The population also extends into the adjacent Neutral Lands. The conservation goals for this species in the Draft NCCP/HCP include conserving and managing the existing Catalina crossosoma population within the Forrestal Reserve, as well as including efforts to expand this population when restoring habitat suitable for supporting this species. Through these restoration efforts, at least two new populations should be established in suitable habitat within the Preserve to guard against extirpation from stochastic events.

In accordance with the Draft NCCP/HCP, impacts within the 81.6 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub in the Preserve would be limited to 2 acres and impacts within the 663.5 acres of coastal sage scrub in the Preserve would be limited to 66.5 acres. 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 and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Draft NCCP/HCP) would be followed. Through the minimization of direct impacts to existing populations and protection of much of the species’ suitable habitat, along with proposals for appropriate habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, impacts to this species would be less than significant under all of the action alternatives.

Island Green Dudleya (Dudleya virens spp. insularis) 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 RPV, therefore, for this area, 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 percent) would be preserved under all of the action alternatives.

The conservation goals for this species in the Draft NCCP/HCP include conserving and managing 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, the Draft NCCP/HCP recommends that restoration projects 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. All but 4.8 acres (3 percent) of the approximately 133 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within RPV are either in the Preserve design under all of the

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-23

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

action alternatives or are located within the 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. 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 and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Draft NCCP/HCP) would be followed. Through the minimization of direct impacts to existing populations and protection of much of the species’ suitable habitat, along with proposals for appropriate habitat management, enhancement, and restoration, impacts to this species would be less than significant under all of the action alternatives.

Santa Catalina Island Desert-thorn (Lycium brevipes var. hassei) Potential habitat for Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub. There are approximately 133 acres of potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat in RPV, of which 81.6 acres (61 percent) are in the Preserve under any of the action alternatives. In addition, the Abalone Cove area where this species has historically been observed would be located within the Preserve under all of the alternatives.

The conservation goals for this species in the Draft NCCP/HCP include conserving and managing the existing Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn population within the Abalone Cove Reserve. Additionally, the Draft NCCP/HCP recommends that restoration projects 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.

All but 4.8 acres (3 percent) of 133 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within RPV are either in the Preserve design for each of the action alternative or are included in the 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 of the Draft NCCP/HCP). 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 and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Draft NCCP/HCP) would be followed. Through the minimization of direct impacts to the existing population and protection of much of the species’ suitable habitat, along with proposals for appropriate habitat management, enhancement, and restoration and species establishment in suitable habitat, impacts to this species would be less than significant under all of the action alternatives.

Woolly Seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) Potential habitat for woolly seablite is defined as southern coastal bluff scrub, however, due to its specific habitat requirements, woolly seablite occurs in specific microhabitats (e.g., coastal bluff slopes) within southern coastal bluff scrub. There are approximately 133 acres of potential woolly seablite habitat in RPV, of which 81.6 acres (61 percent) are in the Preserve under any of the action alternatives. Conservation goals for this species, as presented in the Draft NCCP/HCP, include conserving and managing all existing woolly seablite populations in the Preserve to protect against authorized and unauthorized public access and invasive plants. The plan also recommends

4-24 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

expanding and establishing new populations of woolly seablite within suitable southern coastal bluff scrub by incorporating this species in restoration planting pallets, where appropriate.

All but 4.8 acres (3 percent) of 133 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub within RPV are either in the Preserve design for each of the action alternative or are included in the 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 two acres in the Preserve (Table 5-1 in the Plan). Given the 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 woolly seablite exists or may occur, the impact avoidance and mitigation measures for Covered Projects and Activities (Section 5.5 of the Plan) would be followed. Through the minimization of direct impacts to the existing population and protection of much of the species’ suitable habitat, along with proposals for appropriate habitat management, enhancement, and restoration and species establishment in suitable habitat, impacts to this species would be less than significant under all of the action alternatives.

With respect to the four sensitive plant species that occur within the plan area that are not included as Covered Species, as indicated in Table 9, all observations of seaside cistanthe (Cistanthe maritime), small-flowered morning-glory (Convolvulus simulans), and western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) would be preserved within any of the action alternatives. As a result, the potential for adverse effects to these species under any of the action alternatives is considered less than significant.

The conservation of locations where Catalina Mariposa lily (Calochortus catalinae) was previously observed would vary depending upon the alternative. Alternatives A, B, C, and D would conserve 40 locations (93 percent), 30 locations (70 percent), 33 locations (77 percent), and 33 locations (77 percent), respectively. Based on the status of the species within its range, preservation of a majority of the previously identified locations would avoid any significant adverse effects to the species.

Within the various Preserve designs for the action alternatives, there are between 431 acres and 664 acres of land consisting of ruderal vegetation, non-native grassland, and exotic woodland that have a high to moderate potential of being successfully restored to CSS and/or other sensitive native scrub vegetation types. Through the various funding mechanisms incorporated in the plan, these lands may be restored as funds become available. Under all the action alternatives, the priority for restoration will be to enlarge existing patches of CSS in the larger blocks of conserved lands within the Preserve that support or have the potential to support Covered Species and enhance linkages between large blocks of habitat to improve linkage function. This restoration program will provide the opportunity to expand or create new populations of Covered Species by providing new suitable habitat to support them.

There are four sensitive plant species (i.e., Catalina mariposa lily, seaside cistanthe, small-flowered morning-glory, western dichondra) known to occur within RVP that are not included in the Draft NCCP/HCP as Covered Species. However, as indicated in Table 9, the majority of know occurrences of these species are located within the boundaries of Preserve designs for the four action alternatives, therefore, no adverse effects to these species are anticipated.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-25

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.2.5 Wetlands

No Action Alternative and Alternatives A, B, C, and D Under any of the alternatives, 2.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (riparian scrub) would be included within the Preserve and 0.2 acre would remain outside of the Preserve boundaries. Under the No Action Alternative, none of the existing 2.5 acres of riparian scrub would be included in a Preserve. However, because wetlands would not be covered under the proposed NCCP/HCP, all wetlands whether located within or outside of the Preserve would be afforded protection under existing Federal and State law and regulatory programs. Where applicable, project proponents must submit an application for and receive Federal Section 404, Section 401, and State Section 1600 permits prior to impacting any jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, the potential for impacts to wetlands within RPV would be assessed as individual projects are proposed for implementation.

4.3 Geology/Soils

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the NCCP/HCP would not be implemented. Although the lack of a NCCP/HCP would have no effect on existing geologic hazards within the City, because some actions to remediate potential geologic hazards are likely to impact listed and sensitive species, the lack of a NCCP/HCP could potentially delay the implementation of certain actions.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D Although the Preserve designs included within Alternatives A, B, C, or D incorporate lands with currently stable and/or active landslide areas, the implementation of any one of these alternatives would not exacerbate these conditions. Further, the NCCP/HCP includes several Covered Activities that could be implemented to address existing landslide hazards. Examples include a City project within the portion of Altamira Canyon that traverses the Portuguese Bend landslide area where modifications are needed to address drainage and erosion problems, as well as to prevent water from percolating into the landslide plane, and a City project to install dewatering wells in areas affected by the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove landslides, as this technique has proven to be effective in slowing landslide movement by removing groundwater from the slide plane.

The NCCP/HCP also more generally addresses the need for landslide abatement activities within the Preserve and throughout the City to safeguard existing recreational trails, trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles, Existing Preserve Roads, and drainage systems. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the installation and maintenance of groundwater monitoring wells and GPS stations (with associated equipment such as pumps, electrical connections, drainage pipes and access pathways) for the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of fissures, the re-contouring of slide debris, the creation and maintenance of trails that can accommodate authorized vehicles, and geologic investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand (with allowance for access of any necessary mechanical equipment).

The recognition within the NCCP/HCP that actions will be required from time to time to address landslide hazards ensures that no adverse effects related to geology or soils would result from the implementation of these alternatives.

4-26 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.4 Air Quality

No Action Alternative and Alternatives A, B, C, and D Although the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for PM-2.5, 8-hour ozone levels, and lead under the NAAQS, and a non-attainment area for ozone, PM- 2.5, and PM 10 under the CAAQS, whether or not an NCCP/HCP is implemented for the City, there is likely to be no effect on the region’s air quality, as development within the City would continue at essentially the same pace under any of the alternatives, and no significant changes to the land use proposals included within the General Plan would occur under any of the action alternatives. Further, the City’s land use permit and grading permit for Covered Projects/Activities would require measures to limit pollutants in accordance to SCAQMD dust control measures, including:

 The site shall be treated with water a minimum of twice per day to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.  Entry points into project sites shall be wet swept per the schedule established by the Grading Permit to reduce PM10 emissions associated with tracking of soil off-site.  Construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low emission factors and high-energy efficiency, and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and will be shut off when not in use.  Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed gusts of 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions. These measures, which would also be required under existing conditions, would minimize any projects contribution to local and regional emissions of criteria pollutants and minimize impacts to adjacent developments during construction.

4.5 Land Use

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to existing land uses nor would this alternative require any modifications to existing ordinances or performance criteria. Therefore, the implementation of this alternative would have no effect on existing land use or current or future land use planning.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D Under any of the action alternatives, some lands currently considered for development could be converted to open space and incorporated into the Preserve, but for the most part, the lands to be included within the various Preserve designs would be lands already owned by the City or PVPLC; will be owned in the future by the City through previous mitigation requirements; or are owned by the City’s successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency. Alternative A would include the largest area of potentially developable lands, while Alternative B would include the smallest area of potentially developable lands within the Preserve boundary. However, in all cases the total acreage of private land included within the Preserve boundaries is relatively small when compared to the total acreage of City-owned land to be included. As a result, no adverse land use effects would result from the conversion of developable lands to preserved lands under any of the action alternatives.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-27

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The NCCP/HCP is consistent with the intent of the General Plan goals and policies; the majority of the lands to be included within the Preserve under the four action alternatives are located within the City’s Natural Overlay Control District, which was established to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources; and designating the lands with the Preserve as open space would be compatible with surrounding land uses, which are primarily low-density residential. However, in accordance with the agreements that will be made in association with approving an NCCP/HCP for the City, amendments to the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Map, and CEQA Guidelines will be required. Because these amendment are necessary to ensure protection for the Preserve lands and to ensure consistency of future projects within the NCCP/HCP through the City’s land use authority, these amendments would not result in any adverse effects related to plan consistency or land use compatibility.

The NCCP/HCP would also be consistent with most, but not all of Natural Overlay District performance criteria. The exception relates to the use of herbicides, which are not currently permitted by the performance criteria. The Draft NCCP/HCP includes an integrated pest management approach that would minimize impacts from herbicides and result in an overall beneficial effect to biological resources; therefore, this inconsistency would not be a significant land use impact. Because the Draft NCCP/HCP proposes a higher level of conservation than provided by the performance criteria, the City, where necessary, would modify these criteria to avoid any conflicts.

The City’s Trails Network Plan addresses existing and proposed trails outside and within a future Preserve. The portion of the Trails Network Plan that addresses trails within the Preserve is a part of the Public Use Management Plan (PUMP), which is a City Covered Project described in the Draft NCCP/HCP. As a result, the City’s Trails Network Plan includes a Preserve Trails Plan (PTP). Public access to the Preserve would be allowed under all of the action alternatives for passive recreational purposes and to promote understanding and appreciation of natural resources. In order to balance the public’s passive recreational needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, the PUMP has been developed jointly by the City, the public, and PVPLC to address public access issues. Passive recreational activities (e.g., horse riding, hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing) as described in the PUMP and approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies in a PTP would be permitted within the Preserve. Trails not included within the PTP would be closed. Subject to the PUMP, the creation and maintenance of passive overlook or vista areas with seating benches and trail markers may be located at key vista points near existing trails in the Preserve and the installation and maintenance of benches, tie rails, portable toilets, and trash cans may occur within the Preserve, provided no existing habitat would be lost. The provision of a PTP would continue to permit passive recreational use within the City as envisioned in the General Plan.

4.6 Water Resources and Water Quality

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, project construction, design, and operation would be required to comply with all existing City Development Codes and other appropriate regulations (including the NPDES Permit Program) with respect to surface water control and treatment, and wastewater connections. All engineering designs would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Surface water would be directed to appropriate filtration/sedimentation drainage facilities. As result, no significant impacts related to water resources and water quality are anticipated under the No Action Alternative. Additional analysis of water quality issues would be evaluated through the CEQA process on a project-by-project basis.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D

4-28 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

All Covered Projects and Activities to occur in accordance with the NCCP/HCP would be subject to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit program. Construction activities covered under the State’s General Construction permit include removing vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of 1 acre or more. The RWQCB has issued an area-wide NPDES Storm Water Permit for the project vicinity. Implementation of the permit requirements would ensure impacts to water quality are less than significant under any of the alternatives.

Under any of the alternatives, a significant portion of the undeveloped lands within the various Preserve designs support non-native plant communities. As funding becomes available, these communities will be restored to native plant communities which would aid in minimizing erosion and runoff within the Preserve. Until these restored areas have become established, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to minimize run off and erosion within the restoration sites.

The NCCP/HCP would require that the City and/or responsible private project applicants be responsible for ensuring that an Erosion Control Plan is developed and implemented for any Covered Project/Activity within 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, and other appropriate erosion control methods. In addition, for any new development on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, construction staging areas must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Preserve boundary and natural drainages. No-fueling zones must extend a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from all drainages and away from the Preserve boundary. New development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve approved by the City will also include mitigation measures or other conditions, as appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that a flood would adversely impact lands within the Preserve. As a co-permittee of the RWQCB NPDES Permit, the City is required to adopt a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The large majority of new development projects and significant redevelopment projects must meet SUSMP requirements to reduce pollution and runoff flows. The City’s SUSMP includes a list of recommended source control and structural treatment BMPs. Additionally, City land use policies ensure that land use regulations and public improvements accommodate flood events that approximate the rate, magnitude, and duration of natural flood flows. Adherence to these requirements would minimize the potential of impacts to water resources and water quality.

4.7 Cultural Resources

No Action and Alternatives A, B, C, and D On March 1, 2007, a records search of the archaeological surveys on file with the California Historical Resources Information Systems housed at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton, was conducted by Carol R. Demcak, Registered Professional Archaeologist, for the purpose of identifying recorded archaeological sites within the project area. Archaeological sites were identified as being present and are comprised predominately of prehistoric refuse midden deposits, although other resources were also identified that require protection.

The implementation of a NCCP/HCP would have no potential cause effects on cultural resources. It is the implementation of specific developments, Covered Projects/Activities, within and outside of the Preserve that could affect cultural resources. All Covered Projects and Activities within and outside the Preserve are required to be permitted and/or reviewed by the City. Potential effects to cultural resources from proposed development and any necessary mitigation measures would be addressed through the CEQA process under the authority of the City.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-29

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

NEPA defines cumulative impacts as those resulting from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such actions. An effect might be considered cumulative even if it results from individually insignificant actions, as long as collectively the actions are significant and take place over a period of time (40 FR 15087). These effects might be due to the combined effects of different components of the same project, from different projects in the same region that have occurred in the past or are approved or reasonably foreseeable for the future, or from effects in conjunction with natural events.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the current development process within the City. Development would continue to occur in accordance with the existing General Plan and relevant policies, ordinances, and regulations. This development is already reflected in regional air quality plans and other regional planning documents. No significant cumulative impacts to air quality, water quality, geology/soil, and land use are therefore anticipated for those developments that would be implemented in accordance with the existing General Plan.

Potential effects to cultural resources would be evaluated through the CEQA process and the need for protection of significant sites would be addressed through State law, as well as through guidance provided in the General Plan. No significant cumulative impacts are therefore anticipated.

Conservation of listed and sensitive species would be more fragmented under the No Action Alternative, but some preservation would be required through the CEQA process, City ordinances, and for listed species, through State and Federal regulations. Adverse incremental effects to listed and sensitive species would be greater under the No Action Alternative, but are not considered cumulatively significant because of the existing requirements for conservation.

Alternatives A, B, C, and D The primary goal of all of the action alternatives is to maximize benefits to wildlife and vegetation communities while accommodating appropriate economic development within the City of RPV pursuant to the requirements of the NCCP Act and section 10(a) of the ESA. The City would also obtain ESA section 10(a) incidental take authorizations. Upon approval of the NCCP/HCP and signing of an IA, the City would use its land use authority to review and consider proposed developments and other activities and implement the NCCP/HCP provisions.

Biological Resources. The intent of the NCCP/HCP is to ensure the long term conservation of listed and other Covered Species and the habitats that support these species. Some loss of habitat, as well as some loss of covered plant species would result from the implementation of any of the action alternatives. Compensation for some of these losses would be provided through restoration of disturbed habitat within the Preserve boundaries. The losses to species and habitat that would occur would contribute incrementally to the overall loss of these species throughout their range. This loss is not however considered cumulatively significant because of the long-term protections that would be provided within the Preserve boundaries and the assurances for protection of species and habitat areas that will be provided through modification of existing City ordinances, regulations, and plans and adherence to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for all Covered Projects/Activities.

4-30 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts to State and/or Federal jurisdictional wetlands would not be covered under the NCCP/HCP; therefore, the implementation of the NCCP/HCP would have no affected on wetlands, which would continue to be afforded protection under existing Federal and State law and regulatory programs. There would be no cumulative effects to wetlands under any of the alternatives.

Geology and Soils. No significant cumulative impacts to geology or soils are anticipated as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives.

Land Use. All of the action alternatives would be consistent with the land use goals and objectives included within the City’s General Plan and none of the proposed Preserve designs would create land uses considered incompatible with uses present outside the Preserve boundaries. Therefore, no significant cumulative effects related to land use are anticipated.

Air Quality. All of the action alternatives would comply with the City’s General Plan for future planned growth. This growth has been assessed in the General Plan and is reflected in the regional air quality plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The City through the CEQA process and in accordance with other regulations will implement appropriate measures to minimize air emissions from future projects, including Covered Activities within and outside of the Preserve boundaries. No significant cumulative impacts to air quality would result from any of the action alternatives.

Water Resources and Water Quality. All Covered Activities within and outside of the proposed Preserve under any of the action alternatives would be subject to NPDES permit requirements, as well as other City ordinance and regulations, enacted to protect water quality and minimize erosion. The implementation of BMPs and adherence to other permitting requirements would mitigate any potential for cumulative adverse effects related to water resource and water quality.

Cultural Resources. The implementation of a NCCP/HCP would have no effect on cultural resources. Future development within the City would continue to address potential effects to cultural resources through the CEQA process, as well as in accordance with other State law and guidance provided in the General Plan. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of implementing one of the action alternatives.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 4-31

SECTION 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

During the development of the Draft NCCP/HCP and EA, the Wildlife Agencies and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes met with property owners, affected homeowners associations, and other stakeholder groups on numerous occasions to solicit information and feedback, disseminate information, and establish partnerships to assist with the long-term implementation of the NCCP/HCP. Stakeholder groups included representatives from resource management agencies, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, private and government landowners, and environmental organizations. An NCCP Working Group was formed early in the process and various groups provided input including: South Coast Chapter of the Native Plant Society; Endangered Habitats League; Save Our Coastline II; Coastal Conservation Coalition; and the Sierra Club.

SECTION 6 LIST OF DOCUMENT PREPARERS

Dr. Eric Porter, Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

Victoria Touchstone, Service, Refuge Planner/Natural Resources Specialist

Mary Beth Woulfe, Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

Jorie Clark, Service, Region 1 and Region 8 Cultural Resource Team

Emilie Luciani, Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

Dr. Patrick J. Mock, URS Corporation

Theresa Miller, URS Corporation

Dallas Pugh, URS Corporation

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED

Arnold, R.A. 1983. Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae); island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the design of habitat Reserves. University California Publication Ent. 99:1-161.

Arnold, R.A. 1987. Decline of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly in California. Biological Conservation 40:203-217.

Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California black-tailed gnatcatcher. Western Birds 11: 65–78.

Atwood, J.L. and D.R. Bontrager. 2001. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 574. The Birds of North America, Inc., (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia, PA. 32 pp.

Atwood, J., Tsai, S., Reynolds, C., and Fugagli, M. 1998a. Distribution and population size of California gnatcatchers on the Palos Verde Peninsula, 1993-1997. Western Birds 29: 340-350.

Atwood, J.L., D.R. Bontrager, M. Fugagli, et al. 1998b. 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.L., M.R. Fugagli, J.C. Luttrell, and N.C. Nicolai. 1994. California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: progress report no. 1 (1993). Unpublished technical report, Manomet Observatory for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 52 pp. plus appendices.

Atwood, J.L., J.C. Luttrell, T.J. Overbey, et al. 1995. California gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and conservation of coastal sage scrub on the Palos Verdes Peninsula: Progress Report No. 2 (1994). Prepared by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. May. 32 pp.

Bon Terra Consulting. 1997. Pacific pocket mouse and Palos Verdes blue butterfly focused survey report of Tentative Tract No. 46628, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Prepared for Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. June.

Brylski, P. 1993. A focused survey for the Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) on the Dana Point Headlands, Orange County, California. Prepared by the Planning Center for EDAW, Inc.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants endangered plant of California. Sixth Ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA. 388 pp.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2010. Online Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory Webpage last updated on 2010-03-15. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/detail/120.html, accessed on 2015- 12-04.

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 16 December 2015].

[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind. 2003. A database application for the California Dept. of Fish and Game Natural Heritage Division Data, Sacramento, CA.

Cooper, Daniel S. 2011. Post-fire Survey for the California Gnatcatcher and the Cactus Wren at the Portuguese Bend Reserve, Palos Verdes Peninsula. Final Report. Prepared for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. September 26, 2011. 21 pp.

Dudek and Associates. 1994. Pacific pocket mouse assessment for the Ocean Trails project site, Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for Palos Verdes Land Holdings Company. September.

[ERCE] ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. 1990. Phase I report: Amber Ridge California gnatcatcher study. Prepared for Weingarten, Siegel, Fletcher Group, Inc., April. 30 pp.

Heady, H.F. 1995. Valley grassland. Pages 491-514 in Terrestrial vegetation of California, Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, editors. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 9. 1,020 pp.

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1,400 pp.

Holland, R.F. 1986. “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Unpublished Report.” State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.

Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1990. California vegetation, fourth edition, Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. 318 pp.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1990. California gnatcatchers at the Subunit 1 Rancho Palos Verdes site.

Junak, S., T. Ayers, R. Scott, et al. 1995. A flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 397 pp.

Kroeber, A.L. 1970. Handbook of the Indians of California (third printing). San Francisco, CA: The Film Brother Press, Taylor & Taylor. 620 pp.

Magney, D.L. 1992. Descriptions of three new southern California vegetation types: southern cactus scrub, southern coastal needlegrass grassland, and scalebroom scrub. Crossosoma 18:1-9.

Marquez and Associates. 1995. Alta Mira Canyon Drainage Control Project focused survey for the Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). October.

Mattoni, R. 1990. Species diversity and habitat evaluation across the El Segundo sand dunes at LAX. 153pp+.

7-2 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED

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., G. Pratt, J. George, et al. 1997. El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) draft recovery plan. Prepared for the USFWS.

Moran, R. 1995. The subspecies of Dudleya virens (Crassulaceae). Haseltonia, Yearbook of the Cactus and Succulent Society of America: No. 3: 1-9.

[Ogden] Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1992a. Ecology of the California Gnatcatcher at Rancho San Diego. Prepared for Home Capital Corporation. December. 56 pp.

[Ogden] Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1992b. Population viability analysis of the coastal cactus wren within the MSCP study area. Prepared for the City of San Diego. 19 pp.

[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.

Osborne, K. 2010. Surveys for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) at Redondo/Torrance Beaches and Dockweiler State Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared for UrbanWildlands Group, Los Angeles, California.

[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.

Perkins, E.M., and J.F. Emmel. 1977. New subspecies of Glaucopsyche lygdamus from California (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 79:468-471.

Pratt, G. F. 2006. El Segundo blue survey along the southern slopes of Palos Verdes Peninsula. Prepared for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[RPV] Rancho Palos Verdes. 1975. General Plan/Environmental Impact Report. Adopted June 26, 1975.

[RPV] Rancho Palos Verdes. 1978. Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan and EIR.

[RPV] Rancho Palos Verdes. 2010. Draft City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element. 56 pp. (Version approved by the Planning Commission on 5/25/10). http://ca-ranchopalosverdes.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/1600.

[RPV] Rancho Palos Verdes. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning Subarea Plan (SCH# 2003071008) Prepared by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. July 29, 2004.

[RPV] Rancho Palos Verdes. 2018. Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 7-3

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED

[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. A. Junak. 31 July 1991. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 628645. Collector: Steven A. Junak.

[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 3 June 1992. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 640596. Collector: Steven A. Junak.

[RSA] Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 3 April 1996. Atriplex pacifica. Record No. 641202. Collector: Steven A. Junak.

RBF Consulting. 2001. Long Point Resort EIR. Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. July.

RECON. 1987. Home range, nest site, and territory parameters of the black-tailed gnatcatcher population on the Rancho Santa Fe Highlands study area. September.

Reiser, C.H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA. Aquafir Press. 180 pp.

San Diego Herpetological Society. 1980. Survey and status of endangered and threatened species of reptiles natively occurring in San Diego County. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Committee, San Diego Department of Agriculture. 33 pp.

Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. 471 pp.

Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik (eds.). 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of Calif. CNPS Special Publication No. 1 (5th Ed.), California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

Stebbins. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 336 pp.

U.S. Census Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0659514.html. Accessed on July 30, 2015

[USFWS] United States 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.

[USFWS] United States 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.

[USFWS] United States 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. March 30, 1993.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; emergency rule to list the Pacific pocket mouse as endangered. Federal Register 59(23):5306- 5310.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery Plan for the El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes abttoides allyni). Portland, Oregon. 67 pp.

7-4 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP

SECTION 7 REFERENCES CITED

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus logimembris pacificus) Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 112 pp.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Recovery Plan for Six Plants from the Mountains of Surrounding the Los Angeles Basin. Portland, Oregon. 62 pp.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Carlsbad, California. March 2008.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. (Pentachaeta lyonii) Lyon’s pentachaeta 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California. September 2008.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. September 2010.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Pacific Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Carlsbad, California. April 2010.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.

Woods, R.S. 1921. Home life of the black-tailed gnatcatcher. Condor 23: 173–178.

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP 7-5

APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST

This draft EA has been provided to following agencies, organizations, and other interested parties for review and comment.

Local Library Miraleste Library, 29089 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

U.S. Congress Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senate Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate Congressman Ted Lieu, 33rd District

California State Legislature State Senator Ben Allen, District 26 State Assemblyman David Hadley, District 66

Tribes Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation

City Government City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor and Council City Manager City Attorney Community Development Department Recreation and Parks Department Public Works Department City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Rolling Hills

Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coastal Guard

California State Agencies California Coastal Commission California State Clearinghouse Department of Fish and Wildlife Regional Water Quality Control Board

Organizations Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy South Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society

APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION LIST

Center for Biodiversity Coastal Conservation Coalition Audubon Endangered Habitats League Sierra Club Save Our Coastline II

Media Los Angeles Times

Others Interested Property Owners and Members of the Public

A-2 Appendix A – Distribution List

APPENDIX B SENSITIVE HABITATS PRESENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

The sensitive habitats present within the planning area include all upland scrub habitats, riparian scrub, and grasslands with patches of native grasses that exceed 0.3 acre and support at least 10 percent cover of native grassland plant species. Figure 3 indicates where these sensitive species occur within the planning area.

Coastal Sage Scrub. CSS is composed of low, soft-woody subshrubs approximately 1 meter (3 feet) high, many of which are facultatively drought-deciduous (Holland 1986). This association is typically found on dry sites, such as steep, south-facing slopes or clay-rich soils slow to release stored water. Dominant shrub species in this vegetation type vary, depending on local site factors and levels of disturbance. CSS is distinguished from grasslands and disturbed vegetation by the presence of a minimum of 20 percent shrub cover.

The predominant subshrub species present within the approximately 1,027 acres of CSS habitat located in RPV include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), ashy-leaf buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), California sunflower (Encelia californica), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and black sage (Salvia mellifera).

The dominant species of subshrub present within CSS habitat varies based on factors such as soil type and slope aspect. These differences in species compositions are described as CSS sub-associations (e.g., CSS – Artemisia Dominated, CSS – Baccharis Dominated). There are a number of CSS sub- associations within the planning area, where the CSS cannot be clearly differentiated by a single dominant species, it has been classified as "undifferentiated" CSS.

The shrub layer in this community ranges from a continuous canopy with little understory cover to a more open canopy with widely spaced shrubs and a well-developed understory. Native understory species present in this association include foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida), purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), wishbone bush (Mirabilis californica var. californica), and common goldenstar (Bloomeria crocea).

Common non-native species in open or disturbed sage scrub include wild oat (Avena spp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), among others. Disturbed CSS is also present in the planning area. Disturbed CSS typically has a high percentage of non-native species, low percentage cover of CSS indicator species, and is fragmented to some degree.

Southern Cactus Scrub. Southern cactus scrub is a low, dense scrub [less than 2 meters (6.6 feet)] with succulent shrubs consisting primarily of prickly pear species (Opuntia littoralis, O. oricola) and coastal cholla (O. prolifera) as dominant constituents (Magney 1992; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Although the dominant species are succulent, woody species can also be present as co-dominants with the succulents. Typical woody species in this association include California sagebrush, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sunflower, bladderpod (Peritoma arborea), and wishbone bush. Southern cactus scrub occurs mostly on steep, south-facing slopes in sandy soils or rocky areas below 1,200 meters (3,937 feet) elevation (Magney 1992; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995).

APPENDIX B SENSITIVE HABITATS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

Examples of this community occur on the Alta Vicente site and in the Ocean Trails/Trump area. Approximately 100 acres of southern cactus scrub occur in the planning area.

Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub. Southern coastal bluff scrub is a low, sometimes prostrate scrub that occurs at localized sites along the coast south of Point Conception (Holland 1986). Plants in this association cling to nearly vertical rock faces just above the surf. The coastal bluff scrub community is widespread along the California coastline as a very narrow band, often not extending more than a few meters inland (Holland and Keil 1990). Dominant plants are mostly woody and/or succulent species, such as California sagebrush, California buckwheat, ashy-leaf buckwheat, lemonadeberry, coast cholla, and coast prickly pear. Other less-frequent constituents of this community include boxthorn (Lycium californicum), island green dudleya (Dudleya virens ssp. insularis), aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia), and bladderpod. Development along the southern California coastline has reduced this community throughout its range. Coastal bluff scrub occupies approximately 133 acres along the steep ocean cliffs in the planning area.

Saltbush Scrub. Saltbush scrub is dominated by quailbush (Atriplex lentiformis) and the non-native species Atriplex glauca. Shrubs are less than 3 meters (10 feet) with closed to open canopies (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Saltbush scrub corresponds to the mixed saltbush series, as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). The understory consists of ruderal species, such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and cliff aster (Malacothrix saxatile). Approximately 7 acres of saltbush scrub are present within RPV.

Riparian Scrub. Riparian scrub varies from a dense, broad-leafed, winter-deciduous association dominated by several species of willow to an herbaceous scrub dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) (Holland 1986). Typical willow species present within the approximately 2.5 acres of riparian scrub present within the planning area include black willow (S. gooddingii) and arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis). Understory vegetation in this association is usually composed of non-native, weedy species or is lacking altogether. Riparian scrub occurs in Agua Amarga Canyon and south of Palos Verdes Drive South in the Ocean Trails/Trump area.

Native Grassland. There are approximately 950 acres of grasslands in the planning area. The majority of these grasslands consist of non-native annual grasses and other annual species, although small patches of sensitive native perennial bunchgrasses were observed within the annual grasslands. These native grassland areas, which are generally too small in extent to map adequately, are characterized by the perennial, tussock-forming needlegrass species (Nassella spp.). This native grass species typically occurs in small areas within annual grassland and CSS habitats. For mapping purposes, native grasslands in the planning area are defined as patches greater than 0.3 acre that support at least 50 percent cover of grass species and 10 percent cover of native grassland species.

Annual grassland is a disturbance-related habitat most often found in old fields or openings in native scrub habitats. This association may have replaced native grassland and CSS at many localities throughout the planning area. Annual, primarily nonnative grasslands generally occur on fine-textured loam or clay soils that are moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall. This association is characterized by a dense-to-sparse cover of annual grasses, often with native and non-native annual forbs (Holland 1986). The number of natives versus non-natives is site-specific and varies according to rainfall and other factors (Heady 1995).

B-2 Appendix B - Sensitive Habitats Within the Planning Area

APPENDIX B SENSITIVE HABITATS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

Typical grasses in this habitat include wild oat, foxtail chess, ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Characteristic forbs include red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), mustard (Brassica spp.), tarplant (Centromadia spp.), tocalote, and cliff aster. Within annual grassland, grasses are less than 1 meter (3.3 feet) high and form a continuous or open cover. Emergent shrubs and trees may be present as well (Sawyer and Keeler- Wolf 1995).

Appendix B - Sensitive Habitats Within the Planning Area B-3