d r a f t - torranceca.gov

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

for the

Prairie Avenue Project

City of Torrance, California

Prepared for:

KP Torrance Prairie Owner, LLC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 380

Los Angeles, California 90067

Contact: Dan Broder

Prepared by:

38 North Raymond Avenue

Pasadena, California 91101

Contact: Michael Cady

SEPTEMBER 2019

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Biological Resources Technical Report for the Prairie Avenue Project

12075 i September 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description.................................................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Project Purpose ........................................................................................... 1

2 REGULATORY SETTING ..............................................................................................3

2.1 Federal..................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................ 3

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .......................................................................... 3

2.1.3 Clean Water Act .......................................................................................... 4

2.2 State......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ............................................................ 5

2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................. 5

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................ 6

2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act ............................................... 7

2.3 Local ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 City of Torrance General Plan .................................................................... 7

3 METHODS .........................................................................................................................9

3.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Resources Mapping ................................................................................................. 9

3.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping ................................... 10

3.2.2 Flora .......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Fauna ......................................................................................................... 10

3.2.4 Focused Botanical Surveys and Mapping ................................................. 11

3.3 Special-Status Species Assessment....................................................................... 11

3.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................... 12

3.5 Survey Limitations ................................................................................................ 12

4 PROJECT SETTING ......................................................................................................15

4.1 Climate .................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 Soils....................................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Terrain ................................................................................................................... 15

4.4 Land Uses.............................................................................................................. 16

4.4.1 On-Site Land Uses .................................................................................... 16

4.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses............................................................................. 16

4.5 Watersheds and Hydrology ................................................................................... 16


12075 ii September 2019

5 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................17

5.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity .............................. 17

5.1.1 Disturbed Habitat ...................................................................................... 17

5.1.2 Urban/Developed Land ............................................................................. 18

5.1.3 Ornamental Vegetation ............................................................................. 18

5.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 18

5.2.1 Birds .......................................................................................................... 18

5.2.2 Reptiles and Amphibians .......................................................................... 18

5.2.3 Mammals................................................................................................... 19

5.2.4 Invertebrates .............................................................................................. 19

5.3 Special-Status Species Assessment....................................................................... 19

5.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species ..................................................................... 19

5.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species ................................................................ 20

5.3.3 Critical Habitat .......................................................................................... 20

5.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages .............................................................. 20

5.5 Jurisdictional Delineation ..................................................................................... 22

5.6 Regional Resource Planning Context ................................................................... 22

6 PROJECT IMPACTS .....................................................................................................23

6.1 Definition of Impacts ............................................................................................ 23

6.1.1 Direct Permanent Impacts ......................................................................... 23

6.1.2 Direct Temporary Impacts ........................................................................ 23

6.1.3 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................ 23

6.1.4 Explanation of Findings of Significance................................................... 24

6.2 Impacts to Special-Status Species ......................................................................... 25

6.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species ................................................... 25

6.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species .............................................. 25

6.3 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers ........................................ 26

6.4 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................... 26

6.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity ...................................... 26

6.6 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning ............................................................... 27

7 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................29

7.1 Impact to Special-Status Species .......................................................................... 29

7.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................................. 30

8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................33


12075 iii September 2019

APPENDICES

A Site Photos

B Plant Compendium

C Wildlife Compendium

D Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site

E Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site

FIGURES

Figure 1 Local Vicinity and Regional Location ...................................................................36

Figure 2 Biological Resources .............................................................................................39

Figure 3 Impacted Biological Resources..............................................................................41

TABLES

Table 1 Survey Conditions ..................................................................................................10

Table 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within Project site ....................17


12075 iv September 2019

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

BMP best management practice

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank

ESA Endangered Species Act

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HCP habitat conservation plan

mph miles per hour

NCCP natural community conservation plan

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OHWM ordinary high water mark

SSC Species of Special Concern

SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey


12075 1 September 2019

1 INTRODUCTION

This biological resources technical report describes the existing biological conditions of the

approximately 20.72-acre proposed Prairie Avenue Project (Project). The Project site is located on

privately owned land within the northern portion of the City of Torrance, Los Angeles County,

California, immediately adjacent to and west of Prairie Avenue, approximately 0.4-mile east of

State Route 107 (SR-107)/Hawthorne Boulevard, and approximately 640 feet south of West 190th

Street (Figure 1). The existing property is characterized by developed land, disturbed habitat, and

ornamental landscaping associated with an existing parking lot as well as remnants of past

industrial operations. The Project proposes to develop the property into a warehouse complex

consisting of two buildings and a surrounding parking lot.

The purpose of this report as follows: (1) to describe the conditions of biological resources within

the proposed Project development footprint in terms of vegetation, flora, jurisdictional waters and

wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitats; (2) to quantify potential direct and indirect impacts to

biological resources that will result from the proposed Project; (3) to discuss those impacts in

terms of biological significance in view of federal, state, and local laws and City policies; and

(4) to discuss mitigation measures that will reduce significant biological impacts to a less-than-

significant level consistent with federal, state, and local regulations, including the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Project Description

1.1.1 Project Location

The 20.72-acre Prairie Avenue property is located on privately owned land located within the City

of Torrance in southwestern Los Angeles County, approximately 14 miles southwest of downtown

Los Angeles (Figure 1). More specifically, the property is immediately adjacent to and west of

Prairie Avenue, approximately 0.4-mile east of State Route 107 (SR-107)/Hawthorne Boulevard,

and approximately 640 feet south of West 190th Street as shown in Figure 1, Project Location. The

proposed Project development is planned to occur within a previously developed and disturbed

property associated with various industrial uses, including petrochemical storage and mineral

mining. The Project is located in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Torrance

quadrangle map, Township 4 South, Range 14 West (USGS 1981).

1.1.1 Project Purpose

The Project includes the proposed development of a warehouse complex composed of two

warehouse buildings with built-in office floors and a surrounding parking lot. Additionally, a small

portion in the northwestern corner of the property is proposed to be set aside as a future substation.

The proposed Project is within an area zoned as heavy manufacturing (M-2) within the City of



Torrance Property Zoning Map (City of Torrance 2015). The General Plan land use designation

for the proposed Project development footprint is light industrial (I-LT), which is located within

the West Torrance Neighborhood District (City of Torrance 2010).



2 REGULATORY SETTING

This chapter outlines the federal, state, and local regulations pertinent to the biological resources

located on the Project site.

2.1 Federal

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for most plant and animal species

and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

for certain marine species. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the

ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and provide programs for the

conservation of those species, thus preventing the extinction of plants and wildlife. The FESA

defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to

become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion

of its range.” Under FESA, it is unlawful to “take” any listed species, and “take” is defined as,

“harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in

any such conduct.”

FESA allows for the issuance of incidental take permits for listed species under Section 7, which

is generally available for projects that also require other federal agency permits or other approvals,

and under Section 10, which provides for the approval of habitat conservation plans on private

property without any other federal agency involvement.

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq.) (MBTA), as amended, prohibits the

intentional take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting,

or killing, or attempting to do so. In December 2017, Department of the Interior Principal Deputy

Solicitor Jorjani issued a memorandum (M-37050) that interprets the Migratory Bird Treaty Act’s

“take” prohibition to apply only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or

killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs. Unintentional or accidental take is not

prohibited (DOI 2017). Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address

impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of

migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). The Executive Order requires federal agencies to



work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that

might affect these species.

2.1.3 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires a project operator for

a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United

States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions

of the Clean Water Act. The RWQCBs administer the certification program in California. Section

402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill

material) into waters of the United States. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered

by USACE that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,

including wetlands. USACE implementing regulations are found at 33 CFR 320 and 330.

Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were

developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with USACE

(40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic

system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.

Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

Aquatic resources, including riparian areas, wetlands, and certain aquatic vegetation communities,

are considered sensitive biological resources and can fall under the jurisdiction of several

regulatory agencies. USACE exerts jurisdiction over waters of the United States, including all

waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands and other waters such as lakes,

rivers, streams (including intermittent or ephemeral streams), mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, prairie

potholes, vernal pools, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; and tributaries of the above

features.

The extent of waters of the United States is generally defined as that portion that falls within the

limits of an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). Typically, the OHWM corresponds to the water

surface elevation of a 2-year flood event (USACE 2008a). In addition, waters of the United States

may include wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar

areas, defined by USACE as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater

at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,

a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[b];

40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,

and wetlands hydrology), as determined by field investigation, must be present for a site to be

classified as a wetland by USACE (USACE 1987).



2.2 State

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050

et seq.) provides protection and prohibits the take of plant, fish, and wildlife species listed by the

State of California. Unlike FESA, under CESA state-listed plants have the same degree of

protection as wildlife, but insects and other invertebrates may not be listed. Take is defined

similarly to FESA and is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. Take authorization may

be obtained by the project applicant from CDFW under CESA Section 2081, which allows take of

a listed species for educational, scientific, or management purposes. In this case, private developers

consult with CDFW to develop a set of measures and standards for managing the listed species,

including full mitigation for impacts, funding of implementation, and monitoring of mitigation

measures.

2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code

Fully Protected Species

Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code outline protection for

fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully

protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW cannot issue permits

or licenses that authorize the “take” of any fully protected species, except under certain

circumstances, such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant

to a permit for the protection of livestock. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the CDFW to

maintain viable populations of all native species.

Section 1602

Under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, a project operator is required to notify

CDFW prior to any project that would divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or

bank of any river, stream, or lake. Pursuant to the code, a “stream” is defined as a body of water that

flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish

or other aquatic life. Based on this definition, a watercourse with surface or subsurface flows that

supports or has supported riparian vegetation is a stream and is subject to CDFW jurisdiction. Altered

or artificial watercourses valuable to fish and wildlife are subject to CDFW jurisdiction. CDFW also

has jurisdiction over dry washes that carry water during storm events.

Preliminary notification and project review generally occur during the environmental process.

When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is

required to propose reasonable project changes to protect the resource. These modifications are



formalized in a Streambed Alteration Agreement, which becomes part of the plans, specifications,

and bid documents for the project.

California Native Plant Protection Act

The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (see Section 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game

Code) directed CDFW to carry out the Legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare

and endangered plants in this State.” The Native Plant Protection Act gave the California Fish and

Game Commission the power to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and protect

endangered and rare plants from take. CESA expanded on the original Native Plant Protection Act

and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the Native Plant Protection Act remains part of the

California Fish and Game Code. To align with federal regulations, CESA created the categories of

“threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the act as threatened

species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in

California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Because rare plants are not included in CESA,

mitigation measures for impacts to rare plants are specified in a formal agreement between CDFW

and the project proponent.

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources

and ways that such impacts can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The act also provides

guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed

impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or

subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or

more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition,

disease, or other factors.” A rare animal or plant is defined in Section 15380(b)(2) as a species

that, although not presently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout

all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens;

or … [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or

a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the

federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be

endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA

Guidelines Section 15380(c).

CDFW has developed a list of “Special Species” as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal

or protection status.” This is a broader list than those species that are protected under the FESA,



CESA, and other California Fish and Game Code provisions, and includes lists developed by other

organizations, including for example the Audubon Watch List Species. Guidance documents

prepared by other agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species and

USFWS Birds of Special Concern, are also included on this CDFW Special Species list.

Additionally, CDFW has concluded that plant species listed as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)

1 and 2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and potentially some CRPR 3 plants, are

covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.

Section IV, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), of the CEQA Guidelines requires an

evaluation of impacts to “any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in

local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The intent of the Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act is to protect water quality and the

beneficial uses of water, and it applies to both surface water and groundwater. Under this law, the

State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide water quality plans, and the nine

RWQCBs develop basin plans that identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and

implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions

of both statewide and basin plans. Waters regulated under the Porter–Cologne Water Quality

Control Act include isolated waters that are no longer regulated by USACE. Developments with

impact to jurisdictional waters must demonstrate compliance with the goals of the act by

developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, standard urban stormwater mitigation plans,

and other measures to obtain an order of Waste Discharge Requirement (or, in cases where a Clean

Water Act Section 401 certification is required, a waiver of Waste Discharge Requirement).

2.3 Local

2.2.4 City of Torrance General Plan

The City of Torrance General Plan provides goals, policies, and design criteria intended to guide

expansion of the City of Torrance as a truly distinctive place. The general guiding principles will

guide all decisions made to implement the Torrance General Plan through established benchmarks

used to measure decisions related to community values and desires (City of Torrance 2010).



INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



3 METHODS

Data regarding biological resources present within the Project site were obtained through a review

of pertinent literature and through field reconnaissance, both of which are described in detail

below.

3.1 Literature Review

Prior to conducting the field investigation, a literature review was conducted to evaluate the

environmental setting of the Project site and identify potential special-status biological resources

that may be found on the site:

USFWS Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data (USFWS 2019a);

CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2019a);

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered

Plants of California, 8th online edition (CNPS 2019b);

USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data

(USFWS 2019b);

Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal searched for potential hydric soils (County of Los

Angeles 2004);

USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2019);

and USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles and aerial photography were reviewed for

potential habitat and jurisdictional resources (Bing Maps 2019; Google 2019; USGS 1981).

3.2 Resources Mapping

Dudek conducted general biological reconnaissance-level survey, which included vegetation

mapping and a habitat assessment for special-status species to occur, on July 19, 2019 (Table 1).

A special-status plant survey and mapping of special-status plant species observed on site was

conducted on August 9, 2019 (Table 1).


12075 10 September 2019

Table 1

Survey Conditions

Date Hours Survey Focus Conditions Personnel

7/19/2019 0730–1100 General biological reconnaissance-level survey; habitat assessment; vegetation mapping; resources mapping

69°F, 100% cc, 1 mph wind MC

8/9/2019 0935–1230 Special-status plant survey; Focused southern tarplant mapping survey

66-70°F, 0-10% cc, 0-3 mph wind TP

Notes: MC = Michael Cady; TP = Tracy Park; °F = degrees Fahrenheit; cc = cloud cover; mph= miles per hour

3.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping

Dudek biologist Michael Cady conducted a general biological survey of the Project site on July

19, 2019 (Table 1). Vegetation communities on the property were mapped using the CDFW

Natural Communities List (CDFW 2018), which is based on the Manual of California Vegetation,

Second Edition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009). Vegetation communities were mapped in the field

directly onto a 200-scale (1 inch = 200 feet) aerial map of the Project site. Community

classifications were selected based on site factors, descriptions, distribution, and characteristic

species present within an area. Information such as dominant species and their associated cover,

aspect, and visible disturbance factors were recorded. To create the vegetation community map,

Dudek GIS technicians digitized the delineated vegetation boundaries from field maps using

ArcGIS software. Some modifications were incorporated to accommodate the lack of conformity

of the observed communities to those included in MCV2.

3.2.2 Flora

The Project site was walked thoroughly by Dudek Biologists Michael Cady and Tracy Park, and

all plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded. Latin and

common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR; formerly CNPS List)

follow the California Native Plant Society On-Line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and

Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2019). The Latin name for plant species without a

California Rare Plant Rank follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of

Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2019), and common names

follow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plants Database (USDA 2019a). The Project

site was surveyed for habitat and soil conditions known to support special-status plant species.

Habitat classification follows The Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009).

3.2.3 Fauna

The Project site was walked by Dudek Biologists Michael Cady and Tracy Park, and all wildlife

species, as detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs, were identified


12075 11 September 2019

and recorded. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was

determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of

their relative distributions in the area. No trapping for special-status or nocturnal species was

conducted. Latin and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Crother

et al. (2012) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithologists’ Union (2019) for birds, and

Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals.

3.2.4 Focused Botanical Surveys and Mapping

A focused special-status plant species survey was conducted on August 9, 2019, to determine the

presence or absence of special-status plants with potential to occur within the Project site. The

locations and number of special-status plant species were mapped when observed in the field. The

survey also included a comprehensive botanical inventory of all plants identified within the Project

site.

During the focused special-status plant species survey, Dudek biologist Tracy Park conducted a

focused mapping effort for southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis; CRPR 1B.1)

within suitable habitat for the species. Dudek biologist Michael Cady identified southern tarplant

during the general biological reconnaissance-level survey using The Jepson Manual: Vascular

Plants of California, to key/identify the species (2019). Ms. Park delineated the boundary of

southern tarplant populations with a 5-meter nearest neighbor mapping rule using a GPS unit with

sub-meter accuracy. For populations of southern tarplant where a complete census was feasible,

the number of individuals within the polygon were counted and recorded. For polygons that were

either too large or too dense for a complete census method to be viable, randomized sample points

were established. At each sample point, a 1-meter quadrat was placed on the ground and the total

number of southern tarplant individuals rooted within the 1-meter quadrat were counted and

recorded. Number and density of southern tarplant individuals were calculated per population

using the number of individuals counted within each quadrat and extrapolating that density to the

entire polygon.

3.3 Special-Status Species Assessment

Endangered, rare, or threatened plant species as defined in Section 15380(b) of the CEQA

Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are referred to as “special-status plant species” in this BRTR

and include endangered or threatened plant species recognized in the context of CESA and FESA

(CDFW 2019b) and plant species with a CRPR 1 through 4 (CNPS 2019a). Species with CRPR 3

or 4 may, but generally do not, qualify for protection under this provision. Species with CRPR 3

and 4 are those that require more information to determine status and plants of limited distribution.


12075 12 September 2019

Endangered, rare, or threatened wildlife species as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380(b)

(14 CCR 15000 et seq.), are referred to as “special-status wildlife species” and, as used in this

report, include (1) endangered or threatened wildlife species recognized in the context of CESA

and FESA (CDFW 2019b); (2) California Species of Special Concern and Watch List species as

designated by CDFW (2019c); (3) mammals and birds that are fully protected species as described

in the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 4700 and 3511; and (4) Birds of Conservation

Concern as designated by USFWS (2008).

The CNDDB and CNPS database queries conducted during the literature review resulted in a list

of plant and wildlife species that have recorded occurrences within the Project vicinity. For each

species evaluated, a determination was made regarding the potential for the species to occur in the

Study Area based on information gathered during the field reconnaissance, including the location of

the site, habitats present, current site conditions, known range, habitat associations, preferred soil

substrate, life form, elevation, and blooming period.

3.4 Jurisdictional Delineation

Although a formal wetlands delineation following the methodology described in A Field

Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West

Region of the Western United States (ACOE 2008a), 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual

(ACOE 1987), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation

Manual: Arid West Region (ACOE 2008b) was not conducted during the field survey, the

Project site was evaluated for the potential to support jurisdictional waters regulated under

the federal Clean Water Act, California Fish and Game Code, and Porter-Cologne Water

Quality Act.

3.5 Survey Limitations

Special-status plant surveys were conducted in July and August of 2019, which resulted in

detection and identification of most annual and perennial plant species that have potential to occur

on site based upon the literature review. The timing of the surveys coincided with the blooming

periods for the target species identified during the CDFW CNDDB (CDFW 2019) query.

Limitations of the surveys included a diurnal bias and the absence of trapping for small mammals,

reptiles, and amphibians. The surveys were conducted during the daytime to maximize the

detection of most animals. Birds represent the largest component of the vertebrate fauna, and

because most birds are active in the daytime, diurnal surveys maximize the number of bird

observations. Conversely, diurnal surveys usually result in few observations of mammals, many

of which may only be active at night. In addition, many species of reptiles and amphibians are

secretive in their habits and are difficult to observe using standard meandering transects. The

purpose of the field surveys was to determine the likelihood of occurrence of any special-status


12075 13 September 2019

plant or wildlife species based on the presence/absence of suitable habitat and other natural history

elements that might predict their occurrence.


12075 14 September 2019



12075 15 September 2019

4 PROJECT SETTING

4.1 Climate

The Project site is located approximately 2.7 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The City of Torrance

has a Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. August is the average

warmest month with an average high temperature of 79 degrees Fahrenheit (˚F) and December and

January are the coolest months on average with a low of 44˚F. Rainfall occurs primarily between

November and March, with the maximum average precipitation occurring in January. According

to the Western Regional Climate Center (2016), the mean annual rainfall for the region is 14.46

approximate inches of rain per year.

4.2 Soils

According to the USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey

Geographic database (USDA NRCS 2019), the Project site occurs within the supplemental soil

survey conducted for southeastern Los Angeles County, California. Two different soil types are

mapped within the Project site: Urban land-Centinela-Typic Xerorthents, fine substratum complex,

0 to 2 percent slopes; and Urban land-Marina complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2019).

Urban land-Centinela-Typic Xerorthents, fine substratum complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occurs

within the northeastern portion of the Project site. This soil-mapping unit is primarily composed

of urban land covered by roads, parking lots, and buildings, under which extensive cutting and

filling has occurred during urban development. This mapping unit also supports the Centinela and

Typic Xerorthents soil series; both of which are well-drained loams formed from human-

transported materials over mixed alluvium (USDA NRCS 2017).

Urban land-Marina Comple, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occurs within the southwestern portion of the

Project site. This soil-mapping unit is primarily composed of urban land covered by roads, parking

lots, and buildings, under which extensive cutting and filling has occurred during urban

development. This mapping unit also supports the Marina soil series, a somewhat excessively

drained sandy loam formed from human-transported materials over stabilized sand dunes (USDA

NRCS 2017).

4.3 Terrain

Elevations within the Project site range from 69 feet to 88 feet AMSL. The Project site is

generally flat; however, large cuts in the topography, approximately five feet in depth, occur

where petrochemical storage tanks and associated hardscapes have been removed within the

central portion of the Project site.


12075 16 September 2019

4.4 Land Uses

4.4.1 On-Site Land Uses

The immediate vicinity of the Project site is characterized by industrial development associated

with warehouses and petrochemical processing and/or storage. Within the property boundary,

remnants of past industrial uses associated with petrochemical storage and soil stockpiling occur

within the northwestern and central portions of the Project site. The remainder of the property is

comprised of paved parking lots and roads, as well as non-native ornamental and disturbed

vegetation.

4.4.2 Surrounding Land Uses

The general area surrounding the property boundary is dominated by a mixture of residential,

commercial, and industrial development. The City of Torrance is bordered by the Cities of Rolling

Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates to the south, Lomita and Carson to the east, Gardena to the

northeast, Palos Verdes Estates to the northwest, and the City of Redondo Beach and the Pacific

Ocean to the west. An oil refinery is located approximately 300 feet east of the property boundary;

Columbia Regional Park is located approximately 680 feet to the north of the property boundary;

and the Pacific Ocean is located approximately 2.7 miles to the west. An industrial freight railroad

line borders the Project site along its southwestern boundary.

4.5 Watersheds and Hydrology

The Project site is located within the West Coast portion of the Coastal Plain Hydrologic Area

(HA) of the Los Angeles-San Gabriel River Unit (HU) (RWQCB 1994). The Groundwater Basin

Number is 4-11.03 (California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118). The Los Angeles River is

approximately 8.1 miles east of the property boundary and the San Gabriel River is approximately

14 miles east of the property boundary. The Los Angeles River flows southeast coming out of the

Simi Hills and Santa Susana Mountains, making its way to the Pacific Ocean through the mouth

at the City of Long Beach. The San Gabriel River flows south coming out of the San Gabriel

Mountains and then turns west as it makes its way to the Pacific Ocean, into the outlet of Alamitos

Bay between the Cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. There are no drainages that drain into the

Project site.


12075 17 September 2019

5 RESULTS

5.1 Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Floral Diversity

Three land cover types were mapped within the Project site: urban/developed land, disturbed

habitat, and ornamental vegetation. The land cover types observed within the Project site are

described below, their acreages are presented in Table 2, Vegetation Communities and Land

Cover Types within the Project Site, and their spatial distributions are depicted in Figure 2,

Biological Resources. The Project site and surrounding area is heavily urbanized with minimal

vegetation present. No native vegetation communities were identified within the Project site. No

native or sensitive vegetation communities were identified within the Project site.

Table 2

Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types within Project Site

Vegetation Community/Land Cover Acreage within Project Site

Non-Native Land Covers

Disturbed Habitat (DH) 11.40

Urban/Developed Land (DEV) 8.34

Ornamental Vegetation (ORN) 0.97

Total 20.72*

* Totals may not add up due to rounding.

5.1.1 Disturbed Habitat

Disturbed habitat includes areas that experience or have experienced high levels of human

disturbance and as a result are generally lacking vegetation. Areas mapped as disturbed land may

include unpaved roads, trails, and graded areas. Vegetation in these areas, if present at all, is

usually sparse and dominated by non-native weedy herbaceous species.

Disturbed habitat within the Project site is present within vacant land and dirt roads. These vacant

areas are characterized by remnants of past industrial uses and are dominated by ruderal non-native

plant species. Common species observed within this mapping unit include annual yellow

sweetclover (Melilotus indicus), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), cultivated radish

(Raphanus sativus), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), white-margin sandmat (Euphorbia

albomarginata), prostrate pigweed (Amaranthus albus), Canadian horseweed (Erigeron

canadensis), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Southern tarplant was found in open

areas of this mapping unit. Disturbed habitat occurs within the northwestern and central portion of

the Project site (Figure 2). Disturbed habitat is not considered sensitive by local, state, and/or

federal agencies.


12075 18 September 2019

5.1.2 Urban/Developed Land

Developed land refers to areas supported by man-made structures including homes, yards,

roadways, sidewalks, and other highly modified lands supporting structures associated with

dwellings or other permanent structures. Vegetation in these areas, if present at all, is typically

associated with development landscaping. Within the Project site, developed land is primarily

comprised of a paved parking lot and private road. Developed land is not considered a sensitive

by local, state, and/or federal agencies.

5.1.3 Ornamental Vegetation

Ornamental vegetation consists of introduced plantings of exotic species as landscaping,

including greenbelts, parks, and horticultural plantings (Jones and Stokes 1993). Ornamental

plantings within the Project site include Washington fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), coastal

wattle (Acacia cyclops), Barbary fig (Opuntia ficus-indica), redbox (Eucalyptus polyanthemos),

crimson bottlebrush (Melaleuca citrina), and lantana (Lantana camara). Scattered patches of

ornamental vegetation occur within the western portion of the Project site. Ornamental

vegetation is not considered sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Within the Project

site, ornamental vegetation is found scattered throughout, including the eastern border of the site.

5.2 Wildlife

A total of 14 wildlife species were recorded within the Project site during field surveys. A full list

of wildlife species observed in the Project site is provided in Appendix C.

5.2.1 Birds

A total of 13 bird species were audibly detected or observed in the Project site. Most bird species

observed are common, disturbance-adapted species typical of urban and suburban settings such as

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow

(Corvus brachyrhynchos), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Raptors may use the Project

site and/or surrounding areas as foraging habitat; however, no raptor species were observed within

the Project site during the surveys.

5.2.2 Reptiles and Amphibians

One reptile species was observed within the Project site: western fence lizard (Sceloporus

occidentalis); although, common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) may also occur. No

amphibian species were observed during surveys.


12075 19 September 2019

5.2.3 Mammals

No mammal species were detected within the Project site during the survey. However, California

ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi), common raccoon (Procyon lotor),

Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae.), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and desert cottontail

(Sylvilagus audubonii)), as well as additional mammals adapted to living in areas near human

disturbance, such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginica), may also occur within the Project

site and surrounding area.

5.2.4 Invertebrates

No invertebrates were observed within the Project site during the site visit. Terrestrial invertebrates not

observed within Project site, but those likely to be present include western tiger swallowtail (Papilio

rutulus), cabbage white (Pieris rapae), and Sara orangetip (Anthocharis sara).

5.3 Special-Status Species Assessment

5.3.1 Special-Status Plant Species

Special-status plant surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of plant

species that are considered endangered, rare, or threatened under CEQA Guideline 15380 (14

CCR 15000 et seq.). Endangered, rare, or threatened plant species, as defined in CEQA

Guideline 15380(b) (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), are referred to as “special-status plant species” in

this report and include (1) endangered or threatened plant species recognized in the context of

the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)

and/or (2) plant species with a CRPR 1 or 2 (CDFW 2019; CNPS 2019).

One special-status plant species, southern tarplant (CRPR 1B.1), was identified during the

biological reconnaissance-level survey conducted on July 19, 2019. Southern tarplant was

observed scattered throughout the site. Approximately 0.38 acre (1,522 square meters), with an

estimated 70,000 individuals were mapped. The tarplant is growing particularly densely within the

large polygons mapped along the eastern boundary (Figure 2).

Appendix D lists the special-status plant species reported in the USGS 7.5-minute Torrance

quadrangles and the surrounding six topographic quadrangles resulting from a CNDDB and CNPS

search (CDFW 2019; CNPS 2019). This appendix analyzes each of these special-status species’

occurrence or potential to occur based on known range, habitat associations, preferred soil substrate,

life form, elevation, and blooming period. There are no special-status plant species with a moderate or

high potential to occur within the Project site, other than the observed southern tarplant. These species

are not further analyzed in this BTR because no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected.


12075 20 September 2019

5.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species

Endangered, rare, or threatened wildlife species, as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380(b)

(14 CCR 15000 et seq.), are referred to as “special-status wildlife species” and, as used in this

report, include (1) endangered or threatened wildlife species recognized in the context of the CESA

and ESA; (2) California Species of Special Concern (SSC), as designated by the CDFG (2011);

(3) mammals and birds that are fully protected (FP) species, as described in Fish and Game Code,

Sections 4700 and 3511.

No special-status wildlife species were detected during the surveys conducted in July and August

2019. Appendix E list occurrences of special-status wildlife species reported in the USGS 7.5-

minute Torrance quadrangles, as well as the surrounding six topographic quadrangles resulting

from a CNDDB search (CDFW 2019). These appendices also analyze each of these special-status

species’ occurrences or potential to occur based on known range, habitat associations, and

elevation. No special-status wildlife species were determined to have a moderate or higher

potential to occur; thus, these species are not further analyzed in this BTR because no direct,

indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected.

5.3.3 Critical Habitat

There is no USFWS-designated critical habitat for listed wildlife species within the project site

(USFWS 2019a). The closest mapped critical habitat, western snowy plover final critical habitat

Unit 21 Subunit D, is approximately 3 miles to the west of the Project site. The next closest critical

habitat. The next closest critical habitat, coastal California gnatcatcher final critical habitat Unit 8

Palos Verde Peninsula Sub-region, is located approximately 3.7 miles south of the Project site

(USFWS 2019a). Suitable habitat for these species do not occur within the Project site.

5.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages

Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide

avenues for dispersal or migration of animals, as well as dispersal of plants (e.g., via wildlife

vectors). Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by assuring continual exchange of

genes between populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating,

and providing routes for recolonization of habitat after local extirpation or ecological

catastrophes (e.g., fires).

Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse

effects of habitat fragmentation. They serve as connections between habitat patches and help

reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Although individual animals may not move

through a habitat linkage, the linkage is a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal.

Habitat linkages may serve both as habitat and avenues of gene flow for small animals such as


12075 21 September 2019

reptiles, amphibians, and rodents. Habitat linkages may be represented by continuous patches of

habitat or by nearby habitat “islands” that function as stepping stones for dispersal and movement

(especially for birds and flying insects). Wildlife corridors and habitat linkages provide avenues for

dispersal or migration of animals that also contribute to population viability in several ways,

including (1) ensuring continual exchange of genes between populations to aid in maintaining

genetic diversity, (2) providing habitat for some species, (3) providing access to adjacent habitat

areas representing additional territory for foraging and mating, (4) allowing for a greater carrying

capacity, and (5) providing routes for colonization of habitat lands following local population

extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes.

Potential habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors in the general area of the property

boundary are determined based on a review of available aerial photography and mapping of the

Project site and adjacent watersheds in the surrounding area, an evaluation of the habitat types and

wildlife distribution associated with the property boundary and surrounding areas, and a review of

wildlife species known or expected to use these habitats.

The Project site does not reside within any designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages

identified in the South Coast Missing Linkages analysis conducted by South Coast Wildlands

(2008).

The Project site does not function as a designated wildlife corridor or habitat linkage and is not

expected to impact designated wildlife corridors or habitat linkages. The eastern portion of the

Santa Monica Mountains Connection wildlife linkage is approximately 20 miles north of the

property boundary and the western portion of the Santa Ana-Palomar Connection is

approximately 36 miles to the east of the property boundary. The Project site provides no habitat

connectivity with either of these linkages. No wildlife movement sign was observed in the

Project site during biological surveys and because the Project is surrounded by dense urban

development, it is not expected to prohibit wildlife movement to large open space areas or to

natural features.

Heavy traffic, human activity, and non-natural land covers on and adjacent to the property

boundary, including the proposed Project development footprint, likely inhibit frequent use of,

and movement through, the area by wildlife that are relatively intolerant of urban development

and intensive human activities This includes mountain lion (Puma concolor), bobcat (Felis

rufus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Other common

urban-tolerant species such coyote (Canis latrans) and raccoon, however, may still use the

property boundary for local movement. Therefore, the proposed Project activities would not

result in impacts to linkages or contribute to habitat fragmentation.


12075 22 September 2019

5.5 Jurisdictional Delineation

Hydrology and vegetation were examined throughout the study area during the site visit to identify

potential wetland sites and/or non-wetland waters (i.e., drainages, channels, etc.), though an

official Jurisdictional Delineation was not performed. No jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetland

waters were identified within the Project site. Additionally, no wetland types identified in the

National Wetlands Inventory were identified within the Project site (USFWS 2019b).

5.6 Regional Resource Planning Context

The proposed Project does not occur within any adopted HCPs, NCCP, or any other approved

local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The City of Torrance General Plan provides

goals, policies, and design criteria intended to guide expansion of the City of Torrance as a truly

distinctive place. The general guiding principles will guide all decisions made to implement the

Torrance General Plan through established benchmarks used to measure decisions related to

community values and desires (City of Torrance 2010).


12075 23 September 2019

6 PROJECT IMPACTS

This section defines the types of impacts that would occur as a result of Project implementation,

including direct permanent impacts, direct temporary impacts, and indirect impacts.

Impacts were determined and quantified by digitally overlaying the limits of development

provided by the Client onto the biological resources map, as shown in Figure 3, Project Impacts

on Biological Resources. The proposed Project involves the development of a warehouse complex

composed of two warehouse buildings and a surrounding parking lot. The development is proposed

to encompass the entire 20.72-acre property, part of which is already partially developed with an

existing parking lot and paved access road.

6.1 Definition of Impacts

This section defines the types of impacts that would occur as a result of Project implementation,

including direct permanent impacts, direct temporary impacts, and indirect impacts.

6.1.1 Direct Permanent Impacts

Direct permanent impacts refer to the absolute and permanent physical loss of a biological resource

due to clearing, grading, and/or construction of structures, which can be determined in four ways:

(1) permanent loss of vegetation communities, land covers, and general wildlife and their habitat;

(2) permanent loss of or harm to individuals of special-status plant and wildlife species; (3)

permanent loss of suitable habitat for special-status species; and (4) permanent loss of wildlife

movement and habitat connectivity.

6.1.2 Direct Temporary Impacts

Direct temporary impacts refer to a temporal loss of vegetation communities and land covers

resulting from vegetation and land cover clearing. The main criterion for direct temporary impacts

is that impacts would occur for a short period of time and would be reversible.

6.1.3 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by Project implementation on remaining

or adjacent biological resources outside the direct construction disturbance zone that may occur

during construction (i.e., short-term construction related indirect impacts) or later in time as a

result of the development (i.e., long-term, or operational, indirect impacts).


12075 24 September 2019

6.1.4 Explanation of Findings of Significance

Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities or riparian habitat, special-status plant species,

special-status wildlife species, wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity, and regional resource

planning must be analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant. CEQA Guidelines

Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad definition of “significant” effect is not possible because

the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. However, CEQA Guidelines Section

15065(a) lists impacts that are helpful in defining whether a project may have a significant effect

on the environment. Mandatory findings of significance, which require preparation of an EIR,

occur when there is substantial evidence that a project could: (1) substantially degrade the quality

of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a

fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community, or (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal.

The following are the significance thresholds for biological resources provided in the CEQA

Appendix G environmental checklist, which states that a project would potentially have a

significant effect if it:

Impact BIO-1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or

special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or

USFWS?

Impact BIO-2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat

or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?

Impact BIO-3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to

marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,

or other means?

Impact BIO-4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or

migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Impact BIO-5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting

biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Impact BIO-6. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat

conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional,

or state habitat conservation plan?


12075 25 September 2019

The evaluation of whether or not an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must

consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial

impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as

a population of a rare plant or animal. Impacts may be important locally because they result in an

adverse alteration of existing site conditions but considered not significant because they do not

contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact

and the offsetting benefits of mitigation are the primary determinants of whether or not that impact

can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

6.2 Impacts to Special-Status Species

6.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species

One special-status plant species, southern tarplant (CRPR 1B.1), was identified and mapped within

the Project site (Figure 2). Approximately 70,000 southern tarplants were recorded in August 2019

within the Project site. Because counts of flowering individuals only provide a relative estimate of

the total population and can vary widely from year to year, the direct impact analysis is based on

the cumulative occupied acreage for this species.

Direct Impacts

A total of 0.38-acre of occupied habitat for southern tarplant has been mapped within the Project

site, all of which would be permanently impacted as a result of the Project; therefore, impacts to

this species would be considered significant absent mitigation. No temporary direct or temporary

direct impacts are expected. Project implementation of MM-BIO-1 (i.e., preservation of on-site

lands or acquisition and preservation of offsite lands, and the preparation and implementation

salvage, relocation, and/or propagation for the species) would reduce potential direct impacts to a

less-than-significant level.

6.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species

No special-status wildlife species were detected during the surveys conducted in July and August

2019. Additionally, the site is surrounded by dense development on all sides, lacking habitat to

support special-status wildlife species. The only vegetation present within the Project site is limited

to ruderal vegetation within disturbed habitat and ornamental vegetation. However, these

vegetation could support nesting by bird species.

Direct Impacts

No nesting birds were observed during the field surveys; however, trees and shrubs within the

Project site provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the MBTA (16 USC


12075 26 September 2019

703-712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3503, and 3513. Removal of trees

and shrubs may occur as a result of construction of the Project, and could disrupt breeding activity.

There would be no direct temporary impacts; however, there may be a potential for a direct

permanent impact to occur to nesting birds (i.e., direct impacts to individuals, active nests, eggs,

or young), particularly during the general nesting season of February 1 through August 31.

Construction activities that could result in direct impacts to nesting birds include vegetation and

tree removal during grading activities, which would be considered significant, absent mitigation.

Project implementation of MM-BIO-2 (i.e., seasonal recommendations, pre-construction survey,

avoidance buffers, and monitoring) would reduce potential direct impacts to a less-than-significant

level.

Indirect Impacts

Noise generated by construction activities, including vegetation removal and grading, that are

conducted during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), could result in indirect

impacts to nesting birds. Noise related to these activities has the potential to disrupt reproductive and

feeding activities. Under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.5, 3503, and

3513, indirect impacts to individual special-status and native birds, active nests, or the young of

nesting special-status and native bird species would be considered significant, absent mitigation.

Project implementation of MM-BIO-2 (i.e., seasonal recommendations, pre-construction survey,

avoidance buffers, and monitoring) would reduce potential direct impacts to a less-than-significant

level.

6.3 Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

The Project site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities. The Project site is entirely

composed of urban/developed land, disturbed habitat, and ornamental vegetation, none of which

are recognized as a sensitive vegetation community. As such, implementation of the proposed

Project would not result in temporary or permanent direct impacts to sensitive vegetation

communities and no avoidance or mitigation measures are recommended.

6.4 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters

No jurisdictional wetlands or non-wetland waters occur within the proposed development

footprint. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands would

occur, and no avoidance or mitigation measures are required.

6.5 Impacts to Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Connectivity

The proposed Project development footprint does not function as a wildlife corridor or habitat

linkage and does not occur within any designated wildlife corridors of habitat linkages. Therefore,


12075 27 September 2019

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are not

anticipated.

6.6 Impacts to Regional Resource Planning

The Project site does not occur within any adopted HCPs, NCCPs, or any other approved local,

regional or state habitat conservation plans; therefore, there are no conflicts with any adopted

HCPs and/or NCCPs. The Project is within an area zoned as Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) within

the City of Torrance Property Zoning Map (City of Torrance 2015). The General Plan land use

designation is Light Industrial (I-LT) (City of Torrance 2010). The proposed Project development

is anticipated to be consistent with the City of Torrance General Plan. Additionally, the proposed

Project would not remove any protected trees as defined within the City of Torrance Tree

Ordinance. Therefore, conflicts to regional resource planning are not anticipated to occur.


12075 28 September 2019



12075 29 September 2019

7 MITIGATION

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during the proposed Project to reduce

the significant impacts identified in Chapter 6 to a less-than-significant level.

7.1 Impact to Special-Status Species

Significant direct and indirect impacts to special-status species can be mitigated to less than

significant with implementation of the following measures:

MM-BIO-1 Direct Impacts to Special-status Plants

Offsite land Acquisition and Preservation. As currently designed, the Project

will impact the entire population of southern tarplant on site. If the Project

cannot be modified to avoid or minimize impacts to the species, then offsite

land with similar habitat in the range of the species shall be identified and

purchased. The purchase lands shall designated as an open space preserve and

placed within a protective easement for conservation purposes, such as a

restrictive covenant or conservation easement. Signage and fencing shall be

provided at perimeter locations. Fencing design shall be developed to promote

safety of life and property, prevent unauthorized access by pedestrians and

vehicles into sensitive areas, and allow limited passage for wildlife species in

the local area.

On-site Preservation. If the Project can be modified to avoid or minimize

impacts to southern tarplant, then the Project shall compensate the loss of the

species and associated habitat through on-site restoration, creation, and

preservation of a minimum of 0.38 acres (1:1). The preserved portion of the site

shall be designated as open space preserve and placed within a protective

easement for conservation purposes, such as a restrictive covenant or

conservation easement. Signage and fencing shall be provided at perimeter

locations. Fencing design shall be developed to promote safety of life and

property, prevent unauthorized access by pedestrians and vehicles into sensitive

areas, and allow limited passage for wildlife species in the local area.

Prepare and Implement Plan for Salvage, Relocation, and/or Propagation

of Special-Status Plant Species. A qualified botanist will prepare a plan before

the start of ground-disturbing activities to address monitoring, salvage,

relocation, and propagation of special-status plant species. The relocation or

propagation of plants and seeds will be performed at a suitable mitigation site

approved by the City of Torrance, and as appropriate per species.

Documentation will include provisions that address the techniques, locations,


12075 30 September 2019

and procedures required for the successful establishment of the plant

populations. The plan will include provisions for performance that address

survivability requirements, maintenance, monitoring, implementation, and the

annual reporting requirements.

MM-BIO-2 Direct and Indirect Impacts to Nesting Birds

Nesting Bird Avoidance. Initiation of construction activities (i.e., initial

vegetation clearing) should avoid the migratory bird nesting season (February

1 through August 31), to reduce any potential significant impact to birds that

may be nesting on the Project site. If construction activities must be initiated

during the migratory bird-nesting season, an avian nesting survey of the Project

site and contiguous habitat within 500 feet of all impact areas must be

conducted for protected migratory birds and active nests. The avian nesting

survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior

to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(16 USC 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5,

and 3513.

If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the

construction plans along with an appropriate no disturbance buffer, which will

be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance

(typically 50 feet for common, urban-adapted species, 300 feet for other

passerine species, and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species). The nest

area shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged.

The nest area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or

construction fencing. A qualified biologist (with the ability to stop work) shall

serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction

activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts

on these nests occur.

7.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation

Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts from the implementation

of the Project on sensitive biological resources to below a level of significance.

A population of one special-status plant species (southern tarplant) is found on the Project site.

Construction of the Project could cause direct mortality of the species MM-BIO-1 requires the

preservation of on-site lands or acquisition and preservation of offsite lands, and the preparation

and implementation salvage, relocation, and/or propagation for the species. Direct impacts to

southern tarplant would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.


12075 31 September 2019

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in a loss of suitable habitat

or direct take of birds, and are considered significant. MM-BIO-4 requires nesting bird surveys

within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the proposed impact areas and if active nests are found,

the biologist shall establish buffers and/or implement monitoring to avoid impacting avian nesting

success. Potential direct impacts to protected nesting birds would be less than significant with

implementation of MM-BIO-2.


12075 32 September 2019



12075 33 September 2019

8 REFERENCES

ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation

Manual. Online ed. Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical

Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station. January 1987.

ACOE. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in

the Arid West Region of the Western United States, A Delineation Manual. Cold Region

Research and Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, New

Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. August 2008.

ACOE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Final Version. Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL

TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development

Center. Accessed August 2019. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/

regulatory/reg_supp/trel08-28.pdf.

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2019. AOU Checklist of North American Birds

(Online). American Ornithological Society. Accessed August 2019.

http://checklist.aou.org/taxa.

Bing Maps. 2019. Aerial photograph. 1:200-scale. Accessed August 2019.

https://www.bing.com/maps

California Department of Water Resources. 2016 California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118-interim

update. Accessed August 2019. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-

Management/Bulletin-118.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Natural Communities List. Accessed

August 2019. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

CDFW. 2019a. California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed August 2019.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

CDFW. 2019b. “State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California.”

California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405.


12075 34 September 2019

City of Torrance. 2010. City of Torrance General Plan. Land Use Element and Community

Resources Element. Adopted April 6, 2010. Accessed August 2019.

http://www.torranceca.gov/8691.htm.

City of Torrance. 2015. City of Torrance Property Zoning Map. Adopted July 2015. Accessed

August 2019. http://www.torranceca.gov/PDF/Zoning2015.pdf.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online

edition, v8-03 0.45). Sacramento, California: CNPS. Accessed August 2019.

www.rareplants.cnps.org.

County of Los Angeles. 2004. “Soil Types” [GIS data]. Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal.

Accessed August 2019. https://egis3.lacounty.gov/dataportal/.

Crother, B.I. 2008. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North

America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding,

edited by J.J. Moriarty. 7th ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles

(SSAR); Herpetological Circular, no. 37. January 2008.

Google. 2019. Google Earth (desktop application). Accessed August 2019.

https://www.google.com/earth/

Jepson Flora Project. 2019. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed

August 2019. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html.

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1994. Water Quality Control Plan: Los

Angeles Region. Adopted by California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los

Angeles Region on June 13, 1994. Approved by State Water Resources Control Board on

November 17, 1994, and State Office of Administrative Law on February 23, 1995.

Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation.

2nd edition. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast Missing Linkages: A Wildland Network for the South

Coast Ecoregion. Produced in cooperation with partners in the South Coast Missing

Linkages Initiative. Accessed August 2019. http://www.scwildlands.org.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist.

Accessed August 2019. http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.

USDA NRCS. 2017. Supplement to the soil survey of Los Angeles County, California,

Southeastern Part. Accessed August 12, 2019. Accessed August 2019.


12075 35 September 2019

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

MANUSCRIPTS/california/losangelesCA2017_SE_supp/Supplement_LA_County_CA_

SE_Part.pdf

USFWS. 2019a. Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data. Accessed August 2019.

http://www.fws.gov/data.

USFWS. 2019b. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed August 2019.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1981. [USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles were

reviewed for potential habitat and jurisdictional resources—7.5-minute Torrance

quadrangle maps].

USGS. 2019. National Hydrography Dataset. The National Hydrologic Database. Reston,

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed August 2019. http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2016. Torrance AP, California (048973) Mean

Annual Precipitation. Accessed August 2019. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-

bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8973.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and

Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Accessed August 2019. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/.


12075 36 September 2019


Date:

8/14/2

019 -

Last sa

ved by

: cstar

bird -

Path:

Z:\Pro

jects\j

12075

00\MA

PDOC

\DOCU

MENT

\BioTe

ch\Fig

_Proj_

Locatio

n.mxd

Project LocationPrairie Avenue Project

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Torrance CA

0 53,00026,500 Feetn

Project Boundary

FIGURE 1

MapExtent

HuntingtonBeach

Seal Beach

Lakewood

Lakewood

Long Beach

Carson

Torrance

ManhattanBeach

BellflowerGardena Compton

ElSegundo NorwalkHawthorne Lynwood

South Gate DowneySanta FeSprings

Bell GardensInglewood

HuntingtonPark Maywood

WhittierCommercePico

Rivera

Culver City MontebelloMalibu Monterey Park

Palos VerdesEstates

Redondo Beach

Santa Monica

Los Angeles

Los AngelesL o s A n g e l e sC o u n t y

ÄÆ90

ÄÆ47

ÄÆ103ÄÆ22

ÄÆ2

ÄÆ107

ÄÆ187ÄÆ72

ÄÆ213

ÄÆ60

ÄÆ19

ÄÆ91

ÄÆ1

§̈¦5

§̈¦710

§̈¦10

§̈¦605

§̈¦105

§̈¦405


12075 38 September 2019


Date:

8/14/2

019 -

Last sa

ved by

: cstar

bird -

Path:

Z:\Pro

jects\j

12075

00\MA

PDOC

\DOCU

MENT

\BioTe

ch\Fig

_Bio_

Resou

rces.m

xd

Biological ResourcesPrairie Avenue Project

SOURCE: Bing Maps, Open Street Map

0 17587.5 Feetn

Project BoundaryVegetation Communities/Land Covers

DH - Disturbed HabitatORN - Parks and Ornamental PlantingsDEV - Urban/Developed

Rare Plant Observationssouthern tarplant

FIGURE 2


12075 40 September 2019


Date:

8/14/2

019 -

Last sa

ved by

: cstar

bird -

Path:

Z:\Pro

jects\j

12075

00\MA

PDOC

\DOCU

MENT

\BioTe

ch\Fig

_Bio_

Resou

rce_Im

pacts.m

xd

Project Impacts on Biological ResourcesPrairie Avenue Project

SOURCE: Bing Maps, Open Street Map

0 17587.5 Feetn

Proposed Project Development FootprintVegetation Communities/Land Covers

DH - Disturbed HabitatORN - Parks and Ornamental PlantingsDEV - Urban/Developed

Rare Plant Observationssouthern tarplant

FIGURE 3


12075 42 September 2019


APPENDIX A Site Photos

APPENDIX A Site Photos

12075 A-1 September 2019

Photo 1: Facing north along eastern boundary of the Project site toward disturbed lot in the northern portion of the Project site.

Photo 2: Facing northwest toward existing parking lot located in the southern and western portion of the Project site.

Photo 3: Facing northeast toward ornamental

vegetation within the southeastern portion of the

Project site.

Photo 4: Facing northwest toward previous

location of petrochemical storage tanks within the

central portion of the Project site.

APPENDIX A (Continued)

12075 A-2 September 2019

Photo 5: Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) within disturbed habitat on the eastern side of the Project Site.

Photo 6: Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) within disturbed habitat on the eastern side of the Project Site.

Photo 7: Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi

ssp. australis) within disturbed habitat in the

central portion of the Project Site.

Photo 8: Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi

ssp. australis) within disturbed habitat in the

northern portion of the Project Site.

APPENDIX B Plant Compendium

APPENDIX B Plant Compendium

12075 B-1 September 2019

EUDICOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES

AMARANTHACEAE - AMARANTH FAMILY

* Amaranthus albus – prostrate pigweed

ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY

Baccharis salicifolia - mulefat

Baccharis sarothroides - desertbroom

Centromadia parryi ssp. australis - southern tarplant

* Cotula australis - Australian waterbuttons

* Erigeron bonariensis - asthmaweed

Erigeron Canadensis - Canadian horseweed

Helianthus annuus - common sunflower

Heterotheca grandiflora - telegraphweed

* Hypochaeris glabra - smooth cat's ear

* Lactuca serriola - prickly lettuce

* Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum - Jersey cudweed

* Senecio vulgaris - old-man-in-the-spring

* Sonchus asper - spiny sowthistle

* Sonchus oleraceus - common sowthistle

Stephanomeria exigua - small wirelettuce

Stephanomeria virgate - rod wirelettuce

BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY

* Hirschfeldia incana - shortpod mustard

* Raphanus sativus - cultivated radish

CACTACEAE - CACTUS FAMILY

* Opuntia ficus-indica - Barbary fig

CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY

Atriplex lentiformis - quailbush

* Chenopodium album - lambsquarters

* Salsola tragus - prickly Russian thistle

CUCURBITACEAE - GOURD FAMILY

* Citrullus lanatus var. citroides - watermelon

APPENDIX B (Continued)


EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY

Euphorbia albomarginata - whitemargin sandmat

FABACEAE - LEGUME FAMILY

* Acacia cyclops - coastal wattle

Acmispon americanus - Spanish clover

Acmispon glaber - deer weed

* Melilotus albus - yellow sweetclover

* Melilotus indicus - annual yellow sweetclover

MALVACEAE - MALLOW FAMILY

* Malva parviflora - cheeseweed mallow

* Malva pseudolavatera - Cornish mallow

MYRTACEAE - MYRTLE FAMILY

* Eucalyptus polyanthemos - redbox

* Melaleuca citrina - crimson bottlebrush

POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY

* Rumex crispus - curly dock

SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY

* Nicotiana glauca - tree tobacco

Solanum americanum - American black nightshade

VERBENACEAE - VERVAIN FAMILY

* Lantana camara - lantana

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROP FAMILY

* Tribulus terrestris - puncturevine

MONOCOTS

VASCULAR SPECIES

ARECACEAE - PALM FAMILY

* Washingtonia robusta - Washington fan palm

CYPERACEAE - SEDGE FAMILY

* Cyperus involucratus - umbrella plant



POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY

* Avena sp. - oats

* Bromus catharticus - rescuegrass

* Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens - red brome

* Bromus tectorum - cheatgrass

* Cortaderia selloana - Uruguayan pampas grass

* Digitaria ciliaris - southern crabgrass

* Festuca myuros - rat-tail fescue

* Festuca perennis - perennial rye grass

* Hordeum murinum - mouse barley

* Pennisetum setaceum - fountain grass

* Phalaris minor - littleseed canarygrass

* Polypogon monspeliensis - annual rabbitsfoot grass

* Stipa miliacea var. miliacea - smilograss

* signifies introduced (non-native) species

APPENDIX C Wildlife Compendium

APPENDIX C Wildlife Compendium

12075 C-1 September 2019

BIRD

FALCONS

FALCONIIDAE – CARACARAS & FALCONS

Falco sparverius - American kestrel

FINCHES

FRINGILLIDAE - FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES

Haemorhous mexicanus - house finch

FLYCATCHERS

TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS

Sayornis nigricans - black phoebe

Tyrannus verticalis - western kingbird

HUMMINGBIRDS

TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS

Calypte anna - Anna’s hummingbird

Selasphorus sasin - Allen's hummingbird

JAYS, MAGPIES AND CROWS

CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS

Corvus brachyrhynchos - American crow

PIGEONS & DOVES

COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS & DOVES

Zenaida macroura - mourning dove

* Columba livia - rock pigeon (rock dove)

SWALLOWS

HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS

Hirundo rustica - barn swallow

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota - cliff swallow

APPENDIX C (Continued)

12075 C-2 September 2019

NEW WORLD SPARROWS

PASSERELLIDAE - NEW WORLD SPARROWS

Melozone crissalis - California towhee

WEAVERS

PLOCEIDAE - WEAVERS

* Euplectes franciscanus - Northern red bishop

REPTILE

LIZARDS

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE - IGUANID LIZARDS

Sceloporus occidentalis - western fence lizard

APPENDIX D Special-Status Plant Species Potential to

Occur within the Project Site

APPENDIX D Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site

12075 D-1 September 2019

Scientific Name Common

Name Status1

(Federal/State/CRPR)

Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation

Range (feet) Potential to Occur2

Aphanisma blitoides

aphanisma None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; sandy or gravelly/annual herb/Feb–June/0–1000

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species. Additionally, the site does not contain suitable sandy or gravelly soils for this species.

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

Ventura marsh milk-vetch

FE/SE/1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (edges, coastal salt or brackish)/perennial herb/(June)Aug–Oct/0–115

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the focused special-status plant survey conducted within its blooming period in August 2019.

Astragalus tener var. titi

coastal dunes milk-vetch

FE/SE/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes, Coastal prairie (mesic); often vernally mesic areas/annual herb/Mar–May/0–165

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species. Additionally, the species occurrences located within the vicinity2 of the Project site are considered extirpated (CNPS 2019).

Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; alkaline or clay/perennial herb/Mar–Oct/5–1510


Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Playas/annual herb/Mar–Oct/0–460


Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale

None/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, Playas, Vernal pools; alkaline/annual herb/June–Oct/80–6235

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the focused special-status plant survey conducted within its blooming period in August 2019.

Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii

Davidson's saltscale

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub; alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Oct/30–655

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Centromadia parryi ssp. australis

southern tarplant

None/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), Vernal pools/annual herb/May–Nov/0–1575

Present. This species was observed within disturbed areas of the Project site during surveys conducted for the Project, and is particularly densely populated in the eastern portion of the Project site.

APPENDIX D (Continued)



Name Status1




Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis

smooth tarplant None/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps, Playas, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–2100


Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana

Orcutt's pincushion

None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), Coastal dunes/annual herb/Jan–Aug/0–330


Chenopodium littoreum

coastal goosefoot

None/None/1B.2 Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Aug/30–100


Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum

salt marsh bird's-beak

FE/SE/1B.2 Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/May–Oct(Nov)/0–100


Chorizanthe parryi var. Fernandina

San Fernando Valley spineflower

FC/SE/1B.1 Coastal scrub (sandy), Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/Apr–July/490–4005

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species and is located outside of the species’ known elevation range.

Crossosoma californicum

Catalina crossosoma

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; rocky/perennial deciduous shrub/Feb–May/0–1640


Dithyrea maritima beach spectaclepod

None/ST/1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub (sandy)/perennial rhizomatous herb/Mar–May/5–165


Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; often clay/perennial herb/Apr–July/45–2590


Dudleya virens ssp. insularis

island green dudleya

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub; rocky/perennial herb/Apr–June/15–985


Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii

San Diego button-celery

FE/SE/1B.1 Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; mesic/annual / perennial herb/Apr–June/65–2035

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species.

Horkelia cuneata var. puberula

mesa horkelia None/None/1B.1 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; sandy or gravelly/perennial herb/Feb–July(Sep)/225–2655

Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range.




Name Status1




Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens

decumbent goldenbush

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub (sandy, often in disturbed areas)/perennial shrub/Apr–Nov/30–445

Not expected to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the focused special-status plant survey conducted in August 2019; this species is a conspicuous perennial shrub that would have been detected, if present.

Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri

Coulter's goldfields

None/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Feb–June/0–4005

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the general biological reconnaissance-level survey conducted in July 2019 or the focused special-status plant survey conducted in August 2019; this species is a distinctive herb that would have been detected shortly after its blooming period, if present.

Leptosyne maritima

sea dahlia None/None/2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/Mar–May/15–490


Nama stenocarpa mud nama None/None/2B.2 Marshes and swamps (lake margins, riverbanks)/annual / perennial herb/Jan–July/15–1640

Low potential to occur. The Project site lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia

FT/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–June/95–2150

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the general biological reconnaissance-level survey conducted in July 2019 or the focused special-status plant survey conducted in August 2019; this species is a distinctive herb that would have been detected, if present.

Navarretia prostrata

prostrate vernal pool navarretia

None/None/1B.1 Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), Vernal pools; Mesic/annual herb/Apr–July/5–3970

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the general biological reconnaissance-level survey conducted within its blooming period in July 2019.

Nemacaulis denudata var. denudate

coast woolly-heads

None/None/1B.2 Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–330





Name Status1




Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass

FE/SE/1B.1 Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–Aug/45–2165

Low potential to occur. The Project site is dominated by disturbed or developed habitat that does not support this species. Additionally, this species was not observed during the focused special-status plant survey conducted within its blooming period in August 2019.

Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta

FE/SE/1B.1 Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; rocky, clay/annual herb/(Feb)Mar–Aug/95–2265


Phacelia stellaris Brand's star phacelia

None/None/1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Mar–June/0–1310


Potentilla multijuga Ballona cinquefoil

None/None/1A Meadows and seeps (brackish)/perennial herb/June–Aug/0–5


Sidalcea neomexicana

salt spring checkerbloom

None/None/2B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub, Playas; alkaline, mesic/perennial herb/Mar–June/45–5020


Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial herb/(May)July–Oct(Jan)/0–15


Symphyotrichum defoliatum

San Bernardino aster

None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Marshes and swamps, Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic); near ditches, streams, springs/perennial rhizomatous herb/July–Nov(Dec)/5–6695




Notes: 1 Status abbreviations:

FE: Federally listed as endangered FT: Federally listed as threatened FC: Federal Candidate for listing CE: State listed as endangered CR: State Rare CRPR List 1A: Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere CRPR List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere CRPR List 2A: Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere CRPR List 2B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere

.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) 2 Refers to records within the Torrance USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (quad) and the six surrounding quads (Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, Redondo Beach, Long Beach, San Pedro).

References:

CCH (Consortium of California Herbaria). 2019. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed August 2019.

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. RareFind, Version 5.2.14. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Accessed August 2019.

https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online ed. Version 8-03 0.45. Sacramento, California: CNPS. Accessed

August 2019. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html.

APPENDIX E Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur

within the Project Site

APPENDIX E Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site

12075 E-1 September 2019

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur2

Reptiles

Actinemys marmorata western pond turtle

None/SSC Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs with emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands used for nesting and during winter

Not expected to occur. The project site lacks suitable habitat required for this species.

Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless lizard

None/SSC Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley–foothill, chaparral, and scrubs; pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or loose, loamy soils

Not expected to occur. The project site and surrounding area is primarily composed of heavily urbanized commercial and residential development, lacking native vegetation suitable to support this species.

Phrynosoma blainvillii Blainville's horned lizard

None/SSC Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains including coastal scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and annual grassland habitats


Birds

Agelaius tricolor

(nesting colony)

tricolored blackbird None/PSE, SSC Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or tules, but also in Himalayan blackberrry; forages in grasslands, woodland, and agriculture


Athene cunicularia

(burrow sites & some wintering sites)

burrowing owl None/SSC Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, particularly with ground squirrel burrows

Low potential to occur. The project site and surrounding area is primarily composed of heavily urbanized commercial and residential development, lacking native vegetation suitable to support this species. No suitable burrows were observed on site.

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

(nesting)

western snowy plover

FT/SSC On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in the interior nests on sandy, barren or sparsely vegetated flats near saline or alkaline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds


APPENDIX E (Continued)




Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

(nesting)

western yellow-billed cuckoo

FT/SE Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and forest with well-developed understories


Coturnicops noveboracensis

yellow rail None/SSC Nesting requires wet marsh/sedge meadows or coastal marshes with wet soil and shallow, standing water


Empidonax traillii extimus

(nesting)

southwestern willow flycatcher

FE/SE Nests in dense riparian habitats along streams, reservoirs, or wetlands; uses variety of riparian and shrubland habitats during migration


Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus

California black rail

None/FP, ST Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation; suitable habitats are often supplied by canal leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill populations


Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi

Belding's savannah sparrow

None/SE Nests and forages in coastal saltmarsh dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.)


Pelecanus occidentalis californicus

(nesting colonies & communal roosts)

California brown pelican

FDL/FP, SDL Forages in warm coastal marine and estuarine environments; in California, nests on dry, rocky offshore islands

Not expected to nest. The project site lacks suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Polioptila californica californica

coastal California gnatcatcher

FT/SSC Nests and forages in various sage scrub communities, often dominated by California sagebrush and buckwheat; generally avoids nesting in areas with a slope of greater than 40%; majority of nesting at less than 1,000 feet above mean sea level


Riparia riparia

(nesting)

bank swallow None/ST Nests in riparian, lacustrine, and coastal areas with vertical banks, bluffs, and cliffs with sandy soils; open country and water during migration






Sternula antillarum browni

(nesting colony)

California least tern

FE/FP, SE Forages in shallow estuaries and lagoons; nests on sandy beaches or exposed tidal flats


Vireo bellii pusillus

(nesting)

least Bell's vireo FE/SE Nests and forages in low, dense riparian thickets along water or along dry parts of intermittent streams; forages in riparian and adjacent shrubland late in nesting season


Fishes

Siphateles bicolor mohavensis

Mohave tui chub FE/FP, SE Lacustrine ponds or pools; 4 feet min water depth; freshwater flow; mineralized and alkaline environment; habitat for aquatic invertebrate prey and egg attachment substrate; Ruppia maritima preferred for egg attachment and thermal refuge in summer months

Not expected to occur. The project site lacks aquatic habitat required for this species.

Mammals

Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in open, dry habitats with rocky outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in man-made structures and trees.

Not expected to roost or forage. The project site lacks rocky outcrops, man-made structures, or trees suitable for this species to use as roosting habitat. This species is highly intolerant of urban development (Miner and Stokes 2005); thus, is not likely to forage over the project site.

Corynorhinus townsendii

Townsend's big-eared bat

None/SSC Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests and riparian habitat, but also xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves and lava tubes, man-made structures, and tunnels

Not expected to roost or forage. The project site lacks suitable roosting habitat (i.e., coniferous and deciduous forests, riparian habitat, limestone caves, lava tubes, man-made structures, tunnels) for this species. Additionally, the project site and surrounding area lacks riparian or other mesic wooded habitats that would provide suitable foraging habitat for this species.

Eumops perotis californicus

western mastiff bat None/SSC Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest and woodland; roosts in crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the canyon or cliff is vertical or nearly vertical, trees, and tunnels

Low potential to roost or forage. The project site lack suitable vegetation (i.e., chaparral, coastal scrub, cliff areas) to provide foraging habitat and lacks rocky canyon areas that would provide suitable roosting habitat for this species.





Microtus californicus stephensi

south coast marsh vole

None/SSC Tidal marshes Not expected to occur. The project site lacks suitable habitat required for this species.

Neotoma lepida intermedia

San Diego desert woodrat

None/SSC Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, cacti, rocky areas

Low potential to occur. The project site and surrounding area is primarily composed of heavily urbanized commercial and residential development, lacking native vegetation suitable to support this species.

Nyctinomops femorosaccus

pocketed free-tailed bat

None/SSC Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock outcrops with drop-offs, caverns, and buildings

Not expected to occur. The project site lacks suitable habitat (i.e., desert habitat, palm oases) for this species.

Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None/SSC Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky outcrops; forages over water

Not expected to occur. The site does not contained water in which this species requires for foraging. It is unlikely for this species to occur because of the lack of foraging habitat.

Perognathus longimembris pacificus

Pacific pocket mouse

FE/SSC fine-grained sandy substrates in open coastal strand, coastal dunes, and river alluvium


Sorex ornatus salicornicus

southern California saltmarsh shrew

None/SSC Saltmarsh, saltgrass, dense willow, bulrush


Taxidea taxus American badger None/SSC Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially with friable soils

Not expected to occur. The project site and surrounding area is primarily composed of heavily urbanized commercial and residential development, lacking native vegetation suitable to support this species.

Invertebrates

Euphilotes battoides allyni

El Segundo blue butterfly

FE/None Remnant coastal dune habitat in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties


Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis

Palos Verdes blue butterfly

FE/None Cool, fog-shrouded, seaward side of Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County

Not expected to occur. This species has a very limited distribution and requires a specific micro-climate. The Project site lacks suitable habitat required for this species.

Streptocephalus woottoni

Riverside fairy shrimp

FE/None Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools




Notes: 1 Status abbreviations:

FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened FDL: Federally Delisted SSC: California Species of Special Concern FP: California Fully Protected Species SE: State Endangered ST: State Threatened PSE: Proposed State Endangered PST: Proposed State Threatened SDL: State Delisted BGEPA: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

2 Refers to records within the Torrance 7.5-minute quadrangle (quad) and the six surrounding quads (Venice, Inglewood, South Gate, Redondo Beach, Long Beach, San Pedro).

REFERENCES:

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2019. RareFind, Version 5.2.14. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Accessed August 2019.

https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

CDFW. 2018b. CWHR Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Website. Updated versions of species information in Zeiner et al. 1988–1990. CDFW, CWHR

Program. Accessed August 2018. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.

Miner, K.L., and D.C. Stokes. 2005. “Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and Research Needs.” USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-195:211-227.

Nafis, G. 2018. Calherps.com. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Accessed August 2018. http://www.californiaherps.com/.

d r a f t - torranceca.gov

Documents