DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rare Artifact Found on San Clemente Island Mass Communication Specialist 2Nd Class Shawnte Bryan July 16, 2013 (U.S
    Santa Cruz Archaeological Society Newsletter Rare Artifact Found on San Clemente Island Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Shawnte Bryan July 16, 2013 (U.S. Navy Story Number: NNS130716-29) The Navy discovered a significant prehistoric artifact 90 miles west of San Diego on San Clemente Island (SCI) located mid-island at a newly discovered archeological site. A boat effigy made of submarine volcano lava was spotted at the surface of the site during an archeology survey. The boat effigy represents a type of boat used by the California Indians who occupied the California Channels and adjacent southern California mainland at the time of the Spanish "discovery" in the AD 1500s. Dr. Andy Yatsko, Senior Archaeologist and Region Southwest Archaeologist for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest in San Diego, who has over 40 years experience in prehistoric and historic archaeology finds the boat effigy to be an uncommon find. "Boat effigies like the one found are exceedingly rare in the archaeological record, with this being my first one recovered during my 30 year tenure with SCI," said Dr. Yatsko [image courtesy U.S. Navy]. "Finding artifacts on the surface of archaeological sites at the island is not unusual, but a rare one like this is always exciting to come across." The effigy was created from submarine volcano lava. This lava differs from the lava that flows on the mainland because the vesicles are smaller, making it more brittle and more difficult to handle. “The vesicle volcanic material used is hard and brittle but somehow they were able to craft a fine little carving out of it to represent an important part of their culture," said Yatsko.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes Among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz Island, California A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology by Kristina Marie Gill Committee in charge: Professor Michael A. Glassow, Chair Professor Michael A. Jochim Professor Amber M. VanDerwarker Professor Lynn H. Gamble September 2015 The dissertation of Kristina Marie Gill is approved. __________________________________________ Michael A. Jochim __________________________________________ Amber M. VanDerwarker __________________________________________ Lynn H. Gamble __________________________________________ Michael A. Glassow, Committee Chair July 2015 Ancient Plant Use and the Importance of Geophytes among the Island Chumash of Santa Cruz Island, California Copyright © 2015 By Kristina Marie Gill iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my Family, Mike Glassow, and the Chumash People. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people who have provided guidance, encouragement, and support in my career as an archaeologist, and especially through my undergraduate and graduate studies. For those of whom I am unable to personally thank here, know that I deeply appreciate your support. First and foremost, I want to thank my chair Michael Glassow for his patience, enthusiasm, and encouragement during all aspects of this daunting project. I am also truly grateful to have had the opportunity to know, learn from, and work with my other committee members, Mike Jochim, Amber VanDerwarker, and Lynn Gamble. I cherish my various field experiences with them all on the Channel Islands and especially in southern Germany with Mike Jochim, whose worldly perspective I value deeply. I also thank Terry Jones, who provided me many undergraduate opportunities in California archaeology and encouraged me to attend a field school on San Clemente Island with Mark Raab and Andy Yatsko, an experience that left me captivated with the islands and their history.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • V. Environmental Impact Analysis C. Biological Resources
    V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION A Biological Resources Evaluation for the Proposed Project was prepared by TeraCor Resource Management in November 2003 to analyze the potential impacts on biological resources associated with the Proposed Project. A summary of the Biological Resources Evaluation with respect to potential impacts on biological resources, and as reviewed and revised for consistency with the City of Malibu LCP1, is set forth below. The Biological Resources Evaluation, which is incorporated herein by this reference, is included in its entirety as Appendix D to this Draft Final EIR. A Technical Memorandum amending the Biological Resources Evaluation prepared by Teracor Resource Management was written on 27 March 2007 to clarify and evaluate three issues: 1) to confirm the status of biological resources present on site, 2) to confirm the presence or absence of wetlands, “waters of the U.S.” streambeds, or other water features present on-site, and, 3) determine if California black walnut (Juglans californica) trees are present on-site. The conclusions of the findings made by TeraCor Resource Management with respect to these three issues are set forth below. The Technical Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference, is provided in Appendix D-1, Biological Assessment – Verification of Conditions. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an understanding of the biological resources present within the Project Site, as determined from field reconnaissance and available scientific literature. This biological evaluation inventories floral and faunal resources detected on or near the Project Site, and predicts faunal resources determined likely to be present based on habitat conditions, known species distribution, and field observations.
    [Show full text]
  • BNA0397020 1 Hdmse00181527 NASA SURFACE Hpourdp'nts OPERATED by ROCKWELL/ ROCKETDYNE
    Rocketdyne Divisio n Rockwell International Corporation 6633 Canoga Avenu e Rockwell Canoga Park California 91304 International Telex : 696478 ROCKETDYN CNP K 4 April 1988 In reply refer to 88RC0358 1 Department of Health Services 107 South Broadway , Room 7011 Los Angeles , California 9001 2 Attention : Mrs . Susan Romero Subject : Surface Impoundment Closure Plans Gentlemen : Per your request , this transmittal is to provide information that will assist in the approval of the surface impoundment closure plans submitted by Rockwell International Corporation, Rocketdyne Division . The items enclosed are : I (1) The completed Appendix H of the Environmental Information form received from DOHS . (2) Groundwater quality summary tables and well proximity to the impoundment from the 1987 sampling of the Engineering Chemistry Laboratory ( ECL) wells by Rocketdyne ' s consultants , Groundwater Resources Consultants , Inc . (GRC) . (3) Photographs ( 7) taken during your visit to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory on March 15, 1988 , while GRC sampled the Delta and Alfa Bravo Skim Pond ( ABSP) impoundments at places designated by DOHS . As you may remember , the exact locations were identified by a yellow streamer or white glove on a wooden stake so that the photographer could document the activities . The soil samples were then split between Rocketdyne and DOHS so that two sets of laboratory results would be obtained . Very truly yours , ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Rocketdyne Division S S . R . Laf'flam , Manager Environmental Unit Facilities & Plant Operation s SRL/sj-0288 H cc w/o enclosures : Suwan Sonkprasha, DOHS E BNA0397020 1 HDMSe00181527 NASA SURFACE hPOURDP'nTS OPERATED BY ROCKWELL/ ROCKETDYNE IMMIX B vll~r rrAl.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds on San Clemente Island, As Part of Our Work Toward the Recovery of the Island’S Endangered Species
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 36, Number 3, 2005 THE BIRDS OF SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND BRIAN L. SULLIVAN, PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, California 94970-9701 (current address: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Rd., Ithaca, New York 14850) ERIC L. KERSHNER, Institute for Wildlife Studies, 2515 Camino del Rio South, Suite 334, San Diego, California 92108 With contributing authors JONATHAN J. DUNN, ROBB S. A. KALER, SUELLEN LYNN, NICOLE M. MUNKWITZ, and JONATHAN H. PLISSNER ABSTRACT: From 1992 to 2004, we observed birds on San Clemente Island, as part of our work toward the recovery of the island’s endangered species. We increased the island’s bird list to 317 species, by recording many additional vagrants and seabirds. The list includes 20 regular extant breeding species, 6 species extirpated as breeders, 5 nonnative introduced species, and 9 sporadic or newly colonizing breeding species. For decades San Clemente Island had been ravaged by overgrazing, especially by goats, which were removed completely in 1993. Since then, the island’s vegetation has begun recovering, and the island’s avifauna will likely change again as a result. We document here the status of that avifauna during this transitional period of re- growth, between the island’s being largely denuded of vegetation and a more natural state. It is still too early to evaluate the effects of the vegetation’s still partial recovery on birds, but the beginnings of recovery may have enabled the recent colonization of small numbers of Grasshopper Sparrows and Lazuli Buntings. Sponsored by the U. S. Navy, efforts to restore the island’s endangered species continue—among birds these are the Loggerhead Shrike and Sage Sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • 3.5 Geology/Soils
    3.5 GEOLOGY/SOILS 3.5.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the project’s impacts related to geology and soils, including such factors as seismology, soils, topography, and erosion. It also includes an examination of potential hazards associated with potential damage to proposed structures and infrastructure from ground shaking, potential liquefaction hazards and soils and soils stability. Applicable laws, regulations and relevant local planning policies that pertain to geology are also discussed. Much of the information contained in this subsection was based upon the following geotechnical reports submitted by consultants under contract to the Chandler’s Palos Verdes Sand and Gravel Company and the peer review of those technical studies by Arroyo/Willdan Geotechnical: Geologic Constraints Investigation of the Chandler’s Inert Solid Land Fill Quarry and Surrounding Properties, Rolling Hills Estates, California, Earth Consultants International, June 15, 2000. Phase I Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study to Determine Potential Development Areas within the Chandler’s P.V. Sand and Gravel Company Property, Adjacent Trust Properties and the Rolling Hills Country Club, Rolling Hills Estates, California, Neblett & Associates, Inc., December 2001. Fault Investigation, Phases I and II, Chandler Quarry and Rolling Hills Country Club, Palos Verdes Estates, California, Neblett & Associates, Inc., April 29, 2005. Geotechnical Review, Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Potential Development Areas within the Chandler’s P.V. Sand and Gravel Company Property, Adjacent Trust Properties, and the Rolling Hills Country Club, City of Rolling Hills Estates, California, prepared by Arroyo Geotechnical, September 24, 2007. Review of Response Report, Geotechnical Review, Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Potential Development Areas within the Chandler’s P.V.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Volume of the Complete Palos Verdes Anticlinorium: Stratigraphic
    The Volume of the Complete Palos Verdes Anticlinorium: Stratigraphic Horizons for the Community Fault Model Christopher Sorlien, Leonardo Seeber, Kris Broderick, Doug Wilson Figure 1: Faults, earthquakes, and locations. Lower hemisphere earthquake focal mechanisms, labeled by year, are from USGS and SCEC (1994), with location of 1930 earthquake (open circle) from Hauksson and Saldivar (1986). The surface or seafloor traces, or upper edges of blind faults are from the Southern California Earthquake Center Community Fault Model (Plesch and Shaw, 2002); other faults are from Sorlien et al. (2006). Figure 2 is located by red dashed polygon. L.A.=Los Angeles (downtown); LB=Long Beach (city and harbor); PVA=Palos Verdes anticlinorium, Peninsula and Hills, PVF=Palos Verdes fault; SPBF=San Pedro Basin fault; SMM=Santa Monica Mountains; SPS=San Pedro Shelf. Structural Setting If the water and post-Miocene sedimentary rocks were removed, the Los Angeles (L.A.) area would have huge relief, most of which was generated in the Plio-Pleistocene (Fig. 1; Wright, 1991). The five km-deep L.A. basin would be isolated from other basins to the SW by a major anticline-ridge, the Palos Verdes Anticlinorium (PVA), parallel to the current NW-SE coastline (Davis et al., 1989; Figures 2, 3). The Palos Verdes Hills have been long recognized as a contractional structure, but of dimensions similar to the peninsula (e.g., Woodring et al., 1946). This prominent topographic feature is instead only the exposed portion of the much larger PVA (Fig 2). Submerged parts of the PVA had previously been interpreted as separate anticlines (Nardin and Henyey, 1978; Legg et al., 2004) related in part to bends in strike-slip faults (Ward and Valensise, 1994), rather than a single complex structure above low-angle (oblique) thrust faults.
    [Show full text]
  • Invasive Non-Native: Crofton Weed, Eupatory (Ageratina Adenophora)
    Invasive Non-Native: Crofton Weed, Eupatory (Ageratina adenophora) Description: perennial herb or subshrub, woody base, 2-5 ft (.6-1.5m) tall. Opposite leaves 1-4” (3-10cm). Stems: purple, glandular hairy. Flowers: composite, flower head all discoid flowers (no ray flowers) ¼” (6mm) across, clustered in groups, individual flowers 1/16-1/8 ” (<5mm) across, white or pink tinged. Ecology: disturbed areas, wetland/riparian edges, canyons, hillsides. Similar to: no common natives or non-natives. Mule-fat has discoid ray flowers, but thinner leaves. Report sightings to: [email protected] and database at www.Calflora.org Invasive Non-Native: French Broom (Genista monspessulana) Description: large, evergreen, woody shrub up to 9 feet (3m) tall. Leaves: small < ½” (1cm), compound leaflets in groups of three. Flower: small, < ¼” (6mm), yellow, 1-2 per axil. Ecology: occurs in a variety of habitats from disturbed to undisturbed areas, coastal scrub, oak woodlands, riparian corridors and open forests. Similar to (see back): Spanish broom (non-native) large shrub with deciduous leaves and 1” (3cm) yellow flowers. Scotch broom (non- native) large shrub with deciduous leaves and 1” (3cm) yellow flowers. Deerweed (native) short-lived perennial < 2 ft (.6m) tall with smaller yellow-orange-red flowers. Report sightings to: [email protected] and database at www.Calflora.org Spanish broom Plants SIMILAR TO: French broom (Genista monspessulana) Spanish broom (Spartium junceum): (non-native) deciduous shrub that can grow up to 10 ft (3m) tall. Stems: round in cross-section. Flowers: several yellow flowers per axil giving it a denser overall appearance than Scotch broom. ( PLEASE MAP new locations).
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study / Environmental Assessment Annotated
    This page has been intentionally left blank. This page has been intentionally left blank. SCH: PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), in cooperation with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7, proposes to develop and implement an auxiliary lane on Eastbound State Route 91 within a 1.4-mile segment from the southbound Interstate 710 (I-710) interchange connector to eastbound State Route 91, to Cherry Avenue. The Study Area includes Eastbound State Route 91 (Post Miles [PM] R11.8/R13.2) and is located in the City of Long Beach and adjacent to the City of Paramount, California. Determination This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. This does not mean that Caltrans’ decision regarding the Project is final. This Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to change based on comments received by interested agencies and the public. All Project features (including standard practices and specifications) are considered in significance determinations. Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project and, pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The Project would have no effect on aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, cultural resources, energy, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report for 2011 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Adult Surveys on Defense Fuel Support Point San Pedro, California
    The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. P.O. Box 24020, Los Angeles, California 90024-0020, Tel (310) 247-9719 FINAL REPORT FOR 2011 PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY ADULT SURVEYS ON DEFENSE FUEL SUPPORT POINT SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NUMBER: N62473-11-2-2304 Contracting Officer: Linda Protocollo Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Southwest 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 Tel: (619) 532-1159, Fax: (619) 532-1155 Email: [email protected] Agreement Representative: Albert Owen, Ph.D. Natural Resources Specialist Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Southwest 937 North Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92132-5190 Tel: (619) 532-3775, Fax: (619) 532-4160 Email: [email protected] FINAL REPORT FOR 2011 PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY ADULT SURVEYS ON DEFENSE FUEL SUPPORT POINT SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: Travis Longcore, Ph.D. The Urban Wildlands Group P.O. Box 24020 Los Angeles, CA 90024-0020 Ken H. Osborne, M.S. Osborne Biological Consulting 6675 Avenue Juan Diaz Riverside, CA 92509-6242 Prepared For: Albert Owen, Ph.D. Natural Resources Specialist Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Southwest 937 North Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92132-5190 October 15, 2011 Recommended Citation: Longcore, T., and K. H. Osborne. 2011. Final Report for 2011 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly Adult Surveys on Defense Fuel Support Point, San Pedro, California. Los Angeles: The Urban Wildlands Group (Defense Logistics Agency Agreement # N62473-11-2-2304). Executive Summary Surveys for adult Palos Verdes blue butterfly at the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP), San Pedro, were completed along a standardized transect that has been surveyed since 1994.
    [Show full text]