Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration forimpact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative ... Section II, Project Description: provides a description

Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

for Citywide Cat Program

(W.O E1907610)

October 2013

Bureau of Engineering City of Los Angeles Environmental Management Group

This page is intentionally blank

Citywide Cat Program October 2013 Page 2 of 51

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY (Article I - City CEQA Guidelines)

Council District: All Date: October, 2013 Lead City Agency: Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Project Title: CITYWIDE CAT PROGRAM I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of an Initial Study

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects; identifying means of avoiding environmental damage; and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval even if it leads to environmental damage. The Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group (EMG) has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA and no exemptions apply. Therefore, the preparation of an initial study is required. An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.), and the City of Los Angeles CEQA Guidelines (1981, amended July 31, 2002).

B. Document Format

This Initial Study is organized into eight sections as follows:


INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS – BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

Section I, Introduction: provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Section II, Project Description: provides a description of the project location, project background, and project components. Section III, Existing Environment: provides a description of the existing environmental setting with focus on features of the environment which could potentially affect the proposed project or be affected by the proposed project. Section IV, Potential Environmental Effects: provides a detailed discussion of the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the screening checklist in Appendix A. Section V, Mitigation Measures: provides the mitigation measures that would be implemented to ensure that potential adverse impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Section VI, Preparation and Consultation: provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of this report and key personnel consulted. Section VII, Determination – Recommended Environmental Documentation: provides the recommended environmental documentation for the proposed project; and, Section VIII, References: provides a list of reference materials used during the preparation of this report.

C. CEQA Process

Once the adoption of a negative declaration (or mitigated negative declaration) has been proposed, a public comment period opens for no less than twenty (20) days or thirty (30) days if there is state agency involvement. The purpose of this comment period is to provide public agencies and the general public an opportunity to review the initial study and comment on the adequacy of the analysis and the findings of the lead agency regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. If a reviewer believes the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the reviewer should (1) identify the specific effect, (2) explain why it is believed the effect would occur, and (3) explain why it is believed the effect would be significant. Facts or expert opinion supported by facts should be provided as the basis of such comments. After the close of the public review period, the Board of Animal Services Commissioners considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, and makes a recommendation to the City Council on whether to approve the



project. One or more Council committees may then review the proposal and documents and make its own recommendation to the full City Council. The City Council is the decision-making body and also considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, in the final decision to approve or disapprove the project. During the project approval process, persons and/or agencies may address either the Board of Animal Services Commissioners or the City Council regarding the project. Public notification of agenda items for the Board of Animal Services Commissioners, Council committees and City Council is posted 72 hours prior to the public meeting. The Council agenda can be obtained by visiting the Council and Public Services Division of the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Suite 395; by calling 213/978-1047, 213/978-1048 or TDD/TTY 213/978-1055; or via the internet at http://www.lacity.org/CLK/index.htm . If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within 5 days. The Notice of Determination will be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt. This begins a 30-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the approval under CEQA. The ability to challenge the approval in court may be limited to those persons who objected to the approval of the project, and to issues which were presented to the lead agency by any person, either orally or in writing, during the public comment period. As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Location

The proposed project would be implemented throughout the City of Los Angeles by the City’s Department of Animal Services, principally through the City’s six animal shelters (shown in Figure 1):

North Central Care & Control 3201 Lacy Street Los Angeles, CA 90031

South Los Angeles Care & Control 1850 W 60th St Los Angeles, CA 90047

* West Los Angeles Care & Control 11361 West Pico Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064


http://www.lacity.org/CLK/index.htm


* Harbor Care & Control 957 N. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA 90731

* East Valley Care & Control 14409 Vanowen St. Van Nuys CA 91405

West Valley Care & Control 20655 Plummer St. Chatsworth, CA 91311

* Shelters with spay/neuter clinics on site

In about 2006, the City began training staff on feral cat issues, including the concept of trapping, neutering and releasing them to "colonies" of such cats. The City also distributed vouchers to be used for feral cat spay or neuter surgeries, issued cat trapping permits, and otherwise provided support and referrals to community groups that engage in "trap, neuter, release" programs. In June 2008, Urban Wildlands, et al., sued to bar the City from implementing a policy for feral cats without first completing a CEQA environmental review. The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles – South East District entered its final judgment and permanent injunction in January 2010, prohibiting the City from implementing a "trap, neuter, release" program for feral cats until it had concluded an appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA (Case No. BS115483). In March 2010, the court issued a stipulated order modifying the injunction. The modified injunction orders, adjudges and decrees:

1. This court has now and will retain jurisdiction in the State of California over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto.

2. The provisions of this final judgment are applicable to: (a) Defendants, City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners and Los Angeles Department of Animal Services and (b) those officers, directors and employees of said defendants and any other individuals and entities acting under, by or on behalf of either such defendant or pursuant to their direction, who have notice of this injunction.

3. Until such time as defendants have concluded appropriate environmental review pursuant to CEQA, defendants are hereby ENJOINED and restrained from (a) implementing a Trap Neuter Return Program for Feral Cats and (b) adopting or implementing any new ordinances, measures or policies in furtherance of TNR, including such ordinances, measures or policies as were identified in the June 2005 Report that was submitted to the Board of Animal Services Commissioners in conjunction with the proposed adoption of TNR as the City’s official policy. A true and correct copy of said Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. Defendants City of Los Angeles et al. are specifically PROHIBITED from undertaking the following actions:



a. Promoting TNR for feral cats and encouraging or assisting third parties to carry out a TNR program by doing any of the following:

i. Assist or provide incentives for, or otherwise facilitate the capture, sterilization and release of feral cat;

ii. Provide discounts or discount vouchers for spay or neuter surgeries for feral cats; The City’s Animal Care Centers (shelters), may, however, continue to disseminate up to three discount vouchers per household or property address for the spay or neuter of cats. The City’s Animal Care Centers may disseminate additional discount vouchers per household or property address if mitigating circumstances are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Animal Services, for example, the spay/neuter of a litter of kittens or the death of one of the cats.

iii. Release feral cats from shelters to TNR groups or individuals, unless the TNR groups and individuals who engage in TNR activities agree in writing that the feral cat redeemed from the City’s animal shelter for adoption will not be returned or released into cat colonies, or onto public property, or onto private property not owned by the adopting TNR group or individual, nor adopted out to persons who will place the adopted cats in any TNR program or colony. Consistent with the foregoing, an owner or caretaker of a feral cat may reclaim the cat within the first three days of the required holding period at a City shelter, as set forth in Food and Agricultural Code Section 31752.5. The provisions for holding and releasing stray cats as set forth in Food and Agricultural Section 31752 are unaffected by this provision of the injunction.

iv. [This section of the injunction was subsequently deleted].

v. Develop or distribute literature on the TNR program or by conducting public outreach on TNR using press releases, fliers or other media except in conjunction with the proposed CEQA process. "Literature on the TNR program" means material distributed to the public that specifically focuses on TNR programs such as public outreach by means of fliers that invite persons to engage in TNR or material inviting the public to attend TNR seminars, etc. "Literature on the TNR program" does not mean pet publications that include articles or writings on a wide range of pet topics even if the publication includes advertisements or articles on TNR.

b. Waiving cat trap rental fees or security deposits for TNR groups or individuals pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code section 53.69(b).



c. Interfering with or discouraging any City officials or land managers' attempt to enforce any laws or regulations that relate to feral cats and feral cat colonies.

d. Refusing to issue traps for capturing nuisance feral cats, for example, by demanding that injury to pets or damage to property is demonstrated.

e. Knowingly referring complaints about feral cats to TNR groups or individuals who engage in TNR.

f. Refusing to accept trapped feral cats.

B. Purpose

The purpose of the proposed Cat Program is to:

• increase spay/neuter of cats;

• generally reduce the euthanasia of cats in City animal shelters;

• accommodate the maintenance and improved management of cats in outdoor locations in a manner that minimizes their impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats;

• support members of the public with an interest in addressing nuisance issues relating to cats;

• facilitate public and community education on cat-related issues; and

• Satisfy the requirements of the Superior Court injunction in Case BS115483 so as to relieve the City from the Court’s injunction.

C. Description

The component parts of the proposed Cat Program are:

a) Subsidize spay/neuter of cats, including shelter cats, adopted cats, owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings. It is anticipated that this will be accomplished by making discount spay/neuter coupons available to cat owners or guardians, directly subsidizing veterinarians to perform spay/neuter surgeries, contributing to the funding of approved and/or geographically and/or income targeted operations of stationary or mobile spay/neuter clinics within the City, and other means to be determined, all in a manner compliant with standard City procedures.

b) Establish and promote departmental relationships – including referral and contractual arrangements compliant with standard City procedures - with veterinarians or organizations who will offer free or discount spay/neuter services for shelter cats, adopted cats, owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings.



c) Rent or lend traps to any member of the public who complies with trapping permit requirements and seeks to remove cats, including stray or feral cats, for nuisance abatement purposes, to facilitate their sterilization, or for other purposes that may prove necessary.

d) Make Los Angeles Animal Services (“Department” or “LAAS”) facility community rooms available for use by community groups, animal welfare organizations, wildlife organizations and the Department itself to discuss cat-related issues, regardless of the issues or their viewpoint on those issues.

e) Provide links on the LAAS website to various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, trap-neuter-return (“TNR”) groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issues- based organization discussing issues and problems relating to cats. Also provide links to sources of information on the control or repelling of nuisance cats, including such technologies that may be applicable to the topic.

f) Allow various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, TNR groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issue-based organization discussing issues and problems relating to cats, to distribute printed literature at City animal shelters and events.

g) Broaden the purpose of the “Animal Sterilization Fund” monies from “pet sterilization” (current language) to “animal sterilization”. Currently, Section 5.199 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code limits the use of funds for sterilization of “pets”. The proposed amendment would allow use of funds to sterilize free-roaming cats.

h) Amend Municipal Code to add definition of a cat colony. For these purposes, “Colony” shall mean a geographic location not in a public park or Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) where stray or feral cats typically live and/or where they forage or hunt for food, or are fed and generally cared for by individuals volunteering as “Caregivers,” also referred to as “Caretakers.” There is currently no definition of “colony”.

i) Exempt, “any person who provides food or water to any stray or feral cat living in a colony provided the cat is sterilized” from the existing prohibition against feeding of non-domesticated mammalian predators. Section 53.06.5 (b) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code currently prohibits any person from feeding or in any manner providing food for any non-domesticated mammalian predator, which may include feral cats. The proposed amendment would allow any person to provide food or water to any stray or feral cat living in a colony provided the cat is sterilized.

j) Amend the definition of “Cat Kennel” to exclude any location where five or less cats are kept (the current limit is three) and to exclude cat colonies. Section 53.50 requires a permit from the City to, “conduct or operate within the City of Los Angeles any dog kennel, cat kennel, pet shop, zoo, animal rental establishment, animal grooming parlor, riding academy, livery stable, boarding stable, pony ring or pony ride, horse market, mule market, circus, rodeo, pet



show, cat show, animal acts or exhibitions, alligator farm, ostrich farm, wild animals, miscellaneous animal or reptile establishment, or carrier and homing pigeons which are to be liberated for exercise or racing.”

III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

A. California Animal Shelter Law

In 1998 the California state Legislature found and declared (among other things) that public and private shelters and humane groups should work together to end euthanasia of adoptable and treatable animals by 2010 and shelters should aggressively promote spay and neuter programs to reduce pet overpopulation. (Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998) California law requires the City to release any impounded stray cat to any nonprofit, animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization prior to the scheduled euthanasia of that animal. Public animal control agencies or shelters, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelters, Humane Society shelters, and rescue groups cannot sell or give away to a new owner any cat that has not been spayed or neutered. Public animal control agencies or shelters, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shelters, Humane Society shelters and rescue groups may enter into cooperative agreements with each other and with veterinarians in lieu of requiring spaying and neutering deposits to carry out this provision. (California Civil Code Sections 1815, 1816, 1834, 1834.4, 1845, 1846, 1847 and 2080; and California Food & Agricultural Code Division 14.5 Regulation of Cats)

B. Cats in the City of Los Angeles

The City of Los Angeles comprises approximately 465 square miles. Free-roaming cats and domestic cats are presumed to exist throughout the City, including natural habitat areas. Free-roaming cats exist as individuals and in aggregations (colonies), which may or may not receive regular care. An exact baseline population count or census of feral cats or free-roaming cats has not been performed in the City. LAASD records of cats received at City animal shelters indicate general increase in feral or free-roaming cats (Table 1).

The City regulates cats under Chapter V, Article 3 (section 53.00 et seq.), of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The Code defines “Cat” as any cat of either sex,

Table 1. Numbers of cats taken in by City of Los Angeles animal shelters.

Total Intake

of Cats Feral behavior

observed Feral as % of Total Intake

2001 22,107 813 3.70% 2002 20,909 1,022 4.90% 2003 23,117 1,180 5.10% 2004 20,645 1,259 6.10% 2005 21,656 1,416 6.50% 2006 21,275 1,525 7.20% 2007 19,179 1,246 6.50% 2008 23,305 1,547 6.60% 2009 22,260 1,405 6.30% 2010 22,244 1,588 7.10% 2011 21,797 1,917 8.80% 2012 22,503 1,531 6.80%

Average 21,750 1,371 6.30%


http://www.weblaws.org/california/codes/ca_food_and_agric_code


of any age. “Cat Kennel” is defined as any lot, building, structure, enclosure, or premises, where four or more cats are kept or maintained for any purpose. In unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and many cities for which the County provided animal control services, up to five cats may be kept at any residence without an animal facility license, provided the cats' owner or custodian licenses each individual cat, has each cat spayed or neutered and keeps all cats primarily indoors (Los Angeles County Code Section 10.20.038(c)). Unincorporated areas of the county comprise 2,653.5 square miles – more than five times the size of the City of Los Angeles.

Cats not in heat or season are exempted from the general proscription against allowing animals to roam at large: “No person owning or having possession, charge, custody or control of any animal, except cats which are not in heat or season, shall cause, permit or allow the animal to stray, run, or in any manner to be at large in or upon any public street, sidewalk or park, except as otherwise expressly provided in section 63.44 of this Code, or in the bed of the Los Angeles River or upon any unenclosed lot or land (LAMC 53.06).” The City regulates animal trapping through the issuance of permits (LAMC 53.06.3).

Except as permitted by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (formerly named the Department of Fish and Game) no person may “feed or in any manner provide food or cause to be fed any non-domesticated mammalian predator including, but not limited to, coyotes, foxes, possums, raccoons and skunks” (LAMC 53.06.5). This provision might be interpreted as not proscribing feeding cat colonies.

The City’s Administrative Code (LAAC) sets up various funds for animal care and control. A special trust fund, known as the "Animal Sterilization Fund", is among those funds (LAAC 5.199).

C. Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), as defined in LAMC Section 64.70.01, means an area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments (See California Public Resources Code § 30107.5). ESAs include, but are not limited to, areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas by the County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Significant Areas Study, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (1976) and amendments); areas designated as Significant Natural Areas by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Significant Natural Areas Program and field verified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; and areas listed in the Basin Plan as supporting the "Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)" beneficial use. A detailed description of the natural habitat areas and SEAs is provided in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006.

The following areas within the City of Los Angeles are designated as Significant Ecological Areas by the County of Los Angeles:

1) Chatsworth Reservoir SEA 2) Simi Hills SEA



3) Santa Susana Mountains SEA 4) Verdugo Mountains SEA 5) Tujunga Valley/Hansen Dam Park SEA 6) Tujunga Spreading Grounds SEA 7) Santa Monica Mountains and Encino Reservoir SEA 8) Santa Monica Mountains and Griffith Park SEA 9) El Segundo Dunes SEA 10) Ballona Wetlands and Ballona Creek SEA 11) Palos Verdes Peninsula Coastline SEA 12) Harbor Lake Regional Park SEA

No area of the City has been designated as a Significant Natural Area by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Significant Natural Areas Program and field verified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The following water bodies within the City of Los Angeles are listed in the Basin Plan as supporting the "Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)" beneficial use:

1) Ballona Creek Estuary 2) Ballona Lagoon / Venice Canals 3) Big Tujunga Canyon Creek 4) Bixby Slough and Harbor Lake 5) Del Rey Lagoon 6) Dominguez Channel Estuary 7) Hansen Dam Flood Control Basin & Lakes 8) Little Tujunga Canyon Creek 9) Los Angeles Harbor 10) Los Angeles Reservoir (Bull Creek) 11) Los Angeles River to Estuary 12) Los Angeles River Estuary 13) Lower Van Norman Reservoir 14) Marina del Rey: public beach areas, entrance channel, all other areas

except the harbor 15) Pacoima Canyon Creek 16) Pacoima Wash

D. CEQA Baseline Conditions and Wildlife Effects

Cats are predators. The effects of free-roaming cats on wildlife are well documented and are a cause of legitimate concern to wildlife agencies and groups. However, it is important to draw a distinction between such concerns and baseline conditions under CEQA. The presence of free-roaming cats, living alone and in aggregations (colonies) throughout the City (including natural habitat areas and ESAs) and the existing effects of cats on the environment is the pre-existing condition that forms the baseline for this CEQA analysis. The purpose of this Initial Study is to describe the potential environmental effects of the proposed Cat Program described in Section II.B above.



IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS



The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact as indicated by the checklist in Appendix A. A detailed discussion of these potential environmental effects follows.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology / Water Quality

Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance

Of particular concern is whether the proposed Cat Program would result in an increase in the number of free-roaming cats, resulting in adverse environmental effects. A 2003 study by Levy, et al., to evaluate the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return program, with adoption whenever possible, on the dynamics of a free-roaming cat population concluded that, “A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas.” However, Levy warns that failures of TNR to control cat colonies also exist, citing a study that revealed that the presence of well-fed cat colonies encouraged illegal abandonment of additional cats. “Immigration or abandonment of new cats may be a frequent event, and free-roaming cats do not appear to have sufficient territorial activity to prevent new arrivals from permanently joining colonies. These new arrivals could substantially limit the success of TNR if an ongoing surveillance and maintenance program is not effective.” (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:42–46) This conclusion is consistent with the general body of literature on the subject.

A. Aesthetics

The proposed project would not introduce incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially alter a view of a scenic vista, and would not degrade existing visual characters. The project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)



C. Air Quality The proposed project does not involve construction activities. Therefore there is no potential for long term construction or operational emissions (see Appendix A).

D. Biological Resources

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists number of occurrences for 30 species or communities that are federally and/or state listed as endangered or threatened within the project area, which includes the following topographic quadrangles: Canoga Park, Hollywood, Los Angeles, San Fernando, San Pedro, Sunland, Topanga, Van Nuys, and Venice. Of those, sixteen are animals and fourteen are plants. For purposes of the proposed project, only animals will be considered. Table 2 below provides information for those listed occurrences.

Table 2. Animal species of concern.

Species Habitat Comments

Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) General: Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill & desert riparian, desert wash, etc. Micro: Rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, & sycamores; loose gravelly areas of streams in drier parts of range.

Possibly extirpated.

Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)

General: Endemic to Los Angeles basin south coastal streams. Micro: Habitat generalists, but prefer sand-rubble-boulder bottoms, cool, clear water, & algae.

Presumed extant in Big Tujunga Creek & part of Haines Creek.

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

General: Sandy beaches, salt pond levees & shores of large alkali lakes. Micro: Needs sandy, gravely or friable soils for nesting.

Presumed extant on Dockweiler Beach.





Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

General: Riparian forest nester, along broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Micro: Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, w/lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape.

Extirpated.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

General: Riparian woodlands in Southern California.

Presumed extant in Los Angeles.

El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni)

General: Restricted to remnant coastal dune habitat in S. California. Micro: Host plant is Eriogonum parvifolium; larvae feed only on the flower & seeds; used by adults as major nectar source.

Presumed extant in El Segundo Dunes.

Palos Verdes butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis)

General: Restricted to cool, fog-shrouded, seaward side of Palos Verdes Hills, L.A. County. Micro: Host plant is Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus (Locoweed).

Possibly extirpated or extirpated.

California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus)

General: Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows & shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Micro: Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate during the year & dense vegetation for nesting habitat.

Presumed extant in Playa Del Rey.

Southern steelhead – S. Calif. DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)

General: Fed. Listing refers to populations from Santa Maria River south to southern extent of range (San Mateo Creek in San Diego). Micro: Southern steelhead likely has greater physiological tolerances to warmer water & more variable conditions.

Presumed extant in Topanga Creek.





Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi

General: Inhabits coastal salt marshes, Santa Barbara south through San Diego county. Micro: Nests in salicornia on and about margins of tidal flats.

Presumed extant in the mouth of Ballona Creek. (Threat: exotic red fox, feral cat and dog, human disturbance, airport noise)

Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus)

General: Inhabits narrow coastal plains from Mexican border north to El Segundo, L.A. County. Micro: Seems to prefer soils of fine alluvial sands near the ocean, but much remains to be learned.

Extirpated.

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)

General: Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft. in S. Calif. Micro: Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas & slopes. Not all areas classified as coastal sage scrub are occupied.

Presumed extant in Palos Verdes Peninsula, San Pedro, Hansen Dam and Sun Valley. (Threat: ongoing urban development, free-roaming domestic cats, unleashed dogs; hiking, soil/debris dumping)

Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)

General: Federal listing refers to population in the San Gabriel, San Jacinto & San Bernardino Mountains only. Micro: Always encountered within a few foot of water. Tadpoles may require 2-4 years to complete aquatic development.

Extirpated.

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) General: Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian & other lowland habitats west of the desert. Micro: Requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.

Extirpated.

California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni)

General: Nests along coast from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. Micro: Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, land fills, or paved areas.

Presumed extant in Venice Beach, Dockweiler Beach and Terminal Island. (Threats: development, food shortage, equestrians, motorcycles, landfill in 1973-74, harassment by crows, feral cats.)





Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) General: Summer resident of southern Calif. In low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 feet. Micro: Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, baccharis, mesquite.

Presumed extant in Van Norman Dam and Hansen Lake in San Fernando, Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Area. (Threats: development, heavy public use, trash, homeless camps, feral cats)

Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, August 2, 2013 – see Appendix B

In evaluating the potential for the LAASD Cat Program to result in significant impacts under CEQA, the Program Elements are evaluated relative to baseline conditions, individually and in toto. The primary area of concern is the program’s potential to result in impacts to wildlife. In order to address potential wildlife impacts, a screening evaluation based on the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide was performed. Significance Thresholds: According to the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, a project would normally have a significant impact on biological resources if it could result in any of the following effects (the thresholds have been designated B-1 through B-5):

B-1. The loss of individuals, or the reduction of existing habitat, of a state or federal listed endangered, threatened, rare, protected, or candidate species, or a Species of Special Concern or federally listed critical habitat; B-2. The loss of individuals or the reduction of existing habitat of a locally designated species or a reduction in a locally designated natural habitat or plant community; B-3. Interference with wildlife movement/migration corridors that may diminish the chances for long-term survival of a sensitive species; B-4. The alteration of an existing wetland habitat; or B-5. Interference with habitat such that normal species behaviors are disturbed (e.g., from the introduction of noise, light) to a degree that may diminish the chances for long-term survival of a sensitive species.

Impacts:



No Impact: The following elements of the proposed Cat Program are not expected to increase the total population of free-roaming cats. As a consequence, these elements of the Cat Program are not expected to affect biological resources, relative to baseline conditions:

1. Subsidize spay/neuter of cats, including shelter cats, adopted cats,

owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings.

2. Establishing and promoting departmental relationships – including referral and contractual arrangements compliant with standard City procedures - with veterinarians or organizations who will offer free or discount spay/neuter services for shelter cats, adopted cats, owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings.

3. Renting or lending traps to any member of the public that complies with trapping permit requirements would result in either the temporary removal of a domestic or free-roaming cat from the baseline cat population (for purposes of spaying/neutering prior to returning it to its place of capture), or the permanent removal of a cat from the baseline population via euthanasia.

4. Making City facility community rooms available for use by community groups, animal welfare organizations, wildlife organizations and the Department itself to discuss cat-related issues, regardless of the issues or their viewpoint on those issues.

5. Providing links on the LAAS website to various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, trap-neuter-release (“TNR”) groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issue-based organization discussing issues and problems relating to cats. Also providing links to sources of information on the control or repelling of nuisance cats, including such technologies that may be applicable to the topic.

6. Allowing various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, TNR groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issue-based organization discussing issues and problems relating to cats, to distribute printed literature at City animal shelters and events.

7. Allowing the use of the “Animal Sterilization Fund” monies to sterilize free-roaming cats.

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated: Without the proper controls, allowing the establishment and maintenance of cat colonies could result in the loss of individuals of a state or federal listed endangered, threatened, rare, protected, or candidate species, or a Species of Special Concern or federally



listed critical habitat.

The proposed definition of a colony includes the geographic location “where stray or feral cats typically live and/or where they forage or hunt for food...” There could be a potential risk that cats in a colony adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area could use the ESA area as part of their range. Many variables affect the size of the home range, and there does not seem to be a consensus on a defined size (O. Liberg et al, Reference No. 19, and Yates, Diana, Reference 26). In the absence of this information, and based on our review of the literature, we used an area of 2.7 square miles as an average range (i.e., colony area), and conclude that foraging is less than significant at a distance of 1 mile or greater from where a cat is generally fed or cared for. The definition of Environmentally Sensitive Area includes some water bodies that either do not provide habitat for species upon which cats are likely to prey (such as insects, small mammals and birds) or that are essentially inaccessible by cats (e.g., water channels with vertical concrete banks). These areas do not need to be protected:

• Los Angeles River upstream of the Sepulveda Basin • Los Angeles River between the Sepulveda Basin and the upstream end

of the “ARBOR” reach (Area with Restoration Benefits and Opportunities for Revitalization). The upstream end of the ARBOR reach is near the Route 134 bridge over Riverside Drive in the City of Burbank.

• Los Angeles River between First Street in Los Angeles (the downstream end of the “ARBOR” reach) and the Los Angeles River Estuary

• Ballona Creek upstream of Washington Boulevard • Pacoima Wash from Sherman way to Lopez Dam • Pacoima Wash downstream of Chandler Blvd

The following mitigation measure, if incorporated into the project, would reduce potential adverse effects on sensitive biological resources environmental effect to less than significant (see Table 3 for more detail).

BIO-01: Feeding at colonies will not be allowed within 1 mile of an Environmentally Sensitive Area except that feeding may be allowed nearer to (but not in) the following areas: • Los Angeles River upstream of the Sepulveda Basin • Los Angeles River between the Sepulveda Basin and the upstream end

of the “ARBOR” reach (Area with Restoration Benefits and Opportunities for Revitalization). The upstream end of the ARBOR reach is near the Route 134 bridge over Riverside Drive in the City of Burbank.


• Ballona Creek upstream of Washington Boulevard • Pacoima Wash from Sherman way to Lopez Dam



• Pacoima Wash downstream of Chandler Blvd As an additional protective measure, we recommend the following:

• BIO-02: The City of Los Angeles Animal Services shall be empowered to

disallow a cat colony if its presence in a given geographic area is determined to pose a danger to endangered or threatened species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Without proper control, cat colony feeding stations could also provide food for other animals such as skunks, raccoons, rats and mice, resulting in adverse biological and public health effects. Except as permitted by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (formerly named the Department of Fish and Game) no person may, “feed or in any manner provide food or cause to be fed any non-domesticated mammalian predator including, but not limited to, coyotes, foxes, possums, raccoons and skunks” (LAMC 53.06.5). To further strengthen compliance with the municipal code, we recommend the following:

BIO-03: Every person who provides food or water to any stray or feral cat living in a colony shall take reasonable measures to prevent access to that food by any animal other than a sterilized cat.

Table 3. Proposed project's impact on animal species of concern after mitigation.

Species of Concern Impact from Proposed Project Arroyo toad Less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles Santa Ana sucker No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los

Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Western snowy plover No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los

Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Western yellow-billed cuckoo No impact. Does not occur in Los Angeles. Southwestern willow flycatcher Exact location not known; site mapped in general area of Pasadena. 1905 & 1906

records from "Pasadena, Arroyo Seco". No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and presumed occurrence in Los Angeles. Critical habitat is in protected area (Big Tujunga Canyon Creek).

El Segundo blue butterfly No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Palos Verdes butterfly No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles.

California black rail No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles. Presumed occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Southern steelhead – S. Calif. DPS No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles.

Belding’s savannah sparrow No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Pacific pocket mouse No impact. Does not occur in Los Angeles. Coastal California gnatcatcher No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los

Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog No impact. Does not occur in Los Angeles. Bank swallow No impact. Does not occur in Los Angeles. Citywide Cat Program October 2013 Page 21 of 51

INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS – BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Table 3. Proposed project's impact on animal species of concern after mitigation.

Species of Concern Impact from Proposed Project California least tern No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los

Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Least Bell’s vireo No or less than significant impact based on species habitat and occurrence in Los

Angeles. Known occurrences of species only in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

E. Cultural Resources Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

F. Geology and Soils Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project does not involve construction or operations activities which could produce greenhouse gases, and would therefore cause no impact. (see Appendix A)

H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The proposed project does not involve transport or use of hazardous materials and would cause no impact. (see Appendix A)

I. Hydrology and Water Quality

Significance Threshold: A significant impact may occur if a project included potential sources of water pollutants and potential to substantially degrade water quality. Impacts: No Impact: The following elements of the proposed Cat Program are not expected to increase the total population of free-roaming cats. As a consequence, these elements of the Cat Program are not expected to affect hydrology or water quality, relative to baseline conditions:



2. Establishing and promoting departmental relationships – including referral



and contractual arrangements compliant with standard City procedures - with veterinarians or organizations who will offer free or discount spay/neuter services for shelter cats, adopted cats, owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings.

3. Renting or lending traps to any member of the public that complies with trapping permit requirements would result in either the temporary removal of a domestic or free-roaming cat from the baseline cat population (for purposes of spaying/neutering prior to returning it to its place of capture), or the permanent removal of a cat from the baseline population via euthanasia.



6. Allowing various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, TNR groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issue-based organization discussing issues and problems relating to cats, to distribute printed literature at City animal shelters and events.


Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would amend the definition of “Cat Kennel” to increase the number of cats that may be kept without a permit from three (the current limit) to five. Without proper controls, this could result in an increase in the amount of cat feces deposited in areas tributary to surface waters and thereby result in additional bacterial and nutrient loads in those waters. The Municipal Code (Section 64.70.02(a)) provides that, “No person shall throw, deposit, leave, cause or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, or left, any refuse, rubbish, garbage, or other discarded or abandoned objects, articles, and accumulations, in or upon any street, gutter, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place, or upon any public or private lot of land in the City so that such materials, when exposed to stormwater or any runoff, become a pollutant in the storm drain system.”



Because enforceable City regulations are in place that proscribe allowing animal waste to enter the storm drain system, the proposed increase the number of cats that may be kept without a permit from three (the current limit) to five will result in a less than significant impact to water quality. Potential Public Health Risks

Significance Threshold: A significant impact would occur if the proposed project substantially increased the probable frequency and severity of consequences to people from exposure to the health hazard.

Impacts: People can contract zoonotic diseases from most domesticated animals. In a systematic review of 1,415 pathogens known to infect humans, 61% were zoonotic (Taylor, et al.). The following information has been produced by the County of Los Angeles Departments of Public Health and Animal Care and Control in 2009:

“Fleas have been associated worldwide with emerging human infections including flea-borne typhus caused by the bacterium Rickettsia felis. Cat fleas, Ctenocephalides felis, regularly infest dogs, cats and opossums in Southern California. Since 2006, Los Angeles and Orange Counties have had 122 reported human cases of this disease; all but one of the cases have been linked to the cat flea. While flea-borne typhus is treatable and rarely fatal, it is debilitating; most reported cases within Los Angeles County have required hospitalization.

“The accumulation of fecal material also poses a potential risk of disease. Infectious agents in animal feces may be acquired as a result of direct contact with the animal, its feces or contaminated surfaces, or ingestion of food, dirt or sand contaminated with feces. The parasitic diseases include toxoplasmosis, cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, roundworm, and hookworm. With many of these diseases, certain groups are at higher risk of serious disease or complications; these include the very young and the elderly, and persons with immune system weakness caused by medications, cancer treatment, HIV, and pregnancy.

“Toxoplasmosis is caused by Toxoplasma gondii, an infectious organism found in cat feces. In the United States, research documented in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (1999-2004) estimates that 11% of humans 12 years and older have been infected with this organism. Although infection usually does not cause symptoms, individuals infected with HIV or transplant recipients on immunesuppressive therapy can develop a deadly form of encephalitis. If infection occurs for the first time during pregnancy, the parasite can cross the placenta, possibly leading to severe consequences including miscarriage or death of the fetus. Up to 2% of humans infected with this organism after birth develop eye disease. Another disease, toxocariasis, is caused by accidental ingestion of cat roundworm eggs which are shed in cat feces. The parasite may migrate through tissue, causing damage to the various organs including the eyes. The cat hookworm larva may penetrate human skin and cause irritation as it migrates; however, it does not mature to adulthood in



the human host. Giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis are diarrheal diseases easily transmitted from animal feces. Cryptosporidiosis is particularly dangerous and can be life-threatening in immunocompromised persons; there is no effective treatment for this disease.

“Several harmful bacteria can be transmitted in animal feces or fecally contaminated objects, surfaces, food, and water. The most common fecal pathogens are salmonella and campylobacter. These cause diarrhea, fever and abdominal pain; illness can be severe and rarely even fatal in some individuals.”

In conclusion, there is a risk of serious or fatal disease from cats, but that risk to the general population is small (for example, three cases of flea-borne typhus per million people per year). That risk is manageable through protection of water quality and public education regarding safe practices. As previously described, the City has enforceable measures to protect water quality. The proposed program includes facilitating the discussion and dissemination of information about issues and problems relating to cats. Taken in context with the current exposure to zoonotic disease from all sources in the City of Los Angeles (not just cats), the proposed increase the number of cats that may be kept without a permit and permitting cat colonies will result in a less than significant impact to human health.

J. Land Use and Planning

The Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan, as adopted by the City Council in 2001, includes the following policies regarding endangered species:

1. Continue to require evaluation, avoidance, and minimization of potential significant impacts, as well as mitigation of unavoidable significant impacts on sensitive animal and plant species and their habitats and habitat corridors relative to land development activities.

2. Continue to administer city-owned and managed properties so as to protect and/or enhance the survival of sensitive plant and animal species to the greatest practical extent.

3. Continue to support legislation that encourages and facilitates protection of endangered, threatened, sensitive and rare species and their habitats and habitat corridors.

The Conservation Element also contains the following policies regarding habitat:

1. Continue to identify significant habitat areas, corridors and buffers and to take measures to protect, enhance and/or restore them.

2. Continue to protect, restore and/or enhance habitat areas, linkages and corridor segments, to the greatest extent practical, within city owned or managed sites.

3. Continue to work cooperatively with other agencies and entities in protecting local habitats and endangered, threatened, sensitive and rare



species.

4. Continue to support legislation that encourages and facilitates protection of local native plant and animal habitats.

Significance Thresholds: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within an area governed by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would conflict with such plan.

Impacts:

No Impact: The following elements of the proposed Cat Program are not expected to cause a physical change to the environment. As a consequence, these elements of the Cat Program are not expected to affect land use or planning, relative to baseline conditions:



2. Establishing and promoting departmental relationships – including referral and contractual arrangements compliant with standard City procedures - with veterinarians or organizations who will offer free or discount spay/neuter services for shelter cats, adopted cats, owned cats, and stray or feral cats living in outdoor colonies or settings.

3. Renting or lending traps to any member of the public that complies with trapping permit requirements would result in either the temporary removal of a domestic or free-roaming cat from the baseline cat population (for purposes of spaying/neutering prior to returning it to its place of capture), or the permanent removal of a cat from the baseline population via euthanasia. .



6. Allowing various animal protection organizations, including cat advocates, TNR groups, bird protection groups, other wildlife protection groups and any other community or issue-based organization discussing issues and



problems relating to cats, to distribute printed literature at City animal shelters and events.


Less Than Significant With Mitigation: Without proper controls, the establishment and maintenance of cat colonies could conflict with the Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan.

The proposed definition of a colony includes the geographic location “where stray or feral cats typically live and/or where they forage or hunt for food...” There could be a potential risk that cats in a colony adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area could use the ESA area as part of their range. Many variables affect the size of the home range, and there does not seem to be a consensus on a defined size (O. Liberg et al, Reference No. 19, and Yates, Diana, Reference 26). In the absence of this information, and based on our review of the literature, we used an area of 2.7 square miles as an average range (i.e., colony area), and conclude that foraging is less than significant at a distance of 1 mile or greater from where a cat is generally fed or cared for. The mitigation measures identified for Biological Resources (above), if incorporated into the project, would reduce potential conflicts with the Conservation Element to less than significant.

K. Mineral Resources

Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

L. Noise Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

M. Population and Housing Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

N. Public Services Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)



O. Recreation The proposed project would cause no impact to recreational facilities. The project specifically excludes cat colonies from parks and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. (see Appendix A)

P. Transportation/Traffic Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

Q. Utilities and Service Systems Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact or less than significant impact. (see Appendix A)

R. Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that the proposed project will not significantly increase the baseline condition of existing cat populations, and thus:

The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

V. MITIGATION MEASURES

The following describes the mitigation measures that if incorporated into the project, would reduce an effect to less than significant and briefly explains how each



mitigation measure would reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Biological Resources

BIO-01: Feeding at colonies will not be allowed within 1 mile of an Environmentally Sensitive Area except that feeding may be allowed nearer to (but not in) the following areas:

• Los Angeles River upstream of the Sepulveda Basin

• Los Angeles River between the Sepulveda Basin and the upstream end of the “ARBOR” reach (Area with Restoration Benefits and Opportunities for Revitalization). The upstream end of the ARBOR reach is near the Route 134 bridge over Riverside Drive in the City of Burbank.


• Ballona Creek upstream of Washington Boulevard

• Pacoima Wash from Sherman way to Lopez Dam

• Pacoima Wash downstream of Chandler Blvd

BIO-02: The City of Los Angeles Animal Services shall be empowered to disallow a cat colony if its presence in a given geographic area is determined to pose a danger to endangered or threatened species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

BIO-03: Every person who provides food or water to any stray or feral cat living in a colony shall take reasonable measures to prevent access to that food by any animal other than a sterilized cat.

VI. NAME OF PREPARER

A. Prepared by: Catalina Hernandez Environmental Specialist II Environmental Management Group Bureau of Engineering Department of Public Works

Jim Doty Environmental Affairs Officer Environmental Management Group Bureau of Engineering Department of Public Works

B. Coordination/Consultation with: Brenda F. Barnette General Manager LA Animal Services

Mary Decker Deputy City Attorney III City Attorney’s Office



Jim Bickhart (formerly) Office of the Mayor

Louis Utsumi EnviCraft LLC 3315 Glendale Blvd., Suite 2 Los Angeles, CA 90039

VII. DETERMINATION - RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

A. Summary

The purpose of the proposed project is the establishment of a “Cat Program” involving the citywide coordination of actions and activities that will accomplish increased spay/neuter of cats, generally reduce the euthanasia of cats in City of Los Angeles (“City”) animal shelters, accommodate the maintenance and improved management of cats in outdoor locations in a manner that minimizes their impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats, support members of the public with an interest in addressing nuisance issues relating to cats, and facilitate public and community education on cat-related issues. In addition, the proposed program includes: a minor amendment to Section 5.199 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code regarding the scope of use of the Animal Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; increasing the number of cats that may be kept without a kennel permit to five cats; allowing the feeding of free-roaming cats in colonies; and exempting cat colony operators from cat kennel permit requirements. Cat colonies would not be allowed in Environmentally Sensitive Areas or parks. Mitigation Measures would further reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.


INITIAL STUDY PUBLIC WORKS – BUREAU OF ENGINEERING VIII. REFERENCES: The following sources were used in the preparation of this document. Sources not available via the internet are available by appointment for review at the offices of the Bureau of Engineering, 1149 South Broadway, Suite 600, Los Angeles. 1. California Dept. of Conservation, 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation

and Site Assessment Model. [Agric Land Eval]

2. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map of California: Los Angeles Sheet. [Geol Map LA]

3. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology. Official Map of Seismic Hazard Zones. [Seismic Zones] Available online at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov

4. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Map. Revised 1997 and Supplemented 1999. [CDC 42] Available online at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/index.htm

5. California Dept. of Conservation, Div. of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Important Farmland in California, January 2009. [Farmland Map] Available online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2006/fmmp2006_08_11.pdf

6. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database, Government Version, dated August 2, 2013.

7. California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information & Observation Database. Available online at http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/ [BIOS]

8. California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. California Historical Resources Information System. South Central Coastal Information Center. [CHRIS]

9. California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. [EnviroStor] Available online at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/default.asp

10. California State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database. Available online at http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov.

11. City of Los Angeles. Municipal Code [LAMC] and City of Los Angeles Administrative Code. Available online at


http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/index.htm

http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/


http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

12. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of City Planning. General Plan. Including community plans and technical elements. [General Plan] Available online at http://planning.lacity.org/

13. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of City Planning. Zoning Information and Map Access System (ZIMAS). Available online at http://zimas.ci.la.ca.us.

14. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Environmental Affairs. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles. 2006. [Thresholds] Available online at http://www.environmentla.org/programs/table_of_contents.htm

15. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. NavigateLA. Available online at http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us.

16. County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control – Patricia Learned, Executive Assistant, (562) 256-1362, phone conversation on March 5, 2013.

17. Envicraft LLC. Evaluation of Activities Proposed by Los Angeles Animal Services Department, and Recommendation of CEQA Documentation Level. October 2011.

18. Los Angeles County Code, Title 10, Chapter 10.20, Section 10.20.038 B, Available online at http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16274

19. Olof, L, M. Sandell, D. Pontier, and E. Natoli. Density, spatial organization and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids. Pp. 129-147. In: D.C. Turner and P. Bateson (eds.), The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

20. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1983. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. [AQMD Handbook].

21. Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society; and American Bird Conservancy v. City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners, City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Services and Does 1-50 inclusive. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles - South East District Case BS115438. Stipulated Order Modifying Injunction. Filed March 10, 2010.

22. U.S. Dept. Interior Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Final Rule http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-


http://www.amlegal.com/library/ca/losangeles.shtml

http://zimas.ci.la.ca.us/

http://www.ci.la.ca.us/EAD/programs/thresholdsguide.htm

http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/

http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16274


2011

23. U.S. Dept. Interior Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Overlays for U.S. Dept. Interior Geological Survey. 7.5-minute Map Series (Topographic). [Wetlands Map]

24. U.S. Dept. Interior Geological Survey. 7.5-minute Map Series (Topographic). [USGS Quad]

25. Taylor et al. 2001. Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 356(1411):983-9.

26. Yates, Diana. 2011. Researchers track the secret lives of feral and free-roaming house cats. Available online: http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/0526_cat_study_Horn-Mateus-Warner.html


http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/0526_cat_study_Horn-Mateus-Warner.html


APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING CHECKLIST A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project introduces incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially alters a view of a scenic vista. Reference: 14 (Thresholds A.1 & A.2)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve construction of structures which would introduce visual elements.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Standard: A significant impact may occur where scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be damaged or removed as a result of the proposed project. Reference: 14 (Thresholds A.1 & E.3), 12(General Plan)

Explanation: The proposed project elements would not involve state-designated scenic highways.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project introduces incompatible visual elements to the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site. Reference: 14 (Thresholds A.1 and A.3)

Explanation: The proposed project would not make any significant changes to the visual character that currently exists.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Standard: A significant impact would occur if the proposed project caused a substantial increase in ambient illumination levels beyond the property line or caused new lighting to spill-over onto light-sensitive land uses such as residential, some commercial and institutional uses that require minimum illumination for proper function, and natural areas. Reference: 14 (Thresholds A.4)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve lighting of any nature.



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Standard: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of state-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. Reference: 1(Ag. Land Eval.)

Explanation: The project does not involve changes to existing land uses. Reference: 5(Farmland Map)

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use, or indicated under a Williamson Act contract, from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use.

Explanation: Refer to discussion under 2 (a) above.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Standard: In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Reference: 5)

Explanation: The project would not allow cat colonies within existing forest land. Reference: 7(BIOS)

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Standard: In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Reference:

Explanation: Refer to discussion under 2 (c) above. Reference: 7(BIOS)

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another non-



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

agricultural use.


3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project was inconsistent with or obstruct the implementation of the Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan or the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Reference: 14(Thresholds B.1 to B.3), 21 (AQMD Handbook).

Explanation: The project does not involve long-term emissions. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing

or projected air quality violation?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project violated any SCAQMD air quality standard. The SCAQMD has set thresholds of significance for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), and particulate matter (PM10) emissions resulting from construction and operation in the South Coast Air Basin. Reference: 14 (Thresholds B.1, B.2), 20 (AQMD Handbook).


c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin exceeds federal and state ambient air quality standards and has been designated as an area of non-attainment by the USEPA and/or California Air Resources Board. The South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Reference: Reference: 14 (Thresholds B.1, B.2), 20 (AQMD Handbook).


d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Standard: A significant impact may occur if construction or operation of the proposed project generated pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Reference: 14 (Thresholds B.1 to B.3).

Explanation: As discussed above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial pollutant concentrations.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Standard: During construction, sources of odor are diesel emissions form construction equipment and volatile organic compounds from sealant applications or paving activities. However, these odors would be temporary and localized. Nonetheless, applicable best management practices such as those in SCAQMD Rule 431 (Diesel Equipment) would, in addition to minimizing air quality impacts, also help minimize potential construction odors. Reference: 14 (Thresholds B.1 & B.2).



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act


4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the state or federal regulatory agencies cited. Reference: 14 (Thresholds C).

Explanation: The proposed project would not remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. See discussion in Section IV and Section V.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community were to be adversely modified. Reference: 14 (Thresholds C).

Explanation: The proposed project would not be located within a Sensitive Environmental Area or other natural community containing riparian habitat or sensitive biological resources. See discussion in Section IV and Section V.

c) 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?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be modified or removed. Reference: 14 (Thresholds C), 21 (Nat. Wetlands Map).

Explanation: The project would not allow cat colonies within federally protected wetlands. See discussion in Section IV.

d) 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 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project interferes or removes access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Reference: 6 (CNDDB), 7 (BIOS), 14 (Thresholds C).

Explanation: The proposed project excludes cat colonies from parks and Sensitive Environmental Areas. It would not remove access to migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources. Reference: 6 (CNDDB), 7 (BIOS), 14 (Thresholds C).

Explanation: The proposed project elements would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would be inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the cited type. Reference: 6 (CNDDB), 14 (Thresholds C).

Explanation: The proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan, or any plan as cited above.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

Standard: A significant impact may result if the proposed project caused a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource (as identified above). 14 (Thresholds D.3), 8(CHRIS).

Explanation: The project will not affect historical resources.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource which falls under the CEQA Guidelines section cited above. Reference: 14 (Thresholds D.2), 8(CHRIS).

Explanation: The project will not affect archaeological resources.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Reference: 14 (Thresholds D.1), 8(CHRIS), 13(ZIMAS).

Explanation: The project will not affect archaeological resources.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb interred human remains. Reference: 14 (Thresholds D.2), 8(CHRIS).

Explanation: The project does not involve excavation and would not disturb human remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Zone or other designated fault zone and appropriate building practices were not followed. References: 4 (CDC Publ. 42), 14 (Thresholds E.1).

Explanation: The project does not involve construction of any structures.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project design did not comply with building code requirements intended to protect people from hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.1) Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would be located in an area identified as having a high risk of liquefaction and appropriate design measures required within such designated areas were not incorporated into the project. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.1) Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above.

iv) Landslides? Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located in a hillside area with soil conditions that would suggest high potential for sliding and appropriate design measures were not implemented. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.1)

Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above.

a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to expose large areas to the erosion effects of wind or water for a prolonged period of time. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.2) Explanation: Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above. .

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were built in an unstable area proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.2)

Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above. .

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Standard:



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.2) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were built on soils that were incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system, and such a system was proposed. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.3) Explanation: See discussion for 6 (a – i) above.

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Standard: Reference:

Explanation: The project does not involve construction or operational activities.

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Standard: Reference:

Explanation: See discussion for 7 (a) above.

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project involved the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions. Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.1, F.2)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve the use, transport, or disposal of any hazardous materials.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project involved a risk of accidental explosion or utilized substantial amounts of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations that could potentially pose a hazard to the public under accident or upset conditions. Reference: 11(LAMC), 14 (Thresholds F.1, F.2)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve the use, transport, or disposal of any hazardous materials.

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site and were projected to release toxic emissions which pose a hazard



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

beyond regulatory thresholds. Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.2)

Explanation: See discussion for 8 (a & b) above.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.2)

Comment: See discussion for 8 (a & b) above.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project site were located within a public airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public airport, and would create a safety hazard. Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.1, K.2)

Explanation: The project is not located within a public airport land use plan area,.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because of its location near a private airstrip. Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.1, K.2)

Explanation: The project is not located within a private airstrip.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to substantially interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such plan. Reference: 14 (Thresholds F.1, K.2)

Explanation: The proposed project would not alter the adjacent street system.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located in a wild land area and poses a significant fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.2)

Explanation: The project does not involve construction activities. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project discharged water which did not meet the quality standards of agencies which regulate surface water quality and water discharge into storm-water drainage systems. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.2)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve discharge of water into storm-water drainage systems.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Standard: A project would normally have a significant impact on groundwater supplies if it were to result in a demonstrable and sustained reduction of groundwater recharge capacity or change the potable water levels sufficiently that it would reduce the ability of a water utility to use the groundwater basin for public water supplies or storage of imported water, reduce the yields of adjacent wells or well fields, or adversely change the rate or direction of groundwater flow. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.2, G.3)

Explanation: The proposed project would not utilize existing groundwater resources nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project resulted in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that resulted in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.1, G.2) Explanation: The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project resulted in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the proposed project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties. Reference: 14(Thresholds G.1) Explanation: The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the volume of runoff were to increase to a level which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system serving a project site. A significant impact may also occur if the proposed project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain system. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.2)

Explanation: The proposed project would not change the volume of storm water runoff.



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Comment: A significant impact may occur if a project included potential sources of water pollutants and potential to substantially degrade water quality. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.3)

The proposed project could result in increased deposition of cat feces in areas tributary to surface waters. See discussion in Section IV.

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project placed housing within a 100-year flood zone. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.1 to G.4) Explanation: The proposed project does not include housing.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within a 100-year flood zone and would impede or redirect flood flows. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.4)

Explanation: The project does not involve construction of structures.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located in an area where a dam or levee could fail, exposing people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.1, G.3)

Explanation: The project does not involve construction of structures.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located in an area with inundation potential due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Reference: 14 (Thresholds E.1)

Explanation: The project does not involve construction of structures. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were sufficiently large or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community. Reference: 14 (Thresholds H.2) Explanation: The proposed project does not involve construction of structures and would not introduce a physical barrier.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

effect?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were inconsistent with the General Plan, or other applicable plan, or with the site’s zoning if designated to avoid or mitigate a significant potential environmental impact. Reference: 14 (Thresholds H.1, H.2)

Explanation: The project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community

conservation plan?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within an area governed by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would conflict with such plan. Reference: 14 (Thresholds H.1, H.2)

Explanation: Provided that cat colonies do not intrude into Sensitive Environmental Areas, the project would not conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. See discussion in Section IV.

11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project were located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource, if the project converted an existing or potential present or future regionally-important mineral extraction use to another use, or if a project affected access to such a site. Reference: 12 (General Plan), 14 (Thresholds E.4)

Explanation: The project would not affect mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource

recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if a project were located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally-important mineral resource and the project converted such a resource to another use or affected access to such a site. Reference: 12 (General Plan), 14 (Thresholds E.4)

Explanation: The project would not affect mineral resources. 12. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project generated noise levels exceeding the standards for ambient noise as established by the General Plan and Municipal Code or exposed persons to that increased level of noise. Reference: 12 (General Plan Noise Element), 14 (Thresholds Section I)

Explanation: The proposed project would not result in a significant increase to the baseline cat population, and thus significant adverse impacts to noise levels are not expected.

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project were to expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Reference: 12 (General Plan Noise Element), 14 (Thresholds Section I)

Explanation: The project does not involve construction activities. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project

vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the project were to substantially and permanently increase the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Reference: 122 (General Plan Noise Element), 14 (Thresholds Section I) Explanation: Refer to discussion under 11 (a) above.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Comment: A significant impact may occur if the project were to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. Reference: 12 (General Plan Noise Element), 14 (Thresholds Section I) Refer to discussion under 11 (a) above.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Standard: Reference: 14 (Thresholds Section I), 15 (NavigateLA) Explanation: The project is not located within two miles of an airport.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Standard: Reference: 14 (Thresholds Section I), 15 (NavigateLA)

Explanation: No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project area. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if population growth is induced in an area, either directly or indirectly, such that the population of the area may exceed the planned population of that area. Reference: 14 (Thresholds Section J.1)

Explanation: The project does not involve new homes or businesses. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Standard: Normally, there would be no significant impact if the project will not result in a net loss of 15 single-family dwellings or 25 dwellings in multi-family housing. Reference: 14 (Thresholds J.1 and J.2)



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Explanation: The proposed project will not displace any housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

Standard: Normally, there would be no significant impact if the project will not result in a net loss of 15 single-family dwellings or 25 dwellings in multi-family housing. Reference: 14 (Thresholds J.2) Explanation: The proposed project will not displace any housing.

14. PUBLIC SERVICES –

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) could not adequately serve the proposed project based on response time, access, or fire hydrant/water availability. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.2)

Explanation: The project would not require increased services from the City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD).

ii) Police protection? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in an increase in demand for police services that would exceed the capacity of the police department responsible for serving the site. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.1)

Explanation: The proposed project would not require additional police protection beyond what is currently provided.

iii) Schools? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate demand for school facilities that exceeded the capacity of the school district responsible for serving the project site. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.3)

Explanation: The proposed project is not a growth inducing project, either directly or indirectly, and would therefore not increase the demand for schools in the area

iv) Parks? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the recreation and park services available could not accommodate the population increase resulting from the implementation of the proposed project. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.4)

Explanation: The proposed project will not cause a population increase. (see Item 13 above)

v) Other public facilities?



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Standard: Projects that do not result in a net increase of 75 residential units normally would not have a significant impact on public libraries. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.5)

Explanation: The project would not result in a net increase of 75 residential units or more. 15. RECREATION –

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project includes substantial employment or population growth that may generate demand for public park facilities that exceed the capacity of existing parks. Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.4) Explanation: The proposed project will not cause a population increase. (see Item 13 above)

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Standard: Reference: 14 (Thresholds K.4)

Explanation: The proposed project does not include or require a recreational facility.

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersection, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project causes an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Reference: 14 (Thresholds L.1 to L.4, L.8)

Explanation: The project would not cause increases in traffic.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project causes a conflict with an applicable congestion management program. Reference: 14 (Thresholds L.1 to L3)

Comment: See 16 (a).

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project changed air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location the resulted in substantial safety risks. Explanation: There would be no impact to air traffic patterns.



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project substantially increased road hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Reference: 14 (Thresholds L.5) Explanation: The project would not result in a safety hazard to pedestrians, personnel, visitors, or nearby neighbors.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project resulted in inadequate emergency access. Reference: 14 (Thresholds L.5, L.8, and J2)

Explanation: The proposed project does not involve construction activities and would have no impact on emergency access.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Reference 14 (Thresholds L.6)

Explanation: The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the local regulatory governing agency. Reference: 14 (Thresholds M.2)

Explanation: The proposed project would not generate additional wastewater.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project resulted in the need for new construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities that could result in an adverse environmental effect that could not be mitigated. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.1, M.1 and M.2)

Explanation: The proposed project would not use additional water or generate additional wastewater that would exceed existing capacity.

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff from the proposed project increases to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site. Reference: 14 (Thresholds G.1 and M.2)

Explanation: The project would not construct any new storm water drainage facility.



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Standard: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project’s water demands would exceed the existing water supplies that serve the site. Reference: 14 (Thresholds M.1)

Explanation: The project would not exceed existing water supplies. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that

serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded. Reference:

Explanation: See 17 (a) above.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacities would be insufficient to accommodate the additional waste. Reference: 14 (Thresholds M.3)

Explanation: The project would not increase solid waste.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Comment: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would generate solid waste that was in excess of or was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Reference: 14 (Thresholds M.3)

Explanation: See 17(f) above.

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Comment: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Proposed mitigation measures BIO-01 and BIO-02 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species.



Issues

Po

ten

tially

S

ign

ifica

nt

Imp

act

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t W

ith M

itig

atio

n

Le

ss T

ha

n

Sig

nifi

can

t

No

Imp

act

Reference: Preceding analyses b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but

cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Comment: The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

Reference: Preceding analyses. c) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental

goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

Reference: Preceding analyses Comment: The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Comment: The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Reference: Preceding analyses


APPENDIX B

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)

This page is intentionally blank

General: SEMI-ARID REGIONS NEAR WASHES OR INTERMITTENT STREAMS, INCLUDING VALLEY-FOOTHILL AND DESERT

RIPARIAN, DESERT WASH, ETC.

RIVERS WITH SANDY BANKS, WILLOWS, COTTONWOODS, AND SYCAMORES; LOOSE, GRAVELLY AREAS OF

STREAMS IN DRIER PARTS OF RANGE.

AAABB01230

Anaxyrus californicusarroyo toad

EndangeredNone

G2G3S2S3State:

Global:

NDDB Element RanksStatus Other Lists

State:

Federal: SC

Habitat Associations

CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:

Natural Diversity Database

California Department of Fish and Game

Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements

CNDDB LA City Quads

54

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

UNKNOWN

Natural/Native occurrence

Possibly ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Calabasas (3411826/112B), Canoga Park (3411825/112A)

Los Angeles

CHATSWORTH CREEK (DRAIN), CANOGA PARK, BELOW CHATSWORTH RESERVOIR, LOS ANGELES.

Lat/Long: 34.21442º / -118.62651º Township: 02N

Range: 17WSection: 35 XX

Meridian: SMapping Precision: NON-SPECIFIC

Symbol Type: POLYGONElevation: 825 ft

44189

UTM: Zone-11 N3787127 E350166

Map Index:

MAPPED TO CHATSWORTH CREEK SINCE UNABLE FIND A CHATSWORTH DRAIN BELOW CHATSWORTH

RESERVOIR.

1 SUBADULT OBSERVED, SPECIMEN AT UCSB, INDICATED AS PROBABLY EXTINCT.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1970-06-XX1970-06-XX

Record Last Updated: 2000-11-02

44189EO Index:

Sources

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. COMPLIED LIST OF ARROYO TOAD OCCURRENCES. 1995-01-05.FWS95U0010

Government Version -- Dated August 02, 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1Report Printed on Thursday, August 29, 2013 Information Expires 02/02/2014

General: ENDEMIC TO LOS ANGELES BASIN SOUTH COASTAL STREAMS.

HABITAT GENERALISTS, BUT PREFER SAND-RUBBLE-BOULDER BOTTOMS, COOL, CLEAR WATER, & ALGAE.

AFCJC02190

Catostomus santaanaeSanta Ana sucker

ThreatenedNone

G1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

7

Presence:Trend:

Poor

Location:

USFS-ANGELES NF, PVT


Presumed ExtantDecreasing

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Fernando (3411834/137C), Sunland (3411833/137D)

Los Angeles

BIG TUJUNGA CREEK & PART OF HAINES CREEK, FROM HANSEN DAM E TO DELTA FLAT, N OF SUNLAND,

LOS ANGELES COUNTY.




Symbol Type: POLYGONElevation: 1,200 ft

01933

UTM: Zone-11 N3793210 E378752

Map Index:

BANK VEGETATION IS ALNUS SP. AQUATIC VEGETATION OF CHARA & POTOMOGETON. ALSO

FILAMENTOUS GREEN ALGAE IN PLACES. LOWER REACH DRIES EVERY YEAR.

SWIFT: SPECIES COLLECTED AT HANSEN DAM IN 1972. 2001-06: TUJUNGA CRK @ FOOTHILL BRIDGE

DOWNSTREAM TO JUNCTION WITH HAINES CREEK. 1999-2007: HAINES CREEK AND OUTLET STREAMS OF

PONDS N OF HAINES CREEK, SW OF I-215 - NO FISH FOUND IN PONDS.

1975: 15 FISH @ HANSEN DAM. FISH OBS IN '83. 5-7 ADULTS, 200 LARV & 1 JUV 18 MAY 2001. 12 FISH 1.5 KM

S OF I-210 ON 8 MAY '02. 15 ADULTS & 50+ LARV APR '03. 0 OBS IN FOOTHILL POOL '06. 2001-06: SUCKERS

COMMON IN HAINES CREEK, NONE IN PONDS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2007-05-102007-05-10


14836EO Index:

Sources

CSUTI, B. TNC ELEMENT PRESERVATION PLAN WRITTEN BY B. CSUTI WITH EDITORIAL COMMENTS BY CAMM

SWIFT. 1983-08-09.

CSU83U0002

LACM. LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM FISH COLLECTION RECORDS FOR CATOSTOMUS SANTAANAE

COLLECTED IN 2002. 2002-05-08.

LAC02S0003

SWIFT, C. (ENTRIX, INC.). ESA RECOVERY PERMIT TE-793644-6 2008 ANNUAL REPORT. 2009-03-19.SWI09R0001

SWIFT, C. PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION MAPS FOR CATOSTOMUS SANTAANAE - WITH CORRECTIONS. 1983-08-XX.SWI83M0005

SWIFT, C., T. HAGLUND, M. RUIZ & R. FISHER. THE STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE FRESHWATER FISHES

OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. BULLETIN OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE 92(3):101-167.

1993-12-XX.

SWI93R0001

WELLS, A.W. & J.S. DIANA (CSU, LONG BEACH). SURVEY OF THE FRESHWATER FISHES AND THEIR HABITATS IN

THE COASTAL DRAINAGES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 1975-XX-XX.

WEL75R0001


General: ENDEMIC TO LOS ANGELES BASIN SOUTH COASTAL STREAMS.

HABITAT GENERALISTS, BUT PREFER SAND-RUBBLE-BOULDER BOTTOMS, COOL, CLEAR WATER, & ALGAE.

AFCJC02190

Catostomus santaanaeSanta Ana sucker

ThreatenedNone

G1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

37

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

USFS-ANGELES NF, PVT


Presumed ExtantUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Condor Peak (3411832/136C), Sunland (3411833/137D)

Los Angeles

BIG TUJUNGA CREEK, FROM DELTA FLAT AT TRAIL CANYON, EAST TO BIG TUJUNGA RESERVOIR DAM, LOS

ANGELES COUNTY.



Meridian: SMapping Precision: SPECIFIC

388.0 acresSymbol Type: POLYGON

Elevation:

78812

UTM: Zone-11 N3793778 E387618

Map Index:

1975: STATION #3 (IN SECTION 3), 0.7 KM NW OF BIG TUJUNGA STATION. MAPPED ACCORDING TO MAP AND

DETAILED LOCATIONS PROVIDED.

1975: 21 FISH TAKEN AT STATION 3. 17 JUL 2002: NO FISH OBS DURING SNORKELING SURVEY FROM DAM

TO BIG TUJUNGA CANYON ROAD, BUT DAMKEEPER STATED SUCKERS WERE PRESENT PREVIOUS NOV

(2001) IN POOL ABOVE GUNNITED SECTION BY BRIDGE.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2001-11-XX2002-07-17


79756EO Index:

Sources

SWIFT, C. (ENTRIX, INC.). ESA RECOVERY PERMIT TE-793644-6 2008 ANNUAL REPORT. 2009-03-19.SWI09R0001

WELLS, A.W. & J.S. DIANA (CSU, LONG BEACH). SURVEY OF THE FRESHWATER FISHES AND THEIR HABITATS IN

THE COASTAL DRAINAGES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 1975-XX-XX.

WEL75R0001


General: SANDY BEACHES, SALT POND LEVEES & SHORES OF LARGE ALKALI LAKES.

NEEDS SANDY, GRAVELLY OR FRIABLE SOILS FOR NESTING.

ABNNB03031

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosuswestern snowy plover

ThreatenedNone

G3T3S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

36

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

DPR-DOCKWEILER SB


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

PLAYA DEL REY.

Lat/Long: 33.95266º / -118.44858º Township: 02S




01488

UTM: Zone-11 N3757852 E366147

Map Index:

ONE EGG SET COLLECTED IN 1914 BY U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1914-XX-XX1914-XX-XX


7920EO Index:

Sources

PAGE, G. & L. STENZEL. THE BREEDING STATUS OF THE SNOWY PLOVER IN CALIFORNIA. WESTERN BIRDS,

VOL. 12, NO. 1, PAGES 1-40. 1981-XX-XX.

PAG81R0001


General: SANDY BEACHES, SALT POND LEVEES & SHORES OF LARGE ALKALI LAKES.

NEEDS SANDY, GRAVELLY OR FRIABLE SOILS FOR NESTING.

ABNNB03031

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosuswestern snowy plover

ThreatenedNone

G3T3S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

37

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

DPR-DOCKWEILER SB


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

BALLONA BEACH (DOCKWEILER STATE BEACH).





36797

UTM: Zone-11 N3759393 E365285

Map Index:

MAPPED AT THE BEACH NORTH OF BALLONA CREEK.

FORTY-SIX EGG SETS COLLECTED BY THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BETWEEN

1894-1904.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



21223EO Index:

Sources

PAGE, G. & L. STENZEL. THE BREEDING STATUS OF THE SNOWY PLOVER IN CALIFORNIA. WESTERN BIRDS,

VOL. 12, NO. 1, PAGES 1-40. 1981-XX-XX.

PAG81R0001


General: RIPARIAN FOREST NESTER, ALONG THE BROAD, LOWER FLOOD-BOTTOMS OF LARGER RIVER SYSTEMS.

NESTS IN RIPARIAN JUNGLES OF WILLOW, OFTEN MIXED WITH COTTONWOODS, W/ LOWER STORY OF

BLACKBERRY, NETTLES, OR WILD GRAPE.

ABNRB02022

Coccyzus americanus occidentaliswestern yellow-billed cuckoo

CandidateEndangered

G5T3QS1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

74

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

UNKNOWN


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Fernando (3411834/137C)

Los Angeles

SAN FERNANDO.


Range: 15WSection: XX XX


1 mileSymbol Type: POINT

Elevation: 1,100 ft

25605

UTM: Zone-11 N3795084 E368162

Map Index:

SET OF 3 EGGS COLLECTED BY A. HEWITT. NEST WAS COMPOSED OF A FEW STICKS LOOSELY PUT

TOGETHER. NEST WAS ABOUT 3.5 FT UP IN A BUSH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF A CANYON.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1893-05-021893-05-02


5461EO Index:

Sources

WESTERN FOUNDATION OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY. EGG SET DATA FOR MULTIPLE SPECIES (RECEIVED IN

1981). XXXX-XX-XX.

WFVNDS0001


General: RIPARIAN WOODLANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

ABPAE33043

Empidonax traillii extimussouthwestern willow flycatcher

EndangeredEndangered

G5T1T2S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

43

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Burbank (3411823/111A), Pasadena (3411822/110B), Inglewood (3311883/090A), South Gate (3311882/089B), Los

Angeles (3411812/110C), Hollywood (3411813/111D)

Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES.





Elevation: 280 ft

51258

UTM: Zone-11 N3768805 E385050

Map Index:

NO OTHER LOCATION INFORMATION GIVEN, MAPPED IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF LOS ANGELES

MVZ #2205 (EGG SET), COLLECTED 20 MAY 1894 BY R. H. ROBERTSON. MVZ #136340 (STUDY SKIN)

COLLECTED JUNE 1852 BY G. A. MCCALL.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1894-05-201894-05-20


59153EO Index:

Sources

MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY (UC, BERKELEY). PRINTOUT OF EMPIDONAX TRAILLII SSP. RECORDS FOR

LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 2005-01-04.

MVZ05S0001


General: RIPARIAN WOODLANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

ABPAE33043

Empidonax traillii extimussouthwestern willow flycatcher


G5T1T2S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

44

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Mt. Wilson (3411821/110A), El Monte (3411811/110D), Pasadena (3411822/110B), Los Angeles (3411812/110C)

Los Angeles

PASADENA.





Elevation: 1,000 ft

39017

UTM: Zone-11 N3779562 E393908

Map Index:

EXACT LOCATION NOT KNOWN; SITE MAPPED IN GENERAL AREA OF PASADENA. 1905 & 1906 RECORDS

FROM "PASADENA, ARROYO SECO"

MVZ #13047 (EGG SET) COLLECTED 10 JUN 1893 BY R. ARNOLD. MVZ #33366-33374 (7 MALE & 2 FEMALE

STUDY SKINS) COLLECTED BETWEEN 28 MAY 1895 & 6 AUG 1900 BY J. GRINNELL. MVZ #12434 & 33380

(MALE STUDY SKINS) COLLECTED 12 SEP 1905 & 14 SEP 1906.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1906-09-141906-09-14


59154EO Index:

Sources

MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY (UC, BERKELEY). PRINTOUT OF EMPIDONAX TRAILLII SSP. RECORDS FOR

LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 2005-01-04.

MVZ05S0001


General: RESTRICTED TO REMNANT COASTAL DUNE HABITAT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

HOSTPLANT IS ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM; LARVAE FEED ONLY ON THE FLOWERS AND SEEDS; USED BY

ADULTS AS MAJOR NECTAR SOURCE.

IILEPG201B

Euphilotes battoides allyniEl Segundo blue butterfly

EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

1

Presence:Trend:

Fair

Location:

IN 1984 POPULATION NUMBERS WERE LOW ENOUGH TO POSSIBLY CAUSE GENETIC PROBLEMS. INVASIVE

NON-NATIVE PLANTS.

CITY OF LA-LA/EL SEGUNDO DUNES


Presumed ExtantStable

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

EL SEGUNDO DUNES, JUST WEST OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.




119.4 acresSymbol Type: POLYGON

Elevation: 100 ft

01535

UTM: Zone-11 N3756197 E367502

Map Index:

LARVAL FOOD PLANT IS ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM. IN 1988 LAX AIRPORT BOARD AUTHORIZED A

CONTINUING 3 YR PROGRAM OF HABITAT RESTORATION. HABITAT QUALITY WAS POOR DUE TO EXOTIC

PLANTS STABILIZING THE SAND BUT IS NOW IMPROVING..

70% OF AN ESTIMATED 756 ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM PLANTS APPEAR TO BE STRESSED (1984). TWO OF

THE 16 ERIOGONUM PATCHES SUPPORT 75% OF THE EL SEGUNDO BLUE POPULATION (1984). IN 1988,

FOUND ON ONLY 20 ACRES, <3 ACRES WITH HIGH DENSITY.

POPULATION EST: 1984: 750; 1986: 800; 1987: 1600; 1988: 2500 (1029 ADULTS OBS); 1990: 5000 FLYING.

JUN-AUG 2004: TRANSECT COUNTS, 2123 ADULTS; BLOCK COUNTS (JUL), 2645 ADULTS. JUN-AUG '05:

TRANSECT COUNTS, 2623; BLOCK COUNTS (JUL), 5560.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2005-08-132005-08-13


14469EO Index:

Sources

ARNOLD, R. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR EUPHILOTES BATTOIDES ALLYNI. 2004-07-26.ARN04F0016


ARNOLD, DR. R. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR EUPHILOTES BATTOIDES ALLYNI. 2005-08-13.ARN05F0046


ARNOLD, R. STATUS OF SIX ENDANGERED CALIFORNIA BUTTERFLIES. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME,

1978. 1978-XX-XX.

ARN78R0001

ARNOLD, R. DISTRIBUTIONAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF FIVE ENDANGERED INSECTS. 1984-07-27.ARN84R0001

ARNOLD, R. DISTRIBUTIONAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF FIVE ENDANGERED INSECTS: EL SEGUNDO BLUE

BUTTERFLY STUDY. 1984-08-29.

ARN84R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. STUDIES OF THE EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY - 1984. 1986-06-XX.ARN86R0002

BLACK, S. & M. VAUGHAN. SPECIES PROFILE: EUPHILOTES BATTOIDES ALLYNI. IN SHEPHERD, M.D., D.M.

VAUGHAN, & S.H. BLACK (EDS). RED LIST OF POLLINATOR INSECTS OF NORTH AMERICA. THE XERCES

SOCIETY. 2005-06-22.

BLA05U0003

MATTONI, R. HABITAT EVALUATION AND SPECIES DIVERSITY ON THE LAX EL SEGUNDO SAND DUNESMAT88R0001





IILEPG201B


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources

PROGRESS REPORT. 1988-04-20.

MATTONI, R. YEAR-END REPORT TO USFWS REGARDING 3 SPECIES OF ENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES.

1988-12-12.

MAT88U0001

MATTONI, R. THE ENDANGERED EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH LEPIDOPTERA.

1990(92). 29(4):277-304. 1990-XX-XX.

MAT90A0001

SHANKS, S. (CDFW-CNDDB). LIST OF SPECIMENS RECORDED DURING VISIT TO UC DAVIS BOHART MUSEUM OF

ENTOMOLOGY. 2005-03-31.

SHA05S0005





IILEPG201B


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

2

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

1984: NON-NATIVE PLANTS OUT-COMPETING NATIVE DUNE PLANTS. POP NUMBERS LOW ENOUGH TO

POSSIBLY CAUSE GENETIC PROBLEMS.

PVT-CHEVRON



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

EL SEGUNDO DUNES-CHEVRON REFINERY BUTTERFLY PRESERVE.




1/5 mileSymbol Type: POINT

Elevation: 150 ft

01586

UTM: Zone-11 N3753764 E368596

Map Index:

ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM IS THE MAJOR FOOD PLANT AND IT IS BEING REASTABLISHED, WEEDY PLANTS

REMOVED. POPULATION IS NOW REBOUNDING.

PRESERVE CONTAINS REMNANT DUNE HABITAT ON REFINERY PROPERTY

POPULATION HAD DECLINED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE 8 YEARS THAT ARNOLD ANALYZED IT. 1984: POP

EST 420 INDIVIDUALS. 1986: POP EST 357. JUN- AUG 2004: 2,383 ADULTS OBS, 3 TRANSECTS. JUN- AUG

2005: 2,023 ADULTS, TRANSECT COUNTS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2005-08-182005-08-18


23047EO Index:

Sources





ARNOLD, R. STATUS OF SIX ENDANGERED CALIFORNIA BUTTERFLIES. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME,

1978. 1978-XX-XX.

ARN78R0001

ARNOLD, R. DISTRIBUTIONAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF FIVE ENDANGERED INSECTS. 1984-07-27.ARN84R0001

ARNOLD, R. DISTRIBUTIONAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF FIVE ENDANGERED INSECTS: EL SEGUNDO BLUE

BUTTERFLY STUDY. 1984-08-29.

ARN84R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE ENDANGERED EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY AT THE CHEVRON

REFINERY IN EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, DURING 1984. 1985-06-10.

ARN85R0003


ARNOLD, R.A. ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE ENDANGERED EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY AT THE CHEVRON

REFINERY IN EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, DURING 1986. 1987-03-24.

ARN87R0001

BLACK, S. & M. VAUGHAN. SPECIES PROFILE: EUPHILOTES BATTOIDES ALLYNI. IN SHEPHERD, M.D., D.M.

VAUGHAN, & S.H. BLACK (EDS). RED LIST OF POLLINATOR INSECTS OF NORTH AMERICA. THE XERCES

SOCIETY. 2005-06-22.

BLA05U0003





IILEPG201B


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources


General: RESTRICTED TO THE COOL, FOG-SHROUDED, SEAWARD SIDE OF PALOS VERDES HILLS, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY.

HOST PLANT IS ASTRAGALUS TRICHOPODUS VAR. LONCHUS (LOCOWEED).

IILEPG402A

Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensisPalos Verdes blue butterfly

EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

4

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

CONTINUING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. PARK IS MOWED AND DISKED YEARLY DURING PVBB LARVAL

OR PUPAL STAGES.

PVT, CITY OF RPV, LAX COUNTY



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

SWITCHBACK AREA PALOS VERDES DR E; VISTA DEL MAR RD NEAR JCT W/ PALOS VERDES DR E;

FRIENDSHIP PARK, RANCHO PALOS VERDES.


Range: 14WSection: 22 NE



01861

UTM: Zone-11 N3733006 E376734

Map Index:

39 ASTRAGALUS PLANTS OBSERVED HERE IN 1986, WHICH REPRESENTS 50% OF THE PALOS VERDES

PENINSULA ASTRAGALUS POPULATION.

3 LOCATIONS AS ABOVE, ONE IS THE LARGEST CONTIGUOUS HABITAT, AS WELL AS DESIGNATED

CRITICAL HABITAT, FOR THE BUTTERFLY.

SITE NEEDS EXTENSIVE REHABILITATION & A FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE FROM

DISKING. GOOD AREA FOR REINTRODUCTION IF SITE IS PROPERLY MANAGED. THE VISTA DEL MAR SITE IS

CONSIDERED EXTIRPATED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



23024EO Index:

Sources

ARNOLD, R. DRAFT: MS ON TWO LEPIDOPTERANS FROM SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA. COPIES OF TABLES AND

FIGURES, PROVIDED BY L. ENG, CDFG. 1980-XX-XX.

ARN80R0001

ARNOLD, R.A. STATUS OF PROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED CALIFORNIA LEPIDOPTERA (DRAFT).

1980-XX-XX.

ARN80R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. DISTRIBUTION, LIFE HISTORY, AND STATUS OF THREE CALIFORNIA LEPIDOPTERA PROPOSED

AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES. 1981-03-XX.

ARN81R0001

ARNOLD, R.A. LETTER AND MAPS SENT TO USFWS SESO WITH 1982 FIELD RESEARCH DATA. 1982-07-16.ARN82U0001

ARNOLD, R.A. PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY MANAGEMENT PLAN, FINAL AND DRAFT. 1985-05-30.ARN85R0001

ARNOLD, R.A. FINAL REPORT FOR CONTRACT C-616 WITH CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME, DISTRIBUTIONAL AND

ECOLOGICAL STUDIES OF 5 ENDANGERED INSECTS. 1985-04-29.

ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GLAUCOPSYCHE LYGDAMUS PALOSVERDESENSIS (PALOS VERDES

BLUE BUTTERFLY) ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST. 1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0004

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY FOR VISTA DEL MAR NEAR

INTERSECTION WITH PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST. 1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0013

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT FRIENDSHIP PARK LOCATION.ARN86F0014



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources

1986-05-XX.

ARNOLD, R. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR GLAUCOPSYCHE LYGDAMUS PALOSVERDESENSIS. 1986-05-XX.ARN86F0018

ARNOLD, R.A. ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF TWO ENDANGERED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BUTTERFLIES

(PUBLISHED IN: MEMOIRS OF THE NATURAL HISTORY FOUNDATION OF ORANGE COUNTY - VOL. 3, PAGES

36-47). 1990-07-01.

ARN90A0001

MATTONI, R. REDISCOVERY OF THE ENDANGERED PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY, GLAUCOPSYCHE

LYGDAMUS PALOSVERDESENSIS. PERKINS & EMMEL (LYACENIDAE). JOUR. RES. LEPIDOP. 1992 [1995].

31(3-4):180-194. 1992-XX-XX.

MAT92A0001



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

7

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

PVT-FILIORUM CORP


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Torrance (3311873/090D), San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

ALTAMIRA CANYON, NEAR NARCISSA DR, ALONG FOOT TRAIL; RANCHO PALOS VERDES.





Elevation: 800 ft

01760

UTM: Zone-11 N3735376 E372872

Map Index:

ASTRAGALUS FOUND HERE IN 1982; NO PVBB OBSERVED. CURRENTLY, THIS SITE REMAINS OPEN

SPACE/COASTAL SAGE SCRUB HABITAT, BUT MAY BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE. NO ASTRAGALUS

FOUND IN 1986. GOOD AREA FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF ASTRAGALUS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

XXXX-XX-XX1988-XX-XX


23021EO Index:

Sources




ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT ALTAMIRA CANYON LOCATION.

1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0007



36-47). 1990-07-01.

ARN90A0001



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

9

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

ORV'S ACTIVELY USE THE AREA & CREATING TRAILS. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PENDING.

PVT-PALOS VERDES PROPERTIES



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

CANYON NEAR FORRESTAL DR; N & W OF FORRESTAL-PVT DR INTERSECTION, E OF KLONDIKE CYN.





Elevation: 600 ft

01822

UTM: Zone-11 N3734114 E375171

Map Index:

BOTH PALOS VERDES BLUE (EGGS, LARVAE & ADULTS) AND ASTRAGALUS OBSERVED HERE IN 1982. 3

ASTRAGALUS OBSERVED IN 1985, 8 IN 1986;12 IN 1987; 16 IN 1988; NO PVBB OBSERVED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



23019EO Index:

Sources




ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT FORRESTAL DRIVE LOCATION.

1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0009



36-47). 1990-07-01.

ARN90A0001



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

10

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

GRADING AND DISKING, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

PVT



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

GULFCREST-HEROIC DR AREA; ALONG TRAIL ON HILLSIDE BEYOND END OF GULFCREST DR NEAR HEROIC

DR.





01838

UTM: Zone-11 N3733229 E375747

Map Index:

PALO VISTA DRIVE, SEA CLIFF HILLS DEVELOPMENT ON NORTH SIDE OF ROAD APPROX 1500 FT WEST OF

JUNCTION WITH 25TH ST.

SITE DISCOVERED IN 1983; AT THAT TIME THIS WAS LARGEST KNOWN STAND OF ASTRAGALUS (65

PLANTS). 1 OF 2 SITES WHERE PVBB WAS OBS IN 1983. ENTIRE SITE DISKED IN 1984; NO PVBB OBS SINCE,

ALTHOUGH ASTRAGALUS FOUND 1985 THROUGH 1988.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



23017EO Index:

Sources




ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY IN GULFCREST - HEROIC DRIVE

AREA. 1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0010

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT PALO VISTA DRIVE - SEA CLIFF

HILLS DEVELOPMENT LOCATION. 1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0011

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT PASEO DEL MAR AVENUE

LOCATION. 1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0012




36-47). 1990-07-01.

ARN90A0001



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

15

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

AREA IS DISKED ANNUALLY AND THE REMAINDER IS CULTIVATED BY LOCAL GARDENERS.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

WHITES POINT PARK (AKA FT MACARTHUR MIL RES).





Elevation: 300 ft

01892

UTM: Zone-11 N3731703 E378178

Map Index:

ABANDONED PORTION OF MILITARY RESERVATION; OVERGROWN WITH WEEDS. 3 ASTRAGALUS FOUND IN

1983; ALTHOUGH STRESSED, PERSISTED TO 1985. NO PVBB EVER OBSERVED. LAND USE STILL BEING

DETERMINED IN 1985. LAST ASTRAGALUS PLANT DIED IN 1986.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

XXXX-XX-XX1986-05-XX


23010EO Index:

Sources




ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT WHITE POINT PARK LOCATION.

1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0015



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

16

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

GRADING AND ENCROACHMENT BY ANNUAL GRASSES AND ORNAMENTALS.

PVT-S&S CONSTRUCTION CO



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Torrance (3311873/090D), San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

TOP OF SAN PEDRO HILL, BOUNDED BY CREST RD WEST; RANCHO PALOS VERDES.





Elevation: 1,200 ft

01823

UTM: Zone-11 N3735283 E375212

Map Index:

PVBB AND ASTRAGALUS FOUND HERE IN 1981. PLANT OBSERVED IN 1983 BUT DESTROYED (EXCEPT FOR

5 PLANTS) BY GRADING IN APRIL 1983. 32 PLANTS IN 3 LOCATIONS FOUND IN 1985; ONLY 3 FOUND IN 1986.

NO PVBB OBSERVED SINCE 1981 SIGHTING.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



23009EO Index:

Sources

ARNOLD, R.A. LETTER AND MAPS SENT TO USFWS SESO WITH 1982 FIELD RESEARCH DATA. 1982-07-16.ARN82U0001




ARN85R0002

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT SAN PEDRO HILL LOCATION.

1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0016



36-47). 1990-07-01.

ARN90A0001



COUNTY.


IILEPG402A


EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

17

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

SOME PORTIONS MOWED, OTHERS DISKED ANNUALLY FOR FIRE CONTROL.

LAX COUNTY


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

FORT MACARTHUR UPPER RES AREA, S OF SWIMMING POOL ALONG RD NR GAFFEY LOOKOUT.





Elevation: 200 ft

01941

UTM: Zone-11 N3730910 E379996

Map Index:

FORMERLY OWNED BY THE MILITARY; NOW OPERATED AS A PARK BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

ONE ASTRAGALUS FOUND IN 1982; NONE FROM 1983 THROUGH 1985; 8 FOUND IN 1986, BUT NO PVBB.

MOU WITH L.A. COUNTY TO PROTECT FOODPLANT COULD BENEFIT PVBB.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

XXXX-XX-XX1986-05-XX


23007EO Index:

Sources

ARNOLD, R.A. (ENTOMOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES). LETTER TO JACK PARNELL, DIRECTOR, DFG

PROVIDING COLLECTION DATA FOR VELB. 1985-09-18.

ARN85U0001

ARNOLD, R.A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR PALOS VERDES BLUE BUTTERFLY AT FORT MACARTHUR LOCATION.

1986-05-XX.

ARN86F0017


General: INHABITS FRESHWATER MARSHES, WET MEADOWS & SHALLOW MARGINS OF SALTWATER MARSHES

BORDERING LARGER BAYS.

NEEDS WATER DEPTHS OF ABOUT 1 INCH THAT DOES NOT FLUCTUATE DURING THE YEAR & DENSE

VEGETATION FOR NESTING HABITAT.

ABNME03041

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculusCalifornia black rail

NoneThreatened

G4T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

68

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

DPR-DOCKWEILER SB



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

PLAYA DEL REY.





01488

UTM: Zone-11 N3757852 E366147

Map Index:

1928 LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "PLAYA DEL REY" & CITED IN BOTH WIL74R0001 & EVE86A0001. EGG

LOCATION ALSO DESCRIBED AS "PLAYA DEL REY."

ONE RAIL FOUND DEAD (IMPALED ON A BARBED WIRE FENCE, LIKELY EITHER KILLED BY A SHRIKE OR

STRUCK THE FENCE IN FLIGHT) ON 25 FEB 1928. 1 EGG FOUND AT AN UNKNOWN DATE PRIOR TO 1974.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1928-02-251928-02-25


17538EO Index:

Sources

EVENS, J. & G.W. PAGE (PRBO CONSERVATION SCIENCE). PREDATION ON BLACK RAILS DURING HIGH TIDES IN

SALT MARSHES. THE CONDOR, VOL.88, NO 1, PP. 107-109. 1986-02-XX.

EVE86A0001

WILBUR, S.R. THE LITERATURE OF THE CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SPECIAL

SCIENTIFIC REPORT - WILDLIFE NO. 179. 1974-XX-XX.

WIL74R0001


General: FED LISTING REFERS TO POPS FROM SANTA MARIA RIVER SOUTH TO SOUTHERN EXTENT OF RANGE (SAN

MATEO CREEK IN SAN DIEGO CO.)

SOUTHERN STEELHEAD LIKELY HAVE GREATER PHYSIOLOGICAL TOLERANCES TO WARMER WATER & MORE

VARIABLE CONDITIONS.

AFCHA0209J

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideussouthern steelhead - southern California DPS

EndangeredNone

G5T2QS2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

7

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

DPR, PVT, CITY OF LOS ANGELES



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Topanga (3411815/112D)

Los Angeles

TOPANGA CREEK, APPROX. 4 MILES WEST NORTHWEST OF SANTA MONICA, TOPANGA STATE PARK AND

STATE BEACH, TOPANGA AND FERNWOOD.





34074

UTM: Zone-11 N3770934 E353565

Map Index:

SOUTHERN SYCAMORE ALDER RIPARIAN WOODLAND, THICKETS OF HERBACEOUS UNDERSTORY IN MANY

PLACES. THE STREAM'S HIGH-GRADIENT ASPECT, AND A WIDE BEACH AT THE MOUTH, MAY RESULT IN

STEELHEAD PASSAGE PROBLEMS UNDER LOW FLOW CONDITIONS.

TOPANGA CANYON FROM PACIFIC OCEAN UPSTREAM TO TOPANGA AND OLD TOPANGA CANYON TO

HONDO CANYON.

STEELHEAD FROM 10-32 CM OBSERVED IN 1979. ADULTS FOUND IN POOLS UPSTREAM OF LAGOON IN

1990. TOPANGA CREEK HAS RELATIVELY HIGH POTENTIAL FOR STEELHEAD RESTORATION, BASED ON

OBSERVED FLOW, SUBSTRATE, STREAM MORPHOLOGY, & RIPARIAN CONDITIONS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1990-03-XX1990-03-XX


29844EO Index:

Sources

ALLEN, L. & L. COMRACK. PRESCRIBED FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR TOPANGA STATE PARK. DPR,

SOUTHERN REGION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 1987-01-XX.

ALL87R0001

TITUS, R.G. & D.C. ERMAN. HISTORY AND STATUS OF STEELHEAD IN CALIFORNIA COASTAL DRAINAGES SOUTH

OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. 1994-XX-XX.

TIT94R0001


General: INHABITS COASTAL SALT MARSHES, FROM SANTA BARBARA SOUTH THROUGH SAN DIEGO COUNTY.

NESTS IN SALICORNIA ON AND ABOUT MARGINS OF TIDAL FLATS.

ABPBX99015

Passerculus sandwichensis beldingiBelding's savannah sparrow

NoneEndangered

G5T3S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

7

Presence:Trend:

Fair

Location:

EXOTIC RED FOX, FERAL CAT AND DOG SIGN OBS WITHIN MARSH, HUMAN DISTURBANCE, AIRPORT AND

HWY NOISE.

DFG-BALLONA WETLANDS ER



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

MOUTH OF BALLONA CREEK, BETWEEN MARINA DEL REY ON THE NORTH & DEL REY BLUFFS ON THE

SOUTH.


Range: 15WSection: 27 SW



01492

UTM: Zone-11 N3759118 E366401

Map Index:

101 HA SALTMARSH WITH LITTLE TIDAL INFLUENCE. SOME OF THE PICKLEWEED DESSICATING IN 1991.

RESTORATION POTENTIAL IS HIGH, AREA NEEDS TIDAL ACTION AND ACTIVE PREDATOR MANAGEMENT.

1991: ALL TERRITORIES FOUND IN NON-TIDALLY INFLUENCED AREA ADJACENT TO THE CHANNELIZED

BALLONA CREEK, INLAND FROM THE CHANNEL. 2001: ALL BIRDS IN WETLAND BETWEEN CULVER BLVD &

BALLONA CREEK. BALLONS WETLANDS AREA B WEST.

POPULATION ESTIMATES: 1973: 25 PRS; 1977: 37 PRS; 1979: 21 PRS; 1980: 18 PRS; 1981: 13 PRS; 1986: 32

PRS; 1987: 29-30 PRS; 1989: 31 PRS; 1990: 12 PRS; 1991: 5 PRS. 1996: 37 PRS. 2001: 13 PRS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2001-05-092001-05-09


14649EO Index:

Sources

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. A SURVEY OF BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROWS IN CALIFORNIA, 1986.

1987-01-XX.

FWS87R0003

JAMES, R. & D. STADTLANDER (USFWS). A SURVEY OF THE BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW (PASSERCULUS

SANDWICHENSIS BELDINGI) IN CALIFORNIA, 1991. 1991-11-XX.

JAM91R0001

MASSEY, B.W. A CENSUS OF THE BREEDING POPULATION OF THE BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW IN

CALIFORNIA. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME. 1977-XX-XX.

MAS77R0001

NAGANO, C.D. & J.P. DONAHUE. DRAFT PAPER ON BALLONA WETLANDS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY. XXXX-XX-XX.NAGNDU0001

SCHREIBER, R. THE BIOTA OF THE BALLONA REGION, LOS ANGELES COUNTY. SUPPLEMENT 1 MARINA DEL

REY/BALLONA LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. LA CO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM FOUNDATION. 1981-XX-XX.

SCH81R0001

WHITE, A.N. & P.J. WHITE. BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW CENSUS AT BALLONA WETLAND, 1989. REPORT TO

THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY BALLONA WETLAND PROJECT. 1989-XX-XX.

WHI89R0001

ZEMBAL, R. & S. HOFFMAN. A SURVEY OF THE BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW (PASSERCULUS


ZEM02R0001


General: INHABITS COASTAL SALT MARSHES, FROM SANTA BARBARA SOUTH THROUGH SAN DIEGO COUNTY.

NESTS IN SALICORNIA ON AND ABOUT MARGINS OF TIDAL FLATS.

ABPBX99015

Passerculus sandwichensis beldingiBelding's savannah sparrow

NoneEndangered

G5T3S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

37

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:



ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

BALLONA WETLANDS AREA. PARCEL BOUNDED ON EAST BY HWY 1, ON SOUTH BY BALLONA CRK, ON

NORTH & WEST BY FIJI WAY.


Range: 15WSection: 27 N



01504

UTM: Zone-11 N3760177 E366979

Map Index:

SUBSEQUENT TO 1987 THIS POPULATION WAS EXTIRPATED. THIS AREA IS NOW INVADED BY UPLAND

PLANTS AND IS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT (1980S). WAS PRIVATELY OWNED; NOW PART OF THE

BALLONA WETLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE.

AREA A. SMALL BREEDING POPULATIONS IN HOMOGENEOUS STANDS OF SALICORNIA THROUGHOUT THIS

PARCEL.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



14647EO Index:

Sources

JAMES, R. & D. STADTLANDER (USFWS). A SURVEY OF THE BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW (PASSERCULUS


JAM91R0001




SCH81R0001


General: INHABITS THE NARROW COASTAL PLAINS FROM THE MEXICAN BORDER NORTH TO EL SEGUNDO, LOS

ANGELES CO.

SEEMS TO PREFER SOILS OF FINE ALLUVIAL SANDS NEAR THE OCEAN, BUT MUCH REMAINS TO BE LEARNED.

AMAFD01042

Perognathus longimembris pacificusPacific pocket mouse

EndangeredNone

G5T1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

2

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

UNKNOWN


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

MARINA DEL REY/EL SEGUNDO AREA.





39858

UTM: Zone-11 N3755463 E368233

Map Index:

COLLECTION LOCALITIES INCLUDEL: DEL REY, PLAYA DEL REY, PALISADES DEL REY, DEL REY HILLS NEAR

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY, HYPERION, & 1 MILE NORTH & 1/2 MILE NW OF EL SEGUNDO.

HISTORIC SITE. 118 SPECIMENS COLLECTED BETWEEN NOV 1918 AND JUN 1938. SPECIMENS ARE

DEPOSITED IN SBMNH, LACM, SDMNH, MVZ, AND UA.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1938-06-XX1938-06-XX


34860EO Index:

Sources

ERICKSON, R.A. PACIFIC POCKET MOUSE; DRAFT MANUSCRIPT PREPARED FOR INCLUSION IN "ENDANGERED

RODENTS OF THE WORLD," TO BE PUBLISHED BY IUCN. 1993-XX-XX.

ERI93R0001

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE PACIFIC POCKET MOUSE (PEROGNATHUS

LONGIMEMBRIS PACIFICUS). 1997-XX-XX.

FWS97R0004

MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY (UC, BERKELEY). PRINTOUT OF MVZ SPECIMEN DATABASE FOR

PEROGNATHUS LONGIMEMBRIS PACIFICUS. 2003-XX-XX.

MVZ03S0004


General: OBLIGATE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BELOW 2500 FT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

LOW, COASTAL SAGE SCRUB IN ARID WASHES, ON MESAS & SLOPES. NOT ALL AREAS CLASSIFIED AS

COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ARE OCCUPIED.

ABPBJ08081

Polioptila californica californicacoastal California gnatcatcher

ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

30

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

THREATENED BY ONGOING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND FREE-ROAMING DOMESTIC CATS.

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Redondo Beach (3311874/090C), San Pedro (3311863/073A), Torrance (3311873/090D)

Los Angeles

PALOS VERDES PENINSULA NEAR PT VINCENTE & LONG PT, NE TO CREST RD (INCLUDING MCCARRELLS

CYN), RANCHO PALOS VERDES.





01686

UTM: Zone-11 N3734792 E370611

Map Index:

MOST FOUND IN AREAS OF SAGEBRUSH OR CACTUS SCRUB IN 1993-95 PENINSULA SURVEY. DOMINATED

BY ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM, & SALVIA MELLIFERA. SOME AREAS NOW

OPEN SPACE (PVPLC.ORG). MCCARRELL'S CYN (BARKENTINE) SIG HABITAT.

ALONG PALOS VERDES DR W, PALOS VERDES DR S, & HAWTHORNE BLVD. RECENT DATA FROM PT

VINCENTE PARK/CIVIC CENTER ('98 & 06), PENINSULA POINTE (ALBERO CT, '97-06), & BARKENTINE CYN

PRESERVE ('00 & 06). UPDATED W/ 56 DIGITAL 80M POLYS FROM FWS.

1980: 5PRS & 1IND. '90: 24BRDS, 6TERR. '91: 2PRS. '95: 8PRS. '97: 5TERR, 6 NESTS, 19 FLDG. '98: 4PRS. '00:

12 AD, 12 JUV; 5 OBS. '01: 7PRS, 1 FLDG. '02: 7TERR, 2 FLDG. '03: 7PRS, 3UKN. '04: 11 AD, 2UKN. '06: 9 AD

(ALBERO), 58 OBS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2006-06-102006-06-10


29840EO Index:

Sources

ATWOOD, J.L. CALIFORNIA BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER POPULATION SURVEY, 1980. UCLA DEPT. OF

BIOLOGY. 1980-XX-XX.

ATW80U0001

ATWOOD, J., C. REYNOLDS, M. FUGAGLI & S. TSAI. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHERS, CACTUS WRENS, AND

CONSERVATION OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA. 1995-11-01.

ATW95R0001

ATWOOD, J.L. ET AL. DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION SIZE OF CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ON THE PALOS

VERDES PENINSULA, 1993-1997. 1998-07-06.

ATW98A0001

JIMERSON, N. (MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES). SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA

GNATCATCHER SURVEYS (2002) AT PENINSULA POINT IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALSO VERDES, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY. 2002-07-09.

BRA02U0002

BRAMLET, D. BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SALVATION ARMY EDUCATIONAL FACILITY IN THE RANCHO PALOS

VERDES, CALIFORNIA. 1991-10-XX.

BRA91R0003

COURTOIS, B.O. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA (COASTAL CALIFORNIA

GNATCATCHER). 2000-07-17.

COU00F0001

COURTOIS, B. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA. 2001-04-09.COU01F0001






ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources

COURTOIS, B.O. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA. 2004-04-30.COU04F0002


COURTOIS, B.O. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA. 2006-06-10.COU06F0022

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, CARLSBAD OFFICE. USFWS CARLSBAD SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES DATABASE,

AUGUST 2007 VERSION. 2007-08-09.

FWS07D0001

GARRETT, K.L. & B.E. DANIELS. "STATUS OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ON THE PALOS VERDES

PENINSULA" (WESTERN TANAGER, VOL 57, NO 2, OCT 1990). 1990-10-XX.

GAR90A0001

IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING INITIATIVE TRACT 46628,

RANCHO PALOS VERDES. 1990-XX-XX.

IMP90R0001

MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS

(2001) AT PENINSULA POINTE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 2001-08-22.

MBA01R0001

LOEFFLER, W. (MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES). SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA

GNATCATCHER SURVEYS AT PENINSULA POINTE IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, LOS ANGELES

COUNTY. 1998-02-17.

MBA98U0001





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

34

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

THREATENED BY ONGOING URBAN DEVELOPMENT.




Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

Los Angeles

BETWEEN MARYMOUNT SCHOOL TO THE N, THE OCEAN TO THE S & W, & THE CITY/CORP BOUNDRY TO

THE E, RANCHO PALOS VERDES.





01865

UTM: Zone-11 N3732958 E375896

Map Index:

HABITAT IS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB, DOMINATED BY ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIOGONUM

FASCICULATUM, ISOCOMA VENETA, ENCELIA CALIFORNICA, SALVIA MELLIFERA; LESSER AMOUNTS OF

ERIOGONUM CINEREUM, MALOSMA LAURINA. HABITAT QUALITY: EXCELLENT TO POOR.

INCLUDES SWITCHBACKS OPEN SPACE & SHORELINE PARK. ATW80 SITE NAME KLOS. UPDATED W/ 61

FWS DIGITAL POLYGONS, SITE NAMES OCEAN TRAILS HCP ('97-98), FRIENDSHIP COMM REG PARK ('04),

TRUMP NAT'L GOLF COURSE ('05), PORTEGUESE BEND NAT PRES ('06).

1980: 7 PRS, EST 10-13 PRS. '90: 6 BRDS, 1 TERR. '91: 3 PRS. '92: 3-4 PRS. '95: 3 PRS. POOR SURVIVAL

WINTER '94-95. '97: SEP-OCT, 15 DETECTED. '98: 17 DETECTED (DUDEK). '04: 1 PR (SAPHOS). '05: 30

(15PRS?, DUDEK). '06: 88 DETECTIONS (DUDEK)

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2006-08-112006-08-11


21796EO Index:

Sources



ATW80U0001



ATW95R0001

DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 45-DAY REPORT FOR THE OCEAN TRAILS HCP AREA CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER

SURVEY, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 1997-12-08.

DUD97U0006



FWS07D0001



GAR90A0001

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PALOS VERDES COASTAL SPECIFIC

PLAN. 1992-03-17.

LSA92R0002

MORTON, J. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA ON PALOS VERDES PENINSULA. 1991-09-11.MOR91F0001

MORTON, J. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA ON PALOS VERDES PENINSULA (# 34).

1991-11-03.

MOR91F0002





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

35

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

THREATENED BY ONGOING URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AS MANY MAJOR HABITAT AREAS ARE OWNED BY

LAND COMPANIES.

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Beverly Hills (3411814/111C), Venice (3311884/090B), Hollywood (3411813/111D), Inglewood (3311883/090A)

Los Angeles

BALDWIN HILLS, VICINITY CULVER CITY


Range: 14WSection: 18 SE



Elevation: 200 ft

01722

UTM: Zone-11 N3761970 E372277

Map Index:

HABITAT IS COASTAL SAGE SCRUB, DOMINATED BY ARTEMISIA CALIFRONICA, ERIOGONUM

FASCICULATUM, AND SALVIA MELLIFERA.

ONE INDIVIDUAL OBSERVED; 1-3 PAIRS ESTIMATED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



25112EO Index:

Sources



ATW80U0001





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

105

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Burbank (3411823/111A), Van Nuys (3411824/111B)

Los Angeles

ROSCO. (MAPPED AT ROSCOE SCHOOL)





Elevation: 800 ft

01763

UTM: Zone-11 N3786883 E374209

Map Index:

EGG SET FROM A NEST IN SAGE.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1901-04-071901-04-07


25059EO Index:

Sources

JAY, A. WFVZ (EGG SET). 1901-04-07.JAY01S0001





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

108

Presence:Trend:

Excellent

Location:

THREATENED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND FREE-ROAMING DOMESTIC CATS.




Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A), Redondo Beach (3311874/090C), Torrance (3311873/090D)

Los Angeles

BOUNDED BY ABALONE COVE, PORTUGUESE BEND, SAN PEDRO HILL, ROLLING HILLS, & ALTAMIRA CYN

ON PALOS VERDES PENINSULA.





01741

UTM: Zone-11 N3734739 E374504

Map Index:

HABITAT: COASTAL SAGE SCRUB DOMINATED BY ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM,

ATRIPLEX LENTIFORMIS, ENCELIA CALIFORNICA, RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA, AND SALVIA MELLIFERA. MANY

AREAS NOW NATURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVES (PVPLC.ORG).

KLONDIKE CANYON IS CRITICAL TO SURVIVAL OF GNATCATCHERS ON PALOS VERDES PENINSULA.

UPDATED WITH 44 FWS 80M POLYGONS. 2000 SITE NAME UPPER FILIORUM. 2006 SITE NAME PORTUGUESE

BEND NATURE PRESERVE.

1980: 5 PRS & 3 INDIV, EST 15-25 PRS. 1990: 21 INDIV, 5 TERR. 1992: 4 BREEDING INDIV. 1995: 11 PRS. 1996: 3

BREEDING PRS. 2000: 2 PRS (NAT. RES. CONSULT.). 2006: 121 DETECTIONS (DUDEK).

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2006-08-182006-08-18


29842EO Index:

Sources



ATW80U0001



ATW95R0001

ATWOOD, J.L. ET AL. DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION SIZE OF CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ON THE PALOS

VERDES PENINSULA, 1993-1997. 1998-07-06.

ATW98A0001



FWS07D0001



GAR90A0001

MORTON, J. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA ON PALOS VERDES PENINSULA (#108).

1992-03-28.

MOR92F0001

WOLF, A. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA. 1996-03-01.WOL96F0003





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

260

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

LOW INTENSITY RECREATIONAL USE, ( HIKING & EQUESTRIAN TRAILS). SOIL/DEBRIS DUMPING JUST WEST

OF SITE.

DOD, CITY OF LOS ANGELES



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Sunland (3411833/137D)

Los Angeles

SOUTH END OF CHRISTY AVENUE, IN TUJUNGA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES.





Elevation: 1,080 ft

20716

UTM: Zone-11 N3792946 E375034

Map Index:

HABITAT IS FLOOD PLAIN VEGETATED BY ALLUVIAL SCRUB; DOMINATED BY LEPIDOSPARTUM

SQUAMATUM, YUCCA WHIPPLEYI, OPUNTIA LITTORALIS, OPUNTIA PARRYI, AND ERIODICTYON

CRASSIFOLIUM.

THIS IS A REDISCOVERY AT AN HISTORIC LOCALITY; TWO BIRDS IDENTIFIED BY BOTH SIGHT AND SOUND.

COASTAL CACTUS WRENS ALSO PRESENT. SITE CURRENTLY RECEIVES LOW INTENSITY RECREATIONAL

USE; EQUESTRIAN TRAILS BISECT THE HABITAT.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1991-03-311991-03-31


9412EO Index:

Sources

LONG, M.C. & J. PEPIN. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA. 1991-03-31.LON91F0001





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

868

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

ADJACENT HUMAN RECREATION, BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD NEST PARASITISM, UNLEASHED DOGS.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES-PARKS DEPT



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Sunland (3411833/137D), San Fernando (3411834/137C)

Los Angeles

HANSEN FLOOD CONTROL BASIN (HANSEN DAM RECREATIONAL AREA, CITY OF L.A. DEPT. REC & PARKS),

0.3 MI S OF BENCH MARK 1095.




80 metersSymbol Type: POINT

Elevation: 1,040 ft

71265

UTM: Zone-11 N3792927 E373269

Map Index:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF "COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA, ERIGONOM FASCICULATUM,

ERIODICTYON); INVADED BY EXOTIC ANNUALS INCLUDING BLACK MUSTARD.

MAPPED TO GIVEN COORDINATES. "EXACT SITE IS IMMEDIATELY W OF LITTLE TUJUNGA WASH, S OF

FOOTHILL (210) FREEWAY, E OF ATHLETIC FIELDS (BASEBALL) MANAGED BY CITY OF L.A. DEPT. REC. &

PARKS, & N OF THE MAIN LAKE W/IN THE BASIN."

FIRST SIGHTING OF 1 INDIVIDUAL BY EXPERIENCED ORNITHOLOGIST AFTER 200+ VISITS OVER

APPROXIMATELY THE PAST 10 YEARS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2008-03-292008-03-29


72170EO Index:

Sources



FWS07D0001

GARRETT, K.L. (LA COUNTY MUSEUM). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR POLIOPTILA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNICA.

2008-03-29.

GAR08F0001





ABPBJ08081


ThreatenedNone

G3T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

883

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

DEVELOPMENT.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES



Quad Summary:

County Summary:


Los Angeles

0.2 MILES NORTHWEST OF ODYSSEY DR AND BLUCHER AVE, GRANADA HILLS.


Range: 15WSection: 05 SE



Elevation: 1,260 ft

71290

UTM: Zone-11 N3794766 E364450

Map Index:

MAPPED WITH RESPECT TO FWS 500M DIAMETER DIGITAL POLYGON. SITE NAME: VALLEY BOMB SQUAD

FACILITY PROJECT SITE.

1 DETECTED ON 25 MAR 2004 BY B. DANIELS AND M. ROBSON (BONTERRA CONSULTING).

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2004-03-252004-03-25


72192EO Index:

Sources



FWS07D0001


General: FEDERAL LISTING REFERS TO POPULATIONS IN THE SAN GABRIEL, SAN JACINTO & SAN BERNARDINO

MOUNTAINS ONLY.

ALWAYS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN A FEW FEET OF WATER. TADPOLES MAY REQUIRE 2 - 4 YRS TO COMPLETE

THEIR AQUATIC DEVELOPMENT.

AAABH01330

Rana muscosaSierra Madre yellow-legged frog

EndangeredCandidate

Endangered

G1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

38

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

USFS-ANGELES NF


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Sunland (3411833/137D)

Los Angeles

HONEYBEE CAMPGROUND, UPPER PACOIMA CANYON, 0.6 MILE NW OF THE PINNACLE, ANGELES NF.





42571

UTM: Zone-11 N3802231 E375476

Map Index:

STREAM FLOWS THROUGH SOUTHERN COTTONWOOD WILLOW RIPARIAN FOREST.

MUSEUM RECORD LOCALITY: "HONEYBEE PUBLIC CAMP, UPPER PACOIMA CANYON, LOS ANGELES CO."

6 COLLECTED 13 NOV 1937, MVZ #'S 27118 - 27123. 6 COLLECTED 03 JAN 1939, MVZ #'S 27882 - 27887.

JENNINGS CONSIDERS THIS POPULATION TO BE EXTIRPATED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1939-01-031939-01-03


42571EO Index:

Sources

BACKLIN, A. (USGS-BRD). EXCEL SPREADSHEET OF CNDDB OCCURRENCES WITH EVALUATION OF THE

CURRENT STATUS OF RANA MUSCOSA AT EACH OF THESE SITES. 2010-04-22.

BAC10D0001

JENNINGS, M. & M. HAYES. AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

1994-11-01.

JEN94R0001

MVZ SPECIMEN DATABASE QUERY (UC, BERKELEY). PRINTOUT OF RANA MUSCOSA (MOUNTAIN

YELLOW-LEGGED FROG) IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

DIGITAL LIBRARY PROJECT. 2000-03-14.

MVZ00S0001



MOUNTAINS ONLY.



AAABH01330


EndangeredCandidate

Endangered

G1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

39

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

USFS-ANGELES NF


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:


Los Angeles

1 MILE ABOVE MOUTH OF PACOIMA CANYON, ANGELES NF, NE OF SAN FERNANDO.





42573

UTM: Zone-11 N3800515 E371753

Map Index:

THIS AREA NOW INCLUDES PACOIMA RESERVOIR.

MUSEUM RECORD LOCALITY: "1 MILE ABOVE MOUTH OF PACOIMA, SAN FERNANDO CANYON" (SHOULD BE

"PACOIMA CANYON"), LOS ANGELES CO. LAT/LONG: 34.33; -118.39. 1935 RECORD LABELED "PACOIMA

CANYON" MAPPED AT THIS LOCATION SINCE IT'S NOT MORE SPECIFIC.

1 COLLECTED IN 1918, MVZ #6904. 1 IN 1935, LACM #1707. JENNINGS CONSIDERS THIS POPULATION TO BE

EXTIRPATED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1937-07-291937-07-29


42573EO Index:

Sources



BAC10D0001

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. FAX OF "RANA MUSCOSA RECORDS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. - SPECIMENS

FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 2000-05-08.

FWS00U0006


1994-11-01.

JEN94R0001

MVZ SPECIMEN DATABASE QUERY (UC, BERKELEY). PRINTOUT OF RANA MUSCOSA (MOUNTAIN

YELLOW-LEGGED FROG) IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

DIGITAL LIBRARY PROJECT. 2000-03-14.

MVZ00S0001



MOUNTAINS ONLY.



AAABH01330


EndangeredCandidate

Endangered

G1S1State:

Global:


State:

Federal: SC


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

54

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, USFS


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Sunland (3411833/137D)

Los Angeles

TUJUNGA VALLEY (AKA TUJUNGA WASH) AND THE MOUTH OF BIG TUJUNA CANYON NORTH OF SUNLAND.

ANGELES NF.





42622

UTM: Zone-11 N3793235 E378811

Map Index:

POPULATED AREA.

CAS RECORDS GIVE SITE AS "TEJUNGA (SIC) WASH". LACM RECORDS GIVE SITE AS TUJUNGA WASH.

TUJUNGA WASH BELOW HANSEN DAM FLOWS THROUGH THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AT 600 FT ELEV

(TOO LOW FOR THIS SPECIES), MAPPED EAST OF I-210 AT CORRECT ELEV.

CAS #49050-49057; ALL JUVENILES, COLLECTED 24 SEP 1916 BY E.J. BROWN & IDENTIFIED BY HAYES &

JENNINGS ON 11 MAR 1992. 1 SPECIMEN COLLECTED IN 1930 BY C.M. BOGERT, LACM #13242. JENNINGS

CONSIDERED THIS POPULATION EXTIRPATED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1930-05-081930-05-08


42622EO Index:

Sources



BAC10D0001

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. CAS HERPETOLOGY HOLDINGS (INCLUDES STANFORD UNIVERSITY

COLLECTIONS) FOR RANA MUSCOSA, 1900-1949. 1949-XX-XX.

CAS49S0001

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. FAX OF "RANA MUSCOSA RECORDS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. - SPECIMENS

FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. 2000-05-08.

FWS00U0006


1994-11-01.

JEN94R0001


General: COLONIAL NESTER; NESTS PRIMARILY IN RIPARIAN AND OTHER LOWLAND HABITATS WEST OF THE DESERT.

REQUIRES VERTICAL BANKS/CLIFFS WITH FINE-TEXTURED/SANDY SOILS NEAR STREAMS, RIVERS, LAKES,

OCEAN TO DIG NESTING HOLE.

ABPAU08010

Riparia ripariabank swallow

NoneThreatened

G5S2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

102

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

UNKNOWN


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A)

AREA OF SAN PEDRO AND DEAD MANS ISLAND (RESERVATION POINT), LOS ANGELES COUNTY.

Lat/Long: 33.72983º / -118.27637º Township: 99X

Range: 99XSection: UN XX

Meridian: XMapping Precision: NON-SPECIFIC


Elevation: 20 ft

84233

UTM: Zone-11 N3732933 E381753

Map Index:

AERIAL IMAGE (2010) SHOWS THAT THE AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. DEAD MAN'S ISLAND IS NOW

CALLED RESERVATION POINT AND THE EAST SIDE OF MAIN CHANNEL HAS SINCE BEEN FILLED IN AND

DEVELOPED ALONG WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF SAN PEDRO BAY.

WFVZ EGG SETS: "L.A. AND SAN PEDRO ROAD," "ON L.A. AND SAN PEDRO ROAD NEAR S.P," & SAN PEDRO."

SHEPARDSON: "LARGE COLONY WAS NESTING ON DEAD MAN'S ISLAND AND IN THE BANKS AT THE

LUMBER YARDS IN SAN PEDRO."

2 LARGE COLONIES OBS BY SHEPARDSON: APR-JUN, 1908-09. 4 WFV EGG SETS: 1 TAKEN BY WILLET

(1904), 1 TAKEN BY SNYDER (1909), 2 TAKEN BY NOKES (1915). COLONY OBS NESTING IN 1921.

CONSIDERED EXTIRPATED AS A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BREEDER (SCH92).

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



85259EO Index:

Sources

BIRD LORE. EXCERPT FROM "THE SEASON" FOR LOS ANGELES REGION, FROM BIRD LORE 23: 249, 255-56,

1921. 1921-XX-XX.

BIR21A0001

SCHLORFF, R. (CDFW). RECOVERY PLAN: BANK SWALLOW. DFG NONGAME & MAMMAL SECTION REPORT 93.02.

1992-12-XX.

SCH92R0001

SHEPARDSON, D. NOTES ON THE NESTING OF THE BANK SWALLOW. CONDOR 11:174. 1909-XX-XX.SHE09A0001


1981). XXXX-XX-XX.

WFVNDS0001





ABPAU08010


NoneThreatened

G5S2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

105

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

UNKNOWN


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Pasadena (3411822/110B), El Monte (3411811/110D), Los Angeles (3411812/110C), Mt. Wilson (3411821/110A)

Los Angeles

VICINITY OF ALHAMBRA.





Elevation:

84246

UTM: Zone-11 N3770966 E392673

Map Index:

NEST OF STICKS AND GRASS LINED WITH OAK LEAVES, HAY, PEPPER TREE LEAVES AND HORSE HAIR,

PLACED IN A BANK 1.5 FEET FROM MOUTH OF HOLE.

LOCATION STATED AS "ALHAMBRA." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED TO THE AREA OF ALHAMBRA

INCLUDING PORTIONS OF ARROYO SECO, LOS ANGELES RIVER, AND ALHAMBRA WASH.

WFVZ EGG SET (3 EGGS) COLLECTED BY C. H. RICHARSON, JR. ON 21 MAY 1902. CONSIDERED

EXTIRPATED AS A BREEDER IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (SCH92).

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1894-07-041894-07-04


85270EO Index:

Sources


1992-12-XX.

SCH92R0001


1981). XXXX-XX-XX.

WFVNDS0001





ABPAU08010


NoneThreatened

G5S2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

288

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

DPR-WILL ROGERS/SANTA MONICA


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Topanga (3411815/112D)

Los Angeles

"PORT LOS ANGELES" LONG WHARF, NOW WILL ROGERS STATE BEACH, PACIFIC PALISADES.





Elevation: 14 ft

84228

UTM: Zone-11 N3766487 E359601

Map Index:

"A SMALL COLONY WAS NESTING IN THE BLUFFS NEAR THE LONG WHARF, PORT ANGELES." THIS WHARF

WAS LOCATED IN THE AREA OF WILL ROGERS STATE BEACH. THE WHARF WAS DISMANTLED DURING

1919-20.

BIRDS OBSERVED NESTING DURING MAY AND JUNE OF 1907. CONSIDERED EXTIRPATED AS A BREEDER IN

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (SCH92).

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1907-06-XX1907-06-XX


85255EO Index:

Sources


1992-12-XX.

SCH92R0001

SHEPARDSON, D. NOTES ON THE NESTING OF THE BANK SWALLOW. CONDOR 11:174. 1909-XX-XX.SHE09A0001


General: NESTS ALONG THE COAST FROM SAN FRANCISCO BAY SOUTH TO NORTHERN BAJA CALIFORNIA.

COLONIAL BREEDER ON BARE OR SPARSELY VEGETATED, FLAT SUBSTRATES: SAND BEACHES, ALKALI FLATS,

LAND FILLS, OR PAVED AREAS.

ABNNM08103

Sternula antillarum browniCalifornia least tern


G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

12

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

1990 CAT PREDATION, ATTEMPTS MADE TO TRAP. VEGETATION OVERGROWTH. NESTING FAILURE DUE TO

LOCAL FOOD SHORTAGE.

DPR-DOCKWEILER SB



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

VENICE BEACH SITE. SOUTHERN END OF VENICE BEACH, NORTH OF BALLONA CREEK, PART OF

DOCKWEILER STATE BEACH.





01439

UTM: Zone-11 N3759541 E365219

Map Index:

PRIOR TO THE 1988 SEASON, NEST SITE WAS ENLARGED, AND A NEW FENCE ELIMINATED MUCH OF THE

PREDATION AND DISTURBANCE.

HISTORICALLY, BIRDS NESTED ALONG THIS ENTIRE BEACH STRAND. RECORDS FROM "DEL REY", "MARINA

DEL REY" AND "DEL REY LAGOON". BIRDS ALSO NESTED ON FILL SITE FOR HARBOR. UCLA #32595.

NESTING RECORDS FROM VENICE BEACH GO BACK TO 1898.

1973-84: MEAN OF 106 PR/YR, GOOD FLEDGING; 1985: 107 NESTS, 113 FLEDGED; 1987: 109 PR, 82 FLEDGED.

1988: 165 PR, 192 FLEDGED. 1990: 206 PR, 279 FLEDGED. 1991: 198 PR, 200 FLEDGED, 1992: 229 PR, 245

FLEDGED. 1996: 271 PR, 92 FLEDGED.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



25699EO Index:

Sources

ANONYMOUS. UCLA - DICKEY COLLECTION, #32595. 1929-07-02.ANO29S0001

ATWOOD, J.L. ET AL. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN CENSUS & NESTING SURVEY, 1977, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF FISH & GAME, 1977. 1977-XX-XX.

ATW77R0001

CAFFREY, C. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1992 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD AND MAMMAL

SECTION REPORT, 93-11. 1993-XX-XX.

CAF93R0001

COLLINS, C.T. END OF SEASON REPORT, CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN FIELD STUDY, 1987 FIELD SEASON. (DRAFT).

1987-XX-XX.

COL87R0001

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - REGION 5. DFG R-5 MONTHLY REPORT: EXCERPTS ON LEAST

TERNS AT VENICE BEACH AND BOLSA CHICA (5 COPIES). 1990-06-XX.

DFG90U0011

ERICKSON, R.A. ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LEAST TERN COLONY SITES IN CALIFORNIA. THESIS AT

CSU HAYWARD. 1985-XX-XX.

ERI85R0001

JOHNSTON, S.M. & B.S. OBST. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1991 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD

AND MAMMAL SECTION REPORT, 92-06. 1992-XX-XX.

JOH92R0001

MASSEY, B.W. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN FIELD STUDY, 1988 BREEDING SEASON. 1988-XX-XX.MAS88R0001





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources

MASSEY, B. & J. FANCHER. "RENESTING BY CALIFORNIA LEAST TERNS." JOURNAL OF FIELD ORNITHOLOGY.

1989-XX-XX.

MAS89A0001

OBST, B.S. & S.M. JOHNSTON. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1990 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD


OBS92R0001

WELLS, S. FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR NORTH AMERICAN NEST RECORD CARD PROGRAM; CORNELL LAB.

ORNITHOLOGY. 1965-XX-XX.

WEL65F0001





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

13

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:



ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

BEETHOVEN ST FILL. BALLONA CR.





01562

UTM: Zone-11 N3760842 E368241

Map Index:

NESTING AREA TRIANGULARLY BORDERED BY BALLONA CREEK, FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND A

FENCE. SUBSTRATE IS LIGHT COLORED, SANDY DREDGE MATERIAL WITH SPARSE VEGETATION COVER.

FIRST YEAR OF CONFIRMED NESTING HERE; POTENTIAL GOOD, EVEN THOUGH 3 PAIR FLEDGED 0. IN 1978

LARGE MOUNDS OF SANDY DREDGE MATERIAL WERE PLACED ON THE SITE RENDERING THE AREA

UNSUITABLE FOR NESTING.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



25698EO Index:

Sources



ATW77R0001



ATW79R0001

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - REGION 5. DFG R-5 MONTHLY REPORT: EXCERPTS ON LEAST

TERNS AT VENICE BEACH AND BOLSA CHICA (5 COPIES). 1990-06-XX.

DFG90U0011





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

14

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

EQUESTRIANS, MOTORCYCLES, FLOODING OF NESTING AREAS.




Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Venice (3311884/090B)

Los Angeles

MOUTH OF BALLONA CREEK, BETWEEN MARINA DEL REY ON THE NORTH & DEL REY BLUFFS ON THE

SOUTH.





01492

UTM: Zone-11 N3759118 E366401

Map Index:

TERNS NEST AND ROOST ON SALT/MUD FLATS; FEED IN THE MARINA, BALLONA CREEK, BALLONA

LAGOON, AND CANALS IN THE AREA.

1965 OBSERVATION FROM MARINA DEL REY NEAR HARBOR AREA & BALLONA CREEK. IN 1970'S-80'S

TERNS USED SALT/MUD FLATS WITHIN MARSH. BREEDING AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO FLOODING IF

BALLONA CREEK TIDE GATES ARE OPENED DURING BREEDING SEASON. AREA B.

1965: BIRDS OBS. 1973-75 & 79-84: MEAN OF 11 PRS/YR. 1976: SITE ABANDONED. 1977: NO NESTING. 1978:

25-30 PRS, 30 FLEDGED. 1981-82: BREEDING AREA FLOODED. 1987: NO NESTING. NO MENTION OF THIS

AREA IN MONITORING REPORTS AFTER 1987.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



13026EO Index:

Sources



ATW79R0001

BENDER, K. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN POPULATION AND NESTING SURVEY, 1974, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT


BEN74R0001

BENDER, K. ET AL. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN CENSUS & NESTING SURVEY. 1976-XX-XX.BEN76R0001


1987-XX-XX.

COL87R0001

COOPER, E. LEAST TERN BREEDING SEASON IN SAN DIEGO CO. 1979-XX-XX.COO79R0001

MASSEY, B. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN CENSUS & NESTING SURVEY. 1975-09-XX.MAS75R0001




SCH81R0001





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

16

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

LANDFILL & GRADING DISRUPTED COLONY IN 1973 & 74. AREA PAVED AS A PARKING LOT PRIOR TO 1987

SEASON & COLONY EXTIRPATED.

PVT


ExtirpatedUnknown

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A), Torrance (3311873/090D)

Los Angeles

REEVES FIELD ON TERMINAL ISLAND. TAKE TERMINAL ISLAND FREEWAY TO SEASIDE BLVD.





Elevation: 5 ft

02005

UTM: Zone-11 N3735207 E383754

Map Index:

SITE NOW A PARKING AREA FOR IMPORTED CARS.

1974:10-12 PR; 1975: 24 PR; 1976: 60 PR ~ 80 FLEDGED; 1977: 85 PR, ~80 FLEDGED; 0 PR 1978-80 & 1982.

1981: ~45 PR, ~ 7 FLEDGED. 46 NESTS IN 1983, GOOD FLEDGING. 28 NESTS IN 1984, MOST YOUNG LOST TO

KESTREL. 23 NESTS IN 1985.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1985-07-311987-XX-XX


25695EO Index:

Sources



ATW77R0001

BENDER, K. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN POPULATION AND NESTING SURVEY, 1974, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT


BEN74R0001

BENDER, K. ET AL. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN CENSUS & NESTING SURVEY. 1976-XX-XX.BEN76R0001

COOPER, E. LEAST TERN BREEDING SEASON IN SAN DIEGO CO. 1979-XX-XX.COO79R0001

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE. THREAT TO CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN DEFUSED BY COORDINATION.

ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN VOL. VII NO. 12. 1982-12-XX.

FWS82U0001

MASSEY, B. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN CENSUS & NESTING SURVEY. 1975-09-XX.MAS75R0001

MASSEY, B.W. & J.L. ATWOOD. APPLICATION OF ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT FOR

THE CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN PROGRAM REPORT NO. 1 PREPARED FOR USFWS, LAGUNA NIGEL. 1979-XX-XX.

MAS79R0002



MAS82R0001



MAS83R0001





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

63

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

THREATS INCLUDE HARRASSMENT BY CROWS; CROW ERADICATION NEEDED IF COLONY IS TO SURVIVE.

FERAL CATS ALSO A PROBLEM.

DOD-NAVY


Presumed ExtantIncreasing

Quad Summary:

County Summary:

San Pedro (3311863/073A), Long Beach (3311872/089C)

TERMINAL ISLAND LANDFILL SITE SOUTH OF FERRY STREET & EAST OF EARLE STREET (AKA FERRY

STREET SITE).

Lat/Long: 33.73862º / -118.25258º Township: 99X

Range: 99XSection: XX XX



Elevation:

02008

UTM: Zone-11 N3733879 E383970

Map Index:

SITE CREATED BY INTRODUCTION OF NEW LANDFILL IN ABOUT 1980.

1982: 70 NESTS, 15 FLDGD; 1983: 45 NESTS, 30 FLDGD; 1984: 105 NESTS, GOOD FLDGNG; 1985: 76 NESTS,

GOOD FLDGNG; 1987: 40 PR, POOR FLDGNG. 1988: 4-6 PR, ABANDONED. 1990: 32 PR, 12 FLDGD. 1991: 2 PR.

1992: 0 PR. 1996: 56 PR, 50 FLDGD.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1996-08-011996-08-01


25657EO Index:

Sources

CAFFREY, C. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1992 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD AND MAMMAL

SECTION REPORT, 93-11. 1993-XX-XX.

CAF93R0001

CAFFREY, C. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1996 SEASON. BIRD AND MAMMAL CONSERVATION

PROGRAM REPORT, 98-2. 1998-XX-XX.

CAF98R0001


1987-XX-XX.

COL87R0001

JOHNSTON, S.M. & B.S. OBST. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1991 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD


JOH92R0001



MAS82R0001



MAS83R0001



MAS84R0001

MASSEY, B.W. & J.L. ATWOOD. ANALYSIS OF BANDED CALIFORNIA LEAST TERNS NESTING ON NORTH BEACH,

CAMP PENDLETON, P.O. #MOO-85-M-7213, US MARINE CORPS. 1985-08-25.

MAS85R0001

MASSEY, B.W. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN FIELD STUDY, 1988 BREEDING SEASON. 1988-XX-XX.MAS88R0001





ABNNM08103



G4T2T3QS2S3State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

Sources

OBST, B.S. & S.M. JOHNSTON. CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN BREEDING SURVEY 1990 SEASON. NONGAME BIRD


OBS92R0001


General: SUMMER RESIDENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN LOW RIPARIAN IN VICINITY OF WATER OR IN DRY RIVER

BOTTOMS; BELOW 2000 FT.

NESTS PLACED ALONG MARGINS OF BUSHES OR ON TWIGS PROJECTING INTO PATHWAYS, USUALLY WILLOW,

BACCHARIS, MESQUITE.

ABPBW01114

Vireo bellii pusillusleast Bell's vireo


G5T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

62

Presence:Trend:

Unknown

Location:

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:


Los Angeles

SAN FERNANDO AT VAN NORMAN DAM


Range: 15WSection: 30 N



Elevation: 1,240 ft

01288

UTM: Zone-11 N3797831 E362728

Map Index:

SUITABLE RIPARIAN HABITAT HAS DEVELOPED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS FOLLOWING DRAINAGE OF THE

RESERVOIR.

2 MALES FOUND.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen



24991EO Index:

Sources

GOLDWASSER, S. DISTRIBUTION, REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS AND IMPACT OF NEST PARASITISM BY

BROWN-HEADED COWBIRDS ON LEAST BELL'S VIREOS. CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH AND GAME. 1978-XX-XX.

GOL78R0001

WILBUR, S. EXCERPT FROM: DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN FOR LEAST BELL'S VIREO. 1981-XX-XX.WIL81U0006






ABPBW01114



G5T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

266

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

THREATENED BY HEAVY PUBLIC USE, TRASH.

DOD-COE



Quad Summary:

County Summary:


Los Angeles

JUST WEST OF HANSEN LAKE AND EAST OF OSBORNE STREET, SE SAN FERNANDO


Range: 14WSection: 18 NW



54544

UTM: Zone-11 N3792339 E372130

Map Index:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF WILLOW FOREST AND WILLOW WOODLAND.

AN ESTIMATED 4-5 SINGING MALES WERE DETECTED ON 23 JUL 2003.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2003-07-232003-07-23


54544EO Index:

Sources

CARR, D. (CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR VIREO BELLII PUSILLUS. 2003-07-23.CAR03F0012






ABPBW01114



G5T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

269

Presence:Trend:

Good

Location:

THREATS INCLUDES FERAL CATS AND HOMELESS CAMPS.

DOD-COE



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Van Nuys (3411824/111B)

Los Angeles

SEPULVEDA BASIN WILDLIFE AREA, VAN NUYS.





Elevation: 700 ft

54847

UTM: Zone-11 N3783050 E363685

Map Index:

HABITAT CONSISTS OF WILLOW/MULEFAT SCRUB AND SCATTERED COTTONWOODS AND SYCAMORES.

LARGE WILDLIFE LAKE AND DRAINAGE CHANNEL (LINED WITH WILLOWS) AT THIS LOCATION.

SURROUNDING LAND USED FOR RECREATION.

LOCATED IN 15 YEAR OLD RESTORATION AREA.

1 SINGING MALE DETECTED ON 29 MAY 2004 DURING THE NESTING SEASON. COE FLOOD CONTROL AREA

IN L.A. RIVER FLOOD PLANE. AREA LEASED TO L.A. CITY PARKS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Radius:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

2004-05-292004-05-29


54847EO Index:

Sources

HARRIS, S. (CDFW). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR VIREO BELLII PUSILLUS. 2004-05-29.HAR04F0002






ABPBW01114



G5T2S2State:

Global:


State:

Federal:


CDFG Status:

Element Code:

Micro:




CNDDB LA City Quads

347

Presence:Trend:

None

Location:

BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD EGG COLLECTED FROM NEST. AREA IS HIGHLY DEVELOPED, AND I-5

PARALLELS LOS ANGELES RIV NEAR GLENDALE.

UNKNOWN



Quad Summary:

County Summary:

Pasadena (3411822/110B), Hollywood (3411813/111D), Burbank (3411823/111A), Los Angeles (3411812/110C)

Los Angeles

GLENDALE AND TROPICO (HISTORIC).





86908

UTM: Zone-11 N3778006 E384026

Map Index:

EGGS COLLECTED FROM NEST 4 FEET HIGH IN A COTTONWOOD TREE IN 1914.

LOCALITIES: "NEAR GLENDALE" & "TROPICO." MVZ COORDINATES (2 MI ERROR) AT GLENDALE. TROPICO

ANNEXED BY GLENDALE, 1918. MAPPED GENERALLY TO GLENDALE & VICINITY OF TROPICO ON 1894

TOPO. MAY HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE LOS ANGELS RIVER JUST W.

3 EGGS COLLECTED ON 21 MAY 1891 BY C. S. HAINES. 3 LEAST BELL'S VIREO EGGS AND 1 COWBIRD EGG

COLLECTED ON 24 MAY 1914 BY C. O. REIS.

Qtr:

Origin:

Occurrence No.

Occ Rank:

Location Detail:

Ecological:

Threat:

General:

Owner/Manager:

Area:

Element:Site:

Dates Last Seen

1914-05-241914-05-24


87860EO Index:

Sources

HAINES, C. (YALE UNIVERSITY). YALE PEABODY MUSEUM (YPM) ORNITHOLOGY SPECIMEN #132405. 1891-05-21.HAI91S0001

REIS, C. (MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY). MVZ EGG/NEST COLLECTION #4850. 1914-05-24.REI14S0001


Documents

Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration forimpact report should be prepared; otherwise the lead agency may adopt a negative ... Section II, Project Description: provides a description