Newhall Ranch Resource management and Development Plan (RMDP) and Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP), and associated Master Streambed Alteration Agreement No.

Newhall Ranch Resource management and Development Plan (RMDP) and Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP), and associated Master Streambed Alteration Agreement No.

The project was previously approved by the CDFW in 2010 consists of the MSAA and ITPs identified above, all of which rely on otherwise implement in whole or in part of the RMDP and SCP. In approving the Project in 2010 CDFW also certified an environmental impact report (hereafter, the 2010 EIR), and took other related actions under CEQA and the Fish and Game Code, including the filing of a NOD and Decision on Dec. 3, 2010. In 2015 in related litigation the CA Supreme Court identified two issues in need of further attention by CDFW. (Center for Biological Diversity v CDFW (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204). The court directed CDFW to revisit its 2010 determination that the project's GHG would not be significant under CEQA. The Court also held that two mitigation measures approved by CDFW in 2010 authorizing, if necessary, collection and relocation of stranded fish during in-water construction activity violated protections afforded species designated as "fully protected" under the Fish and Game Code. On remand from the Supreme Court the Project applicant, the Newhall Land and Farming Company proposed various modifications to the previously approved Project to address the two issues identified by the Supreme Court. As to GHG, the project applicant developed a suite of thirteen measures in a detailed reduction plan to achieve "Net Zero Emissions" for the project, thereby offsetting 100% of the Project's GHG Emissions. Relying on technical input from the CARB CDFW has determined that the project's GHG emissions will not be significant under CEQA. As to the collection and relocation measures addressed by the Supreme Court, the Project applicant proposed modifications to obviate any need for the measures as originally approved by CDFW in 2010. Specifically, the Project applicant will implement changes to the timing and construction methods for the project bridges and bank stabilization infrastructure that will avoid all water contact during the construction of those facilities. With the "no water contact" during related construction and minimal, less impacting physical changes tot eh previously approved footprint of the bridges and bank stabilization infrastructure CDFW has determined the two measures addressed by the Supreme Court are no longer necessary.

Santa Clarita

Los Angeles