David Magney Environmental Consulting - California Native Plant ...

David Magney Environmental Consulting 

Ms. Carolina Blengini 

Department of Regional Planning 

County of Los Angeles 

Hall of Records 

320 West Temple Street, Room 1362 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

3 January 2011 

Subject: Comments on Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DEIR (State Clearing House 

No. 2005051143) 

Dear Ms. Blengini: 

P.O. Box 1346, Ojai, California 93024-1346 * E-mail: david@magney.org 

805/646-6045 Voice * 805/646-6975 FAX 

www.magney.org 

David Magney Environmental Consulting (DMEC) is providing these comments on behalf of the Friends of 

the Santa Clara River, a California nonprofit corporation, and the California Native Plant Society, which is a 

member organization of the Friends. 

DMEC herein provides comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Newhall Land 

and Farming Company’s Mission Village Development. DMEC is focusing its review on the biological and 

wetland resources of the project site and how the proposed project will impact those resources. 

Issues raised in this letter are listed in the Table of Contents: 

Table of Contents 

Biological Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Wildlife Guilds as Assessment Method ..................................................................................................................... 3 

Special-status Species................................................................................................................................................ 8 

Special-status Plants in the DEIR........................................................................................................................ 11 

Slender Mariposa Lily ..................................................................................................................................... 12 

San Fernando Valley Spineflower.................................................................................................................... 15 

Newhall Ranch Spineflower Conservation Plan........................................................................................... 19 

Climate Data Required to Understand Plant Ecology............................................................................... 23 

SCP Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................................ 24 

SFVS Knowledge Lacking....................................................................................................................... 25 

Population Dynamics........................................................................................................................ 26 

Seedbanks and Genetics.................................................................................................................... 26 

Preserve Design, Management Activities, and Monitoring Activities............................................... 27 

Preserve Design ............................................................................................................................ 27 

Buffer Areas ................................................................................................................................. 28 

Insufficient Buffer to Exclude Argentine Ant ................................................................................ 29 

Connectivity Between Preserves ....................................................................................................... 30 

Management and Monitoring Activities................................................................................................ 32 

Preserve Manager............................................................................................................................. 32 

Landscaping Adjacent to Preserves................................................................................................... 32 

Access .............................................................................................................................................. 33 

Management for Argentine Ant ............................................................................................................ 33 

D:\DMEC\Jobs\Friends_SantaClaraRiver\Newhall-MissionVillage\DMEC_comments_on_Newhall_MissionVillage_DEIR-20110103.doc

Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development 

DMEC Project No. 10-0181 

1/3/2011 

Page 2 

D:\DMEC\Jobs\Friends_SantaClaraRiver\Newhall-MissionVillage\DMEC_comments_on_Newhall_MissionVillage_DEIR-20110103.doc 

DMEC 

Restoration Activities within Preserve Areas .................................................................................... 34 

Monitoring Activities............................................................................................................................ 35 

The Spineflower Monitoring Program.............................................................................................. 35 

Qualitative Monitoring Activities within Preserve Areas .................................................................. 35 

Spineflower Introduction Program........................................................................................................ 36 

Seed Collection................................................................................................................................. 36 

Conservation of the Seed Bank......................................................................................................... 37 

Spineflower Information Center........................................................................................................ 37 

Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 37 

SCP is Inadequate to Mitigation Impacts to SFVS................................................................................... 38 

Lack of Adequate Data......................................................................................................................... 39 

1. Failure of Reintroduction as a Viable Spineflower Mitigation Strategy ........................................ 40 

2. Lack of Knowledge About Genetics ............................................................................................ 40 

3. Pollination Not Fully Understood and Existing Data Not Used..................................................... 41 

4. Seed Dispersal............................................................................................................................. 42 

5. Soils............................................................................................................................................. 42 

6. Elevation, Slope, and Aspect ....................................................................................................... 43 

7. Competition................................................................................................................................. 43 

8. Predators...................................................................................................................................... 43 

9. Climate........................................................................................................................................ 44 

Locally Rare Plants Not Adequately Assessed............................................................................................. 46 

Special-status Wildlife in the DEIR......................................................................................................................... 51 

Special-status Mollusks in the DEIR ................................................................................................................... 51 

Loss of Local Biodiversity Not Assessed................................................................................................................. 56 

Vegetation Classification......................................................................................................................................... 57 

Grasslands........................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Impacts to “Common” Plant Communities.......................................................................................................... 58 

Inadequacy of Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................................... 59 

Inadequacy of the RMDP/SCP & EIS/EIR.............................................................................................................. 59 

Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan....................................................................................................................... 60 

Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

Appropriate Taxa for Mitigation Plant Palettes....................................................................................................... 61 

Definition of “Self-sustaining” for Monitoring Success Needed .............................................................................. 62 

Eliminate Loophole for Modifying Mitigation Success Criteria............................................................................... 62 

Inappropriate Use of Invasive Exotic Species as Habitat Creation Mitigation......................................................... 63 

Use of Restoration Areas as Mitigation Banks ........................................................................................................ 63 

Establishing Accounting System for Wetland Mitigation Requirements.................................................................. 63 

Improper Impact Assessment of “Giant Reed” Habitat ........................................................................................... 63 

Impacts to Santa Clara River and Inadequacy of Wetland Mitigation Measures.................................................... 64 

EPA Recommends Denial of the RMDP/SCP Project ............................................................................................ 64 

Potentially Significant Impacts the Santa Clara River and Tributaries................................................................. 65 

Mitigation Rule Not Followed ............................................................................................................................. 65 

Jurisdictional Waters Not Properly Assessed....................................................................................................... 65 

Proposed Buffered Size Inadequate...................................................................................................................... 66 

Inadequate Attention Paid to Federal Floodplain Development Policy in Analyzing Project Alternatives ........... 68 

Inadequate Mission Village Wetland Mitigation Measures.................................................................................. 69



1/3/2011 

Page 3 


DMEC 

A very important part of CEQA, which is often ignored or overlooked is that of legislative intent. 

CEQA § 21001. Additional Legislative Intent, states: 

“The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to: 

(a) “Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action 

necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state. 

(b) “Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment 

of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive 

noise. 

(c) “Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and 

wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future 

generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major 

periods of California history.” 

The intent of CEQA must be considered concerning a project’s impacts on the environment. The health, 

vitality, and viability of the ecosystem is the foundation of the well-being of the human environment, which 

is why the legislature, when it enacted CEQA, made a point to delineate those aspects of CEQA that where 

not delineated expressly elsewhere in the Act. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The assessment of biological resources is addressed in Section 4.3 of the DEIR. Issues reviewed below 

include the feasibility and reasonableness of wildlife guilds, assessment, or lack of assessment, of terrestrial 

mollusks and locally rare plants, unfounded bases for take and preservation of the San Fernando Valley 

Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), and endangered species, and inadequate mitigation for 

the SFVS and Slender Mariposa Lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). Also addressed is the inadequate 

assessment of special-status vascular plants, locally rare species, wildlife, wetlands, and assessment of 

impacts on common wildlife species. 

Unlike most project EIRs, the Newhall Ranch project, including the Mission Village project DEIR, relies 

heavily on previous EIRs, even those that had not been certified at the time of their publication. This 

comment letter regularly refers to previous related Newhall Ranch project EIRs and supporting documents, 

and includes those as part of the record in support of these comments on the Mission Village DEIR. 

Wildlife Guilds as Assessment Method 

Page 4.3-413 of the DEIR talks about common wildlife “guilds”, which are category buckets designed to 

address impacts without looking at impacts directly on unprotected species. Whether these buckets 

meaningfully capture impacts on the species of wildlife with no special protective status is discussed below. 

The methodology of the assessment through the use of guilds is not addressed in the methods section. The 

first mention of this assessment approach occurs on page 4.3-313 in discussing the cumulative impacts.



1/3/2011 

Page 4 


DMEC 

The DEIR groups common wildlife species in the guilds (as defined in footnote 529 at the bottom of page 

4.3-413 “Species guilds are groups of species that use or exploit similar resources or have similar life history 

characteristics even though they may represent different taxonomic groups.” to simplify the impact 

assessment analysis, primarily, 

“This cumulative biology impacts analysis is organized into four separate discussions. The first 

addresses cumulative impacts to vegetation communities and land covers. The second addresses 

cumulative impacts to general wildlife (by species guild). 529 The third addresses impacts to wildlife 

habitat linkages, wildlife corridors, and wildlife crossings (again, by species guilds). The fourth 

addresses impacts to special-status species, as such species are defined in subsection 4.3.7(d) of this 

EIR.” 

Page 4.3-443 of the DEIR, (2) Impacts to Common Wildlife Organized by Species Guilds and Other 

Associations, states: 

“The cumulative impact analysis for common wildlife also uses the “project list” approach for the 

watershed, as applied to the wildlife guilds 554 shown in Table 4.3-24. For each wildlife guild or other 

association, the habitat relationships were analyzed in the same manner as the vegetation 

communities and land covers described above in subsection 4.3.11.c.1.” 

The above reference is based on page 4.5-13 of the SCP DEIR: 

“Because common wildlife species have no formal conservation status, they have been grouped into 

"guilds," which correspond to their common wildlife classification and, in some cases, to the habitat 

they use and their relative mobility. Thus, for example, in addition to the Insect guild, the Fish guild, 

and the Aquatic Mollusk guild, there is also a Bird – Upland Woodland guild, and a Mammal – Low 

Mobility guild, among others.” 

“The purpose of the Common Wildlife impact analysis is to determine the extent to which the various 

components of the proposed Project and alternatives would affect these common animal species, 

that, nonetheless, probably provide important biological functions in the overall ecosystem (e.g., as 

predators or prey).” (Page 4.5-13.) 

While DMEC commends the preparers for considering “common” wildlife species, the guilds used are 

either overly simplistic or in fact include special-status species, which is contrary to its basic purported focus 

on common wildlife species. The Aquatic Guild is a perfect example, which includes a rare undescribed 

aquatic snail and at least two rare fish species. Therefore, this guild, and most of the others, does not truly 

represent the more common wildlife species. The guild approach fails to recognize the fact that each and 

every species has specific habitat, food, nesting, and migration patterns and requirements. Some species 

have similar enough habitat requirements to be grouped, but the EIR takes this grouping to an extreme, 

such that they are actually meaningless. 

The assessment is quite mixed in completeness and adequacy. Page 4.5-122 of the SCP DEIR states that 

over 120 wildlife surveys were conducted on Newhall Ranch between 1988 and 2008. However, not one 

survey focused on terrestrial mollusks, even though California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) 

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists 56 mollusk (Gastropoda) species as sensitive species (CNDDB 

2004 1 ) and 104 mollusk taxa by early 2006 (CNDDB 2006 2 ). 

1 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2004. Special Animals. August. California Department of Fish and 

Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 5 


DMEC 

The definition of the insect guild is very broad, including all insects on the project site. The Class Insecta 

(27 orders of insects) contains more species of wildlife than any other group of animals, both in terms of 

numbers of species (between 6 and 10 million, representing 95% of all wildlife species on Earth) and 

individuals and in biomass. To group this large and diverse group of animals into just one assessment 

bucket greatly understates and minimizes the importance of this diverse group of animals. 

The Mission Village DEIR offers no mitigation for impacts to the Insect Guild. The only mitigation 

measures suggested for the insect guild, in the SCP EIR/EIS, are equally broad and vague (e.g. mitigation 

proposal BIO-64 [develop an integrated pest management plan] is the solution suggested for poisoning of 

the insect guild by pesticides. Impacts to insects in the Mission Village DEIR relies entirely on habitat, 

including: MV 4.3-23, MV 4.3-31, MV 4.3-36, MV 4.3-41, MV 4.3-42, and MV 4.3-43. 

MV 4.3-41 on page 4.3-351, states: 

“MV 4.3-41 Vegetation communities temporarily impacted by the proposed project shall be 

revegetated as described in MV 4.3-31. Large trunks of removed trees may also remain on site to 

provide habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, and small mammals or may be anchored within the project 

site for erosion control. To facilitate restoration, mulch, or native topsoil (the top 6- to 12-inch deep 

layer containing organic material), may be salvaged from the work area prior to construction. 

Following construction, salvaged topsoil shall be returned to the work area and placed in the 

restoration site. Within one year, the project biologist will evaluate the progress of restoration 

activities in the temporary impact areas to determine if natural recruitment has been sufficient for the 

site to reach performance goals. In the event that native plant recruitment is determined by the 

project biologist to be inadequate for successful habitat establishment, the site shall be revegetated in 

accordance with the methods designed for permanent impacts (i.e., seeding, container plants, and/or 

a temporary irrigation system may be recommended). 

“This will help ensure the success of mitigation areas. The applicant shall restore the temporary 

construction area per the success criteria and ratios described in MV 4.3-23, MV 4.3-31, and MV 

4.3-36. Annual monitoring reports on the status of the recovery or temporarily impacted areas shall 

be submitted to the Corps and CDFG as part of the annual mitigation status report (MV 4.3-42 and 

MV 4.3-43).” 

Depending on the size of the habitats temporarily disturbed, the feasibility and time required to reestablish 

populations of plants and wildlife, in particular invertebrates, at the restoration sites is tenuous and long in 

duration. Disturbance of any kind, particularly that resulting from construction activities, entirely destroys 

many microhabitats that may never be recreated. The proposed mitigations do not directly address 

mitigation to restore invertebrate wildlife onsite; rather, it focuses entirely on replacing plants and all 

monitoring is focused on measuring plant growth. There is no monitoring or measuring of invertebrate 

species richness, diversity, or population estimates. As stated elsewhere in this letter, invertebrates 

represent the largest group of wildlife species on Newhall Ranch, many of which may be rare, a number of 

which are undescribed, and many of which have very specific habitat requirements. The invertebrate 

component of the ecosystem is much more important to a healthy environment then identified in the DEIR. 

Many plants and higher forms of wildlife depend on the invertebrate “community” for their survival. A 

decrease in the population sizes and diversity will have a direct and indirect impact on a number of species 

that depend on them, including small mammals and migratory birds. 

2 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2006. Special Animals. February. (Quarterly publication, mimeo.) 

California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 6 


DMEC 

Another much smaller group of invertebrate wildlife species consists of mollusks (Phylum Mollusca), made 

up of seven classes: 

�� Aplocophora (glistenworms); 

�� Bivalvia (bivalves, clams, oysters); 

�� Cephalopoda (squid, octopuses); 

�� Gastropoda (snails, slugs, melampus, pedipes, capshells, ancylids, thorn snails, lymnaca, etc.); 

�� Monoplacophora (monoplacophores); 

�� Polyplacophora (chitons); and 

�� Scaphopoda (tusk shells). 

Clearly, some of these classes of mollusks are marine taxa and certainly would not be found on the Newhall 

Ranch project site; however, those groups that are terrestrial or freshwater aquatic species should be better 

addressed. The fact that a new species of aquatic mollusk, a species of Pyrgulopsis castaicensis sp. nova in 

the Class Gastropoda, was found in a freshwater spring on the ranch clearly illustrates that there are very 

likely other undescribed, and very possibly rare, species of mollusks that could be directly or indirectly 

impacted by the proposed development. Hershler (1994 3 ), an expert on the Pyrgulopsis genus, states that 

over 50% of the species in North America are rare and very habitat specific. The vast majority of western 

U.S. Pyrgulopsis species are restricted to freshwater spring habitats (Hershler 1994), similar to the situation 

for the undescribed species found at Middle Canyon Spring. 

Based solely on comments from DMEC and others on the SCP DEIR, Newhall contracted Aspen 4 (only 

identified as an email correspondence, who in actuality contracted with Lawrence Hunt) to conduct field 

surveys for terrestrial mollusks. While a copy of his report was excluded from the technical appendices of 

the Mission Village DEIR, he found three terrestrial mollusk taxa on Newhall Ranch. The DEIR’s 

explanation of Hunt’s findings will be discussed in greater detail later in this letter. 

Only three groups of invertebrate wildlife were given any attention, butterflies (Class Insecta: Order 

Lepidoptera), general insects (Class Insecta), and mollusks (Class Gastropoda). Nothing is discussed about 

other groups of invertebrates, such as: pelecypods, arachnids, crustaceans (Anostraca, Isopoda, 

Amphipoda, or Decapoda), and many other groups of invertebrates. This is inadequate given the history of 

species discovery on Newhall Ranch and its importance as a biologically rich and important area. 

Meloe ajax, a rare blister beetle from chaparral in southwestern Riverside County (Pinto 1998 5 ) is just 

one example of the insect biodiversity of the Los Angeles region, where new species are discovered. 

It is entirely possible that one or more undescribed species of invertebrates, in particular, insects, occur 

on Newhall Ranch, including the Mission Village portion of the ranch. 

Bond et al. (2006 6 ) study hypothesizes that there is high probability of one or more Mygalomorph species 

on Newhall Ranch and surrounding areas based on their model. This is strong evidence that this sensitive 

3 

Hershler, Robert. 1994. A Review of the North American Freshwater Snail Genus Pyrgulopsis (Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian 

Contributions to Zoology 554. 

4 

Footnote 25 on page 4.3-28 “C. Huntley, “Re: Snail Methods, etc.” Email from C. Huntley (Aspen) to P. Behrends (Dudek), A.C. 

Lynch (Sohagi Law Group), D. Bedford (CDFG), K. Drewe (CDFG), S. White (Aspen), M. Carpenter (Newhall Land), S. Rojas 

(Newhall Land), and S. Miller (Dudek), March 12, 2010.” 

5 

Pinto, John D. 1998. A New Meloe Linnaeus (Coleoptera: Meloidae, Meloinae) from Southern California Chaparral: A 

Rare and Endangered Blister Beetle or Simply Secretive? The Coleopterists Bulletin 52(4):378-385. 

6 

Bond, J.E., D.A. Beamer, T. Lamb, and M. Hedin. 2006. Combining Genetic and Geospatial Analyses to Infer Population 

Extinction in Mygalomorph Spides Endemic to the Los Angeles Region. June. American Conservation 9:145-157.



1/3/2011 

Page 7 


DMEC 

group of arachnids occur within the project site. Since this group of arachnids is known to contain species 

that are at risk of extinction, or at least local genetic extirpation, surveys should have been performed for 

them and impacts those this groups, and individual species, should have been conducted. 

Getting back to the appropriateness/adequacy of the use of wildlife guilds, as described in the DEIR, the 

methods/metrics used to identify/determine each guild is critical to its accuracy and usefulness. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (2002 7 ) states that the a guild for birds need to, “Define the groups based 

on similar life history, home range size, or other behavioral or demographic characteristics”, and that any 

guild used needs to be calibrated based on on-the-ground measurements. EPA’s guidance on this was 

focused on wetland birds as a possible wildlife guild to develop a method for assessing impacts to wetlands. 

EPA recommends that field surveys be conducted in the target habitats and that area surveys and point 

counts be conducted. This is a very narrow focus, and very different from how Impact Sciences used 

wildlife guilds for Newhall Ranch. While area surveys for birds were possibly conducted, there is no 

evidence in the DEIR or any technical appendix provided that suggests point counts were made. 

Impact Sciences seriously violates basic science and the very definition of wildlife guild in its impact 

assessment. For example, the definition used (see footnote 554 on page 4.3-443 of the DEIR) states, 

“Species guilds are groups of species that use or exploit similar resources or have similar life history 

characteristics even though they may represent different taxonomic groups”. Then Impact Sciences, on 

Table 4.3-24 uses ten guilds: Insect Guild, Bat Guild, Reptile – Low Mobility Guild, Mammal – Low 

Mobility Guild, Reptile and Amphibian-Semi-Aquatic Guild, Bird-Riparian Guild, Bird-Upland Scrub and 

Chaparral Guild, Bird-Upland Grassland Guild, Bird-Upland Woodland Guild, and Mammal-High Mobility 

Guild, to grossly summarize the cumulative impacts the project would have on all “common” wildlife. 

NOAA used seven different guilds for birds alone in assessing the long-term impacts to wetland birds 

affected by the Athos 1 oil spill (Polaris Applied Sciences 2006 8 ). 

Looking at just the Insect Guild, there is no basis whatsoever to justify that all species of insects occurring 

on Newhall Ranch, or even the Mission Village portion, “use or exploit similar resources or have similar life 

history characteristics”. Making such a claim, that the Insect Guild meets the guild definition, is fraudulent 

or gross negligence. There are literally thousands of species on insects along on Newhall Ranch, for which 

no attempt has been made at all to document the insect fauna of the project site or ranch. Only a few 

targeted/focused surveys for some of the special-status butterfly species have been conducted onsite. There 

similar problems with each and every wildlife guild used by Impact Sciences in their impact assessment. 

The results are absolutely meaningless and tell the public and decision-makers nothing about the cumulative 

impacts the project will actually have on wildlife. While the use of guilds can be a useful approach to 

assessing habitat conditions, the make up of each guild and how they are measured needs to be done very 

carefully and appropriately to have any meaningful results. 

Page 4.3-448 of the DEIR states, “Cumulative impacts to oak woodlands could not be quantified due to the 

coarseness of the vegetative mapping”. The fact that Newhall failed to map the natural vegetation at an 

appropriate level/scale, such as the Association level, is no excuse for not being able to assess the direct and 

indirect cumulative affects of the project on oak woodlands, or any other plant community or wildlife 

habitat. This is a self-serving approach; over simplify the habitat mapping then claim that there is not 

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Biological Assessment Methods 

for Birds. (EPA-822-R-02-023.) Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

8 Polaris Applied Sciences. 2006. ATHOS 1 NRDA: General Comments on FINAL DRAFT BIRD AND WILDLIFE 

INJURY ASSESSMENT: M/TATHOS 1 OIL SPILL, DELAWARE RIVE SYSTEM. Letter to NOAA. 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/wildlife324_Polaris_Comments2.pdf



1/3/2011 

Page 8 


DMEC 

enough detail in the mapping to perform any sort of impact assessment. This must be rectified. The 

problems with the inadequacies and inaccuracies of the vegetation classification and mapping is discussed in 

detail later in this letter. 

Special-status Species 

Special-status habitats are vegetation types, associations, or sub-associations that support concentrations of 

special-status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to 

wildlife. 

Special-status species are plants and animals that are at least one of the following: 

�� Listed as endangered or threatened under Federal or California Endangered Species Acts, 

�� Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, or 

�� Considered rare (but not formally listed) by resource agencies, professional organizations (e.g. Audubon 

Society, CNPS, The Wildlife Society), and the scientific community. 

Listed species are those taxa that are formally listed as endangered or threatened by the federal government 

(e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act or as endangered, 

threatened, or rare (for plants only) by the State of California (i.e. California Fish and Game Commission), 

pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act or the California Native Plant Protection Act, or those 

formally adopted by a local (e.g. county or city government) agency as of local concern or rare, or similar 

status. Special-status species are defined in Table 1 below. 

Table 1. Definitions of Special-Status Species 

o Plants and animals legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts or under other 

regulations. 

o Plants and animals considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing; or 

o Plants and animals considered to be sensitive because they are unique, declining regionally or locally, or are at the 

extent of their natural range. 

Special-Status Plant Species Special-Status Animal Species 

o Plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered 

under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 for listed 

plants and various notices in Federal Register for proposed species). 

o Plants that are Category 1 or 2 candidates for possible future listing 

as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species 

Act (55 CFR 6184, February 21, 1990). 

o Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under 

the CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). 

o Plants considered by CNPS to be "rare, threatened, or endangered" 

in California (Lists 1B and 2 in CNPS 2001). 

o Plants listed by CNPS as plants needing more information and 

plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 & 4 in CNPS 2001). 

o Plants listed by CNPS as locally rare (Lake 2004, Magney 2003, 

Magney 2010, Wilken 2003). 

o Plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as 

threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species 

Act (14 CCR 670.5). 

o Animals listed/proposed for listing as 

threatened/endangered under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 for 

listed animals and various notices in 

Federal Register for proposed species). 

o Animals that are Category 1 or 2 

candidates for possible future listing as 

threatened or endangered under Federal 

Endangered Species Act (54 CFR 554). 

o Animals that meet the definitions of rare or 

endangered species under the CEQA (State 

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). 

o Animals listed or proposed for listing by 

the State of California as threatened and 

endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5). 

o Animal species of special concern to the



1/3/2011 

Page 9 

Act (14 CCR 670.5). 

o Plants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act 

(California Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.). 

o Plants considered sensitive by other federal agencies (i.e. U.S. Forest 

Service, Bureau of Land Management) or state and local agencies or 

jurisdictions. 

o Plants considered sensitive or unique by the scientific community; 

occurs at natural range limits (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 

G). 


DMEC 

CDFG. 

o Animal species that are fully protected in 

California (California Fish & Game Code, 

Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 

5050 [reptiles, amphibians]). 

o Animals considered rare or sensitive 

locally by a local agency or scientific 

community (State CEQA Guidelines, 

Appendix G) 

The CNPS’ Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001 9 , 2010 10 ) 

categorizes rare California plants into one of five lists (1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4) representing five levels of 

species status, one of which is assigned to a sensitive species to indicate its status of rarity or endangerment 

and distribution. Most taxa also receive a threat code extension following the List (e.g. 1B.1, 2.3), which 

replaces the old R-E-D Code previously used by CNPS. Table 2, California Native Plant Society List, 

provides a definition for each List code number, and Table 3, California Native Plant Society List Threat 

Code Extensions defines the CNPS List Threat Code Extensions that indicates the level of endangerment 

within the state. 

Table 2. California Native Plant Society List (CNPS List) 

CNPS List Definition 

CNPS Threat 

Code Extension 

.1 

1A Presumed Extinct in California 

1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 

2 Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 

3 Need more information (a Review List) 

4 Plants of Limited Distribution (a Watch List) 

Table 3. California Native Plant Society List Threat Code Extensions 

Definition 

Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree 

and immediacy of threat) 

.2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) 

.3 Not very endangered in California (



1/3/2011 

Page 10 


DMEC 

an element (species or natural community) throughout its global range. The state rank (S-rank) is assigned 

much the same way as the global rank, except state ranks in California often also contain a threat 

designation attached to the S-rank. This Element Ranking system is defined below in Table 4, California 

Natural Diversity Database Element Ranking System. 

G1 

Table 4. California Natural Diversity Database Element Ranking System 

Global Ranking (G) 

Less than 6 viable element occurrences (pops for species), OR less than 1,000 individuals, OR



1/3/2011 

Page 11 

counting element occurrences. 


DMEC 

2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed in two major ways: by expressing the rank as a range of values (e.g. S2S3 means the rank is somewhere 

between S2 and S3), and by adding a ? to the rank (e.g. S2?). This represents more certainty than S2S3, but less than S2. 

As described for the CNDDB ranking, not all special-status species considered in this report are tracked by 

CNPS at a statewide level; however, CNPS, primarily through local chapters (guided by the Local Flora 

Committee), has developed regional/county lists of Species of Local Concern. The Channel Islands 

Chapter of CNPS has developed a list of locally rare plants of Ventura County (Magney 2010 11 ), which is 

periodically updated, and for Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2003 12 , 2007 13 ), and a preliminary list of locally 

rare plants for the Liebre Mountains region, which includes the Santa Clarita Valley and at least portions of 

Newhall Ranch (Magney 2003 14 ). According to Magney (2010), Ventura County Locally Rare plant 

species are defined as plants with only 5 or fewer occurrences in Ventura County, and Ventura County 

Locally Uncommon species are defined as plants with only 6 to 10 occurrences in the County. The same 

criteria are used for the locally rare plants list for the Liebre Mountains. These rarity criteria are taken from 

the NatureServe (formerly the Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy) rarity ranking system 

and applied at the county level. This approach was agreed upon in 2004 by a consensus of local expert 

botanists, including: Carl Wishner, Richard Burgess, David Bramlet, Elihu Gevirtz, Mary Carroll, John 

Dreher, Rick Farris, Richard Handley, Steve Junak, Mary Meyer, Rick Reifner, Cher Batchelor, Duane 

Vander Pluym, Dieter Wilken, Michelle Bates, David Magney, and several others. 

The acceptability of using the NatureServe ranking system at the County level is analyzed by Magney 

(2004 15 ), which was reviewed by the CNPS Rare Plant Program’s Local Flora Committee and those local 

botanists listed above. Magney uses those metrics to objectively identify those plant species that met the 

criteria based on his knowledge of the Ventura County flora (which is in manuscript and spreadsheet forms 

documenting every known occurrence of every vascular plant taxon known to occur within Ventura 

County). 

Special-status Plants in the DEIR 

Page 4.3-71, a. Special-Status Plants, provides definitions and discussions on only 10 species of plants as 

special-status species as occurring on the Mission Village portion of the 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch, 

including one undescribed species. Table 4.3-4 lists special-status plants on Newhall Ranch but not on the 

11 Magney, D.L. 2008. Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants. 23 December 2008, Fourteenth edition. California Native 

Plant Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. Available at 

http://cnpsci.org/html/PlantInfo/ChecklistofVenturaCountyRarePlants-20081223.htm 

12 Wilken, D. 2003. Locally Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County. June 2003. Central Coast Center for Plant Conservation, 

Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, California. California Native Plant Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, 

California. 

13 Wilken, D. 2007. Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County. (version 1.8, 6 August 2007.) Central Coast Center for Plant 

Conservation, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Santa Barbara, California. California Native Plant Society, Channel Islands 

Chapter, Ojai, California. (Published on www.cnpsci.org.) 

14 Magney, D.L. 2003. Rare Plants of the Liebre Mountains, Los Angeles County. 2 May 2003. California Native Plant 

Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. Published on the CNPS Channel Islands Chapter’s website, 

http://cnpsci.org/PlantInfo/01RarePlants.htm 

15 Magney, D.L. 2004. Acceptability of Using the Natural Heritage Program’s Species Ranking System for Determining 

Ventura County Locally Rare Plants. 25 November 2004. David Magney Environmental Consulting, Ojai, California. 

Prepared for California Native Plant Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. (Published at www.cnpsci.org.)



1/3/2011 

Page 12 


DMEC 

project site. The DEIR did not adequately assess impacts to special-status plant species, in particular those 

that are locally rare (rare in the region or Los Angeles County). 

Only three of the 10 special-status plant species were mapped (Figure 4.3-6 of the DEIR). Most of the 

special-status plant species were not mapped. 

Page 4.3-76 Parish's Sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. parishii) states, “Parish's sagebrush is considered 

special status by the County of Los Angeles, but it has no federal, state, or CNPS status”. The statement 

that Artemisia tridentata ssp. parishii does not have CNPS status is incorrect. This subspecies is listed by 

CNPS, through the Channel Islands Chapter, as a locally rare species in adjacent Ventura County since at 

least 2003 (Magney 2003 16 , 2010 17 ). Furthermore, the DEIR goes on to say, “It is considered regionally 

rare by local botanists (Mary Meyer, personal communication, October 2007).” This is the exact same 

wording found in the SPC DEIR/EIS. Since the Channel Islands Chapter is part of CNPS, any lists 

prepared by the chapters must also be considered as part of the CNPS List. The Channel Islands Chapter 

lists are specifically cited and linked on the CNPS website. 

SLENDER MARIPOSA LILY 

Page 4.3-76 of the DEIR states: “Populations of this species have been documented and mapped 

throughout the project site. The mapped acreage of this species on the Mission Village project site in 2003 

was 9.68 acres, in 2004 was 6.63 acres, and in 2005 was 6.23 acres. In total (when the 2003–2005 data is 

unioned), slender mariposa lily occupies a cumulative footprint of 17.43 acres of the project site.” This 

significant direct impact must also take into consideration known and expected cumulative impacts to this 

species at Newhall Ranch and throughout its range. 

For example, the SCP DEIR states: “The combined direct and indirect permanent loss of slender mariposa 

lily cumulative occupied area and individuals resulting from implementation of the RMDP and the SCP and 

build-out of the Specific Plan, VCC, and Entrada planning areas would total 72 acres (35.0%) and 30,645 

(46.4%) individuals, respectively. The loss of slender mariposa lily occurring as a result of implementation 

of the RMDP and the SCP and build-out of the Specific Plan, VCC, and Entrada planning areas would be 

considered a substantial adverse effect on this species and would substantially reduce the number and 

restrict the range of this species on site (significance criteria 1 and 7). The combined direct and indirect 

permanent impacts (Impacts to Individuals) would be significant, absent mitigation.” 

Under the proposed project plan described for the SCP (Alternative 2), there would be 33 acres (16.3%) of 

cumulative occupied area and 23,963 individuals (36.3%) within 300 feet of development. Even with 

mitigation and monitoring within the preserve areas, there will still be a large percentage (36.3%) of the 

population at risk of threats associated with edge effects. As described in Dudek 2007 18 Section 2.4 (page 

12) states that only two locations are proposed for receptors sites under the Revised Draft Slender 

Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; the High Country SMA or Salt Creek area. They are to be 

planted adjacent to existing populations of Slender Mariposa Lily within the preserves. What percentage of 

16 

Magney, D.L. 2003. Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants. 24 June 2003. California Native Plant Society, Channel 

Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. 

17 

Magney, D.L. 2010. Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants. 9 October 2010, Eighteenth edition. California Native Plant 

Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. Published on www.cnpsci.org. 

18 

Dudek. 2007. Revised Draft Slender Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Newhall Ranch Resource 

Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan Study Area.



1/3/2011 

Page 13 


DMEC 

these existing populations fall within this 300 feet buffer is not stated; however, this is important since this is 

the area that is going to be most favorable for receptor sites. 

Page 4.3-170 of the DEIR states, “The proposed project would result in the loss of 15.3 acres of the 17.4 

acres of cumulative occupied slender mariposa lily habitat on site (see Figure 4.3-6). Given the sensitivity 

of this species, these impacts would be significant.” 

“The Draft RMDP Slender Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan289 is attached in Appendix 

4.3. A Mission Village Slender Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared and 

submitted to CDFG and the County for review and approval prior to ground disturbance to occupied 

habitat. Upon approval, the plan will be implemented by the applicant or its designee. The approved 

plan will demonstrate the feasibility of enhancing or restoring slender mariposa lily habitat in selected 

areas to be managed as natural open space (i.e., the Salt Creek area or High Country SMA/SEA 20, 

Spineflower preserves, or River Corridor SMA/SEA 23) without conflicting with other resource 

management objectives. Habitat replacement/enhancement will be at a 1:1 ratio (acres 

restored/enhanced to acres impacted). In addition, the applicant would implement a number of 

mitigation measures designed to avoid and minimize construction-related indirect impacts to the 

slender mariposa lily. Applicable mitigation measures include the following: 

�� Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-27 (enhancement of habitat values within the High Country 

SMA/SEA 20), 

�� Mitigation Measures SP 4.6-29 through SP 4.6-32 (recreation and access restrictions within 

the High Country SMA/SEA 20), 

�� Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-33 (protection of transition areas between the development edge 

and the High Country SMA/SEA 20), 

�� Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-34 (clear marking of grading perimeters within or adjacent to the 

High Country SMA/SEA 20), 

�� Mitigation Measures SP 4.6-37 through SP 4.6-42 (long-term management of the High 

Country SMA/SEA 20), and 

�� Mitigation Measures SP 4.6-53 and SP 4.6-59 (requires current, updated, site-specific 

surveys for special-status species in consultation with CDFG). 

“This impact would also be reduced through the implementation of the following: 

�� Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-27 (implementation of an approved slender mariposa lily 

mitigation plan) to be implemented by the applicant. The plan shall be subject to the 

approval of the County prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 

�� Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-26 (pre-construction educational meetings, construction-limit 

staking, and biological monitoring during vegetation clearing and grading activities).” 

“Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a level that is adverse but 

not significant. This finding is consistent with the findings of the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan 

Program EIR and Additional Analysis.” 

DMEC found insufficient confirmation that the mitigation and monitoring standards as stated in the Revised 

Draft Slender Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Newhall Ranch Resource Management 

and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan Study Area have proven to be sufficient based 

on scientific knowledge. The mitigation ratio proposed, as discussed below, is an example.



1/3/2011 

Page 14 


DMEC 

Stated in Dudek’s Revised Draft Slender Mariposa Lily Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Dudek 2007) in 

Section 2.3, Time Frame for Success, page 12, “Success will be defined by meeting the stated requirement 

in the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (Dudek 2008) which states that, 

“[T]he plan shall replace or transplant the number of individual plants to be removed at a 1:1 ratio and/or 

enhance and protect existing populations of the species”. 

The claim is that Dudek’s previous work with salvaging, transplanting, and establishing Calochortus (both 

Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis and Calochortus plummerae) indicates that successful results can be 

achieved. The report states: “In the autumn of 2005, seed and 687 bulbs were salvaged from the River 

Village footprint and planted into selected sites in similar habitat in late 2005 and early 2006 (Dudek 

2006c). Despite two successive years of drought following transplantation, there was a success rate of 69% 

in 2005–6, 34% in 2006–7, and 93% in 2007–8 (Dudek 2007b, 2007c; Thomson 2008)” (page 12). 

While a 93% successes rate in the third year is a good start, there is no proof that the same success will 

continue for the next two years, and in perpetuity. It is premature of Dudek to claim that they have proved 

to be successful at salvaging, transplanting, and establishing species of Calochortus when they have not 

reached the goals that they are putting forth in this mitigation and monitoring plan; least a 1:1 ratio of 

growth. Furthermore, 93% success does not represent full replacement, as required by a 1:1 mitigation 

ratio. 

In order for the 1:1 ratio to be meet under Alternative 2, 30,645 individuals must all survive. This is likely 

an unobtainable goal. Dudek also claims to have high success rate in regards to their seeding efforts for the 

first three years of the program. Again, three years does not prove to meet the long-term persistence of the 

species. The total number of plants within just the Mission Village project site is not stated, other than the 

acreage of occupied habitat. 

Much emphasis is based on the assumption that a minimum of 133 acres of the Slender Mariposa Lily 

cumulative occupied area will be conserved within the RMDP and Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) 

Project boundaries. DMEC has found multiple problems associated with both of these preserve designs and 

monitoring standards. We believe that under the current proposed project, neither of theses preserves will 

ensure the long-term persistence of the Slender Mariposa Lily. 

The Entrada planning area was has an extensive population of Slender Mariposa Lily, only a small portion 

of this area is proposed for preservation (under the SCP). In order to “ensure biological diversity of the 

species” (Dudek 2007, page 7), an area within San Martinez Grande Canyon will be conserved. The 

distance between San Martinez Grande Canyon and the Entrada planning area is too far for this objective to 

be reached. 

Table 4.3-9, Significant Impact and Mitigation Summary, of the DEIR states that impacts to Slender 

Mariposa Lily will be Less Than Significant after mitigation. Since the proposed mitigation, primarily the 

translocation and planting onsite, is largely infeasible and has a low likelihood of meeting success criteria, 

there will almost certainly be a residual significant impact. Newhall Ranch is overly optimistic about 

successfully mitigation this species, which leaves the species at risk. Areas proposed for mitigation, 

particularly those areas adjacent to existing populations would be occupied already if the habitat was 

suitable for this plant.



1/3/2011 

Page 15 

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SPINEFLOWER 


DMEC 

The San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina) [SFVS] is a candidate species 

under the federal Endangered Species Act, a California state-listed Endangered species, and a CNPS List 

1B species. The SFVS was thought to be extinct until the end of the 20 th century. The Newhall RMDP- 

SCP Final EIS/EIR 19 succinctly reviews the historical and current known population range of the SFVS (p. 

4.5-1,755), “Historically, SFVS was known from several occurrences in and around the San Fernando 

Valley and one site in Orange County (CNPS 2009 20 ). As of 1993, all those sites had been presumed 

extirpated, and the plant presumed extinct (Hickman 1993 21 ). In 1999, SFVS was rediscovered in Ventura 

County, and in 2000 it was rediscovered at Newhall Ranch. Currently, SFVS is known from only these two 

locations: Laskey Mesa in the Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space in Ventura County, and the Project 

[Newhall Ranch] area in Los Angeles County.” 

The entire known range of the SFVS is approximately 32 acres. The Draft Newhall Lands Spineflower 

Candidate Conservation Agreement 22 describes the extent of the Las Virgenes population (page 5): “Current 

information indicates that the former Ahmanson Ranch population is composed of 18 sub-populations of various 

sizes, all located within 0.25 miles (0.49 kilometers) of each other, and occupying approximately 12.9 ac (5.2 

ha).” The known SFVS range on the Newhall Ranch (including the Specific Plan area, VCC, and Entrada) 

is 20.2 acres (Spineflower Conservation Plan [SCP] 2007, p. 15) 23 . Attempts to predict whether suitable 

SFVS habitat exists outside of the known occupied SFVS range have not been successful. The SCP states 

(p. 45): 

“The results of this effort [determining where SFVS occurs outside of known habitat on the Newhall 

project area using a combination of vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, slope, and aspect data] 

indicate that either existing habitat data may be too coarse to resolve the actual habitat features that 

SFVS selects or that habitat features are not predictive of spineflower occurrence. It is possible that 

further studies at a finer scale are needed to better refine the various habitat parameters differentiating 

occupied SFVS habitat from unoccupied areas.” 

Based on existing data, there are no known SFVS populations outside of the known range and there is no 

known method for predicting where SFVS populations will occur outside of their observed distribution. 

The project applicant states that there are 8.57 acres of known SFVS habitat on the Mission Village project 

site. The project applicants estimate that 3.29 acres of this habitat will be eliminated by the Mission Village 

project (Mission Village DEIR, page 4.3-163). The SFVS habitat loss proposed for the Newhall project, 

including the Mission Village project, is 26% of the complete known SFVS range (approximately 32 acres). 

The projected total loss of the Newhall SFVS population (as measured in amount of occupied habitat) is 

6.35 acres (31.4% of the 20.2 acres making up the Newhall SFVS population). 1 

19 

CDFG. 2010. Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and the Spineflower Conservation Plan 

FINAL EIS/EIR. June 2010. 

20 

CNPS. 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online edition, version 7-09a. Revised January 13, 2009; accessed 

January 15, 2009. Sacramento, California. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi 

21 

Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

22 

The Newhall Land And Farming Company. February 14, 2008. Draft Newhall Land Candidate Conservation Agreement for 

San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

23 

Dudek. 2007. Draft Spineflower Conservation Plan. December 2007. Valencia, California. Prepared for Newhall Land 

and Farming Company, Valencia, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 16 


DMEC 

The project applicant proposes to mitigate the SFVS loss by establishing a series of SFVS preserves that 

they claim “ensures the long-term survival of spineflower populations on the project site and greater NRSP” 

(Mission Village DEIR, page 4.3-163). These preserves are described in the Mission Village DEIR (pages 

4.3-163 to 4.3-164): “The SCP [Spineflower Conservation Plan] establishes five San Fernando spineflower 

preserves, four within the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan site and one within a portion of the Entrada planning 

area. Of these preserves, the Airport Mesa Preserve is located on the Mission Village project site…As 

described in the SCP, the five proposed preserves would encompass a total of 164.8 acres of land. The 

preserve areas have been designed to accommodate natural spineflower population fluctuations and include 

13.26 acres of occupied spineflower habitat and 152.6 acres of buffer area (unoccupied spineflower habitat). 

In total, the five proposed preserves encompass 68.6 percent of the cumulative occupied spineflower habitat 

within the SCP area… The Mission Village project includes the proposed Airport Mesa preserve; the 

Mission Village Airport Mesa preserve as proposed would be larger than the Airport Mesa preserve 

described in the SCP. The Mission Village Airport Mesa preserve would occupy 65.62 acres, including 

5.28 acres of occupied spineflower habitat, 24.39 acres of core expansion area (unoccupied spineflower 

habitat), and 35.96 acres of buffer area (unoccupied spineflower habitat) (see Figure 4.3-10, Airport Mesa 

Preserve Core Population). It is unknown if any of the unoccupied open space included in the preserves is 

suitable for spineflowers. The proposed Airport Mesa preserve was designed to conserve the areas of 

greatest concentration of spineflower within the general Airport Mesa occurrence.” 

A basic design assumption of the proposed SFVS preserve system seems to be that an essential “core” of 

occupied SFVS habitat will be preserved that will adequately conserve the Newhall SFVS population. 

References are made in the Mission Village DEIR to the “Airport Mesa Preserve Core Population” and that 

the proposed Airport Mesa preserve will conserve the areas of “greatest concentration” of the SFVS 

(Mission Village DEIR p. 4.3-163). In reference to the larger preserve system the SCP (page 112) states: 

“This direct impact [take of approximately 6.36 acres (31%) of the 2002 through 2007 cumulative 

spineflower occurrence area] will be fully mitigated, first by establishing a system of preserves to 

protect the core occurrences of spineflower in the study area, and second by implementing 

management and monitoring within an adaptive management framework to maintain or enhance the 

protected spineflower occurrences within the five preserve areas.” 

Based on the data presented, the SFVS appears to experience extreme population fluctuations over 

relatively short periods of time across its entire known 30-acre range. The Las Virgenes (Ahmanson 

Ranch) population fluctuated between 23,000 individuals in 1999, 1.46 million individuals in 2000, 1.8 

million individuals in 2001, and 220,935 individuals in 2002 (SCP, page 14). The Newhall SFVS 

population has experienced even more extreme population fluctuations than the Las Virgenes populations. 

The Newhall RMDP-SCP Final EIS/EIR summarizes the known population trends for the SFVS on the 

Newhall project site, including Mission Village (page 4.5-1,758), 

“In 2003, surveys estimated populations of SFVS totaling 5,947,120 individuals occupying 16 acres. 

In 2004, the total population of SFVS was estimated to be 558,388 individuals occupying 5.33 acres. 

In 2005, the total population of SFVS was estimated to be 7,391,813 individuals occupying 11.45 

acres. In 2006, the total population of SFVS was estimated to be 1,773,496 individuals occupying 

8.49 acres. In 2007, the total population of SFVS was estimated to be 760 individuals occupying 

0.12 acre.” 

Reviewing the methodology used to determine SFVS population size, it is clear that the methods used are 

not repeatable. That is, it would not pass a common statistical t-test. Obviously, it is not practicle, or really 

possible, to physically count every SFVS plant. But to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate, strict



1/3/2011 

Page 17 


DMEC 

statistically valid protocols must be followed. Replicate sampling must be part of those protocols. None of 

this describes how Newhall Ranch consulting biologists (many of where were not even botanists) counted 

the plants each year. The same methods were not used from year to year. Comparisons and trends made 

from such flawed data will only tell a false story. No valid conclusions can be made about the actual 

number of plants present each year or anything about populations dynamics or trends other than there are 

some plants this year and there area lots of plants this other year. 

The project applicant states that the potential project impacts to the SFVS are evaluated in terms of loss of 

occupied habitat rather than by number of individual plants impacted because of how SFVS acreage (and 

associated number of individuals) varies from year to year (Mission Village DEIR, page 4.3-163). They 

note that the mapped acreage of SFVS on the Mission Village project site varied from 0.42 acre to 7.14 

acres based on 2002-2007 survey data (Mission Village DEIR, page 4.3-163). Based on the 2002-2007 

survey data, the acreage occupied by SFVS on the overall Newhall project site varied from 0.12 acre to 16 

acres. 

The population dynamics of the SFVS suggest that the entire range of the population is "core" habitat and 

that designing a preserve system that designates some of the habitat "core" and some of it expendable, as 

the project applicant has done, is not biologically valid. The amount of their known range that the SFVS 

population inhabits varies greatly from year to year. The project applicant makes a factually incorrect 

statement that, "The location of spineflower cumulative occupied habitat is well understood, based on six 

years of extensive surveys (2002 through 2007). Occupied habitat varies somewhat, but not widely, from 

year to year" (Response 84, page RTC-053-56 of project applicant to comments on the SCP by DMEC on 

behalf of Friends of the Santa Clara River). There is a great variance in occupied SFVS habitat on the 

Newhall project site, with SFVS occupying 133 times greater area (16 acres) than the lowest known 

occurrence (0.12 acre). The amount of occupied SFVS habitat on the Mission Village project site varies 17 

times from lowest (0.42 acre) to highest (7.14 acres) known occurrences based on the survey data 

presented. 

The project applicant states that the proposed Airport Mesa preserve will conserve the areas of “greatest 

concentration” of the SFVS (Mission Village DEIR page 4.3-163) on the Mission Village project site, 

implying that the highest number of individual spineflowers will be conserved by the preserve. The survey 

data presented indicate that over time the number of individual spineflowers fluctuates greatly along with 

area occupied by the SFVS in any given year and that there is no biologically meaningful area of "greatest 

concentration" as the project applicant suggests. The number of individual spineflowers by which "greatest 

concentration" would be measured varies from millions to hundreds of individuals across years. The 

concept of conserving the "greatest concentration" of spineflowers also contradicts the project applicant's 

methodology for measuring project impacts to the SFVS, which is to use occupied acreage rather than 

number of individuals (Mission Village DEIR, page 4.3-163). 

It is not possible to predict what part of the SFVS habitat on the Mission Village project site is "core" 

habitat or will have the "greatest concentration" of individuals as the project applicant suggests. The 

concentration of some portion of the SFVS population in a preserve system and the "take" (i.e. destruction) 

of the remaining habitat will possibly disrupt the population dynamics of the SFVS and reduce the likelihood 

of population persistence on the Newhall project area, having the exact opposite effect on SFVS 

conservation that the project applicants claim. 

The SFVS is likely dependent on the presence of a seedbank for population persistence (SCP, page 24). 

There are some years when the amount of area occupied by the SFVS is extremely limited and population



1/3/2011 

Page 18 


DMEC 

numbers are very low (760 individuals occupying 0.12 acre in 2007). An event such as fire, drought, 

landslide, grazing, or trampling could extirpate the extant SFVS population in such a year. The presence of 

the seedbank ensures that in such an event the reproductive material for the SFVS population would survive 

into succeeding years when germination of future populations of the SFVS could occur. The project 

applicant has not adequately assessed the possibility in the DEIR or the SCP that removing some of the 

standing seedbank, as they propose to do, could or wouldn’t disrupt the viability of the seedbank and thus 

overall viability of the SFVS population. The data presented by the project applicant in the SCP (page 45) 

indicate that the current understanding of vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, slope, and aspect data is not 

adequate to predict where SFVS (and thus viable SFVS seedbank) will occur outside of their known range. 

These data are not adequate or sufficient to allow CDFG or any biologist to predict where and how the 

SFVS will occur within known SFVS range from year to year and thus identify a minimum "core" seedbank 

that will assure the long-term viability of the SFVS population if the remaining seedbank is removed, as the 

project applicants propose to do. 

In order to understand what "core" habitat is for the SFVS on the Newhall site, one must understand where 

the "core" seedbank and how the seedbank controls population dynamics of the SFVS. The project 

applicant has not presented any data demonstrating how they will identify and conserve the "core" seedbank 

of the SFVS on the Mission Village project site or in the overall proposed Newhall preserve system. The 

project applicant suggests that the SFVS population dynamics observed in their survey data is probably 

caused by climate, stating in the Mission Village DEIR (page 4.3-75), “The variation of spineflower 

abundance and area occupied from year to year is typical of annual plant species. In the case of spineflower, 

it appears that climatic conditions influence spineflower abundance and area occupied. On the Newhall 

Ranch property, the estimated number of spineflower was lower in 2002, 2004, and 2007, compared to 

2003 and 2005, with 2006 falling in between. Years 2002, 2004, and 2007 experienced below average 

rainfall; in year 2003, rainfall was considered normal, according to the Western Regional Climate Center. 

Winter 2004/spring 2005 rainfall was considered to be above normal; in winter 2005/spring 2006, rainfall 

was slightly below average but was not as low as it was in 2002, 2004, and 2007, according to the Western 

Regional Climate Center.” However, they do not present any ecological data or modeling showing how the 

SFVS population dynamics observed would be conserved within the proposed preserve system. 

It is clear from present knowledge of SFVS population dynamics that some unknown combination of 

ecological factors (e.g. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, slope, aspect) interacts with the intact SFVS 

seedbank to control SFVS population dynamics. Destruction of the intact seedbank outside of the 

preserves will permanently disrupt the unknown combination of ecological factors that interacts with the 

intact SFVS seedbank as an ecological "switch" to control or influence SFVS population dynamics. The 

project applicant states that the seedbank outside of the preserves will be conserved at seedbank repositories 

(Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden and USDA National Seed Storage Lab) and that this is a well-established 

method for plant species conservation (page 136, Section 12.1, in Newhall SCP). However, the ecological 

"switch" or "switches" that control SFVS population dynamics will not be conserved outside of the 

proposed preserve system. It is possible that the intact SFVS seedbank outside of the proposed preserve 

system (and necessary ecological "switches" that control it) is actually "core" seedbank that is necessary for 

the long term persistence of the Newhall SFVS population. The proposed take of approximately 6.36 acres 

(31%) of the 2002 through 2007 cumulative spineflower occurrence area, including the 3.29 acres proposed 

by the Mission Village project, may remove "core" intact SFVS seedbank and ecological factors that are 

necessary to conserve the long-term viability of the Newhall SFVS population.



1/3/2011 

Page 19 


DMEC 

Lacking evidence to the contrary, the baseline assumption must be that all of the 2002 through 2007 

cumulative spineflower occurrence area are necessary to conserve the population dynamics of the Newhall 

SFVS population. The project applicant states, "variation of spineflower abundance and area occupied 

from year to year is typical of annual plant species" (Mission Village DEIR page 4.3-75). The SFVS is not 

a typical annual plant species in that it has been extirpated from most of its known range, the entire known 

range of the taxon consists of two populations on 30 acres, and it is uncertain if there is any viable habitat 

outside of these 30 acres. The SFVS is a narrow endemic of the Western Transverse Ranges portion of the 

California Floristic Province that grows only on certain substrates with a specific microclimate occurring 

only in a restricted area under a Mediterranean-type climate. Most annual plants grow under different 

climatic regimes, so to lump the SFVS into a group containing all annual plants is an extreme 

oversimplification of the SFVS’s phenology and climatic and edaphic requirements for germination. There 

are clearly specific ecological aspects of the SFVS life history, ecology, and population dynamics that 

constrain it to a very specific and limited habitat type, and thus do not make it typical of other annual plant 

species. The population dynamics of the SFVS cannot be adequately managed in the absence of knowledge 

of what these ecological aspects of the SFVS life history, ecology, and population dynamics are. 

The proposed destruction of the intact SFVS seedbank and its ecological context outside of the proposed 

preserve system may destroy critical "core" SFVS seedbank necessary to SFVS population persistence. 

The USFWS reviewed the candidate status of the SFVS for listing under the Endangered Species Act on 

November 10, 2010 24 . The USFWS stated, "Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina is particularly vulnerable 

to extinction due to its concentration in two isolated areas [Las Virgenes and Newhall]. The existence of 

only two areas of occurrence, and a relatively small range, makes the variety highly susceptible to extinction 

or extirpation from significant portion of its range due to random events such as fire, drought, erosion, or 

other occurrences. We retained a listing priority number 6 for Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina due to 

high magnitude of non-imminent threats." DMEC argues that the proposed destruction of potential "core" 

SFVS seedbank by the Mission Village project constitutes an imminent threat to the Newhall SFVS 

population persistence, and thus to the long term persistence of the SFVS. 

Table 4.3-9, Significant Impact and Mitigation Summary, of the DEIR states that impacts to SFVS will be 

Less Than Significant after mitigation. The direct loss of 20% to 30% of an Endangered species cannot be 

considered a less-than-significant impact when no attempts as establishment offsite have ever succeeded. 

As will shown later in these comments, the proposed mitigation will not offset the direct and indirect 

impacts to the SFVS. 

Newhall Ranch Spineflower Conservation Plan 

The San Fernando Valley Spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina) is an endangered species under 

the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 2050– 2097) as 

of September 8, 2002. Currently it is a candidate species for federal listing under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (FESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et seq.). 

The San Fernando Valley Spineflower (SFVS) historically was more widespread, and thought extinct until 

its rediscovery at two locations, Ahmanson Ranch in the southeast corner of Ventura County and on 

Newhall Ranch (Newhall Land Properties) in western northern Los Angeles County, within the Santa Clara 

24 US Fish and Wildlife Service Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; 

Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. 

November 10, 2010.



1/3/2011 

Page 20 


DMEC 

River Valley. SFVS was discovered on Ahmanson Ranch in 1999 during a subsequent biological survey 

prior to development and on Newhall Ranch in 2000. The population on Ahmanson Ranch (now the Upper 

Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve) is no longer in direct threat from development after being 

acquired the Federal Government; however, potential impacts to that population (impacts associated with 

movie filming near preserve) still needs to be evaluated (USFWS 2008 25 ). Since the Newhall Ranch 

contains the majority of extant natural populations of the SFVS, the proposals to develop the ranch into a 

new city must consider how those development plans will affect the plant. 

The purpose of the Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) to establish a conservation and management plan 

to permanently protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize the long-term persistence 

of the SFVS within the project study area described below. This SCP describes a preserve system proposed 

by the applicant, The Newhall Land and Farming Company. The management and monitoring components 

of this SCP have been developed in consultation with the CDFG. 

The five preserves proposed in the SCP would conserve approximately 68.6% of the cumulative SFVS 

occupied-area within the study area, listed in the SPC’s Table 22 (taken from the SCP section 17.0 Take 

and Conservation, page 144). 

Project Site 

Table 22 Conservation and Take by Project Site Using Total Footprint 

SFVS Acres to be 

Conserved 

SFVS Acres to be Taken Total 

Specific Plan area 12.86 (74%) 4.421 (26%) 17.28 

VCC 0.00 (0%) 0.85(100%) 0.85 

Entrada 1.03 (49%) 1.09 (51%) 2.10 

Total 13.88 (69%) 6.36 (31%) 20.24 

“The information provided in this Plan will be used by the applicant in requesting a state permit authorizing 

the take of spineflower in the areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. Specifically, the 

applicant is requesting: (1) a Candidate Conservation Agreement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) under FESA and (2) a section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit from CDFG under CESA”(SCP, 

1.2 Purpose and Need, page 2). 

As stated in Section 1.2 Purpose and Need, on page 7 of the SCP: “The purpose and need for the Plan 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et seq.) and the 

Plan objectives under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, 

Section 21000, et seq.) are: 

“To develop and implement a practicable/feasible comprehensive spineflower conservation plan that 

provides for the long-term persistence of spineflower within Newhall Land properties containing 

known spineflower populations.” 

In addition to compliance with NEPA and CEQA, the Corps and CDFG are the lead agencies involved in 

the preparation of the joint EIS/EIR, which addressed impacts associated the proposed project. In response 

25 Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. 75176 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 238 / Wed, December 10, 2008 / 

Proposed Rules. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/CNOR/08%20CNOR%20published%2012-10-08.pdf



1/3/2011 

Page 21 


DMEC 

to the proposed city, the CDFG, who has responsibility over state-listed species, must develop and approve 

a conservation plan that protects the SFVS to ensure its viability and continued existence. 

As stated in the Candidate Conversation Agreement: “The purpose of this Agreement is to agree upon 

conservation, management, and monitoring measures ("Conservation Measures") for the spineflower, 

located on portions of Newhall's Enrolled Lands, described below. This Agreement is intended to benefit 

the spineflower, a candidate species, by obtaining Newhall's commitment to implement the Conservation 

Measures, which, when combined with the benefits that will be achieved by the conservation of the 

spineflower in the Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve, would preclude the need to list the 

spineflower in the future” (Candidate Conservation Agreement, page D- 2). As pointed out below, 

DMEC has serious questions about whether the SCP will work as suggested and adequately conserve the 

SFVS in perpetuity. 

DMEC previously commented on the project applicant’s proposed SFVS preserve system and mitigation 

measures for impacts that their project will have on the Newhall SFVS population (Comments on the 

Spineflower Conservation Plan by DMEC on behalf of Friends of the Santa Clara River and CNPS). 

DMEC argued that the knowledge of SFVS population ecology necessary to design a viable preserve 

system to conserve the Newhall SFVS population did not exist as the project applicant contends. Since the 

Mission Village EIR relies so heavily on the SCP, the technical and impact assessment problems of that EIR 

and the SCP must be addressed here as well. The general response of the project applicant to DMEC’s 

comments on their proposed SFVS conservation plan is summarized below. 

Project applicants response to DMEC comments on the SCP (page RTC-053-65): 

“Additional information on population dynamics and seed bank function would be useful, but not 

necessary, to devise an effective Project-related conservation strategy for spineflower at this time, 

including measures to manage the proposed preserve areas. The description and analysis in the Draft 

SCP is based on facts, reasonable assumptions, and expert opinion and supports the conclusions and 

analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR.” 

Project applicant’s response to DMEC comments on the SCP (page RTC-053-36): 

“There is adequate information about the basic ecological processes governing spineflower 

distribution and abundance to support the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIS/EIR. Section 4.0 

of the Draft SCP describes aspects of the species, such as distribution, abundance, existing and 

historical occurrences, germination, seed viability, and pollinators. Section 5.0 of the Draft SCP and 

Subsection 4.5.5.3 of the Draft EIS/EIR provide extensive field survey data compiled by Dudek and 

Associates over a six-year period (2002-2007) documenting fluctuations in occurrence and 

abundance over that period, evidently correlated with rainfall and fire patterns. In addition, Section 

4.0 the Draft SCP describes and cites studies of spineflower pollination and other ecological 

investigations (Jones et al. 2002, 2004); studies by LaPierre and Wright (2000) of ants and other 

arthropods as potential pollinators or seed dispersers; and seed germination trials (reports included in 

work by Sapphos (2003)).” 

We anticipate that the project applicant will similarly assert that their SCP, as implemented through their 

proposed SFVS preserve system, is adequate “based on facts, reasonable assumptions, and expert opinion 

and supports the conclusions and analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR [SCP] (Project applicants response to 

DMEC comments on the SCP, page RTC-053-65)”.



1/3/2011 

Page 22 


DMEC 

We argue that the project applicant has misinterpreted the facts and data that they have presented. The 

basic biological principle underlying their preserve system is that they are preserving adequate core habitat 

of the SFVS to conserve the population dynamics, seed bank, and overall long-term viability of the Newhall 

SFVS population. In fact, there is no real biological understanding of what the actual core habitat of the 

Newhall SFVS population and underlying core seed bank that likely sustains the population is. The 

population survey data presented show that population abundance and distribution fluctuates from extreme 

lows to extreme highs. The baseline ecological knowledge needed to predict what part of the known 

occupied habitat of the Newhall SFVS population is core habitat and what part of the known occupied 

habitat and underlying seed bank, if any, can be destroyed and assure the persistence of the Newhall SFVS 

population does not exist, despite the project applicant’s claim that it does, or that this knowledge can be 

inferred from other annual plant species. The SFVS is not a typical annual plant species in that it was 

extirpated from most of its known range, the entire known range of the taxon consists of two populations 

on 30 acres, and it is uncertain if there is any viable habitat outside of these 30 acres. It also does not 

behave like most other annual plant species. It has specific microclimate and edaphic requirements for it to 

complete its life cycle successfully, which the CDFG and project applicant’s “experts” do not understand 

and lack any expertise with. 

Numerous surveys in the region have failed to find additional populations (e.g. ARCADIS 2010 26 ; Bonterra 

Consulting 2009 27 ; DMEC 2003 28 , 2006 29 , 2009 30 ; Keane Biological Consulting 2002 31 ; Ogden 

Environmental 1998 32 ; Zander Associates 2010 33 ). There are clearly specific ecological aspects of the 

SFVS life history, ecology, and population dynamics that constrain it to a very specific and limited habitat 

type, and thus do not make it typical of other annual plant species. 

The proposed preserve system seems to be based largely on unspecified “expert opinion” (Project applicants 

response to DMEC comments on the SCP, page RTC-053-65) in the absence of ecological knowledge. 

The “expert opinion” is asserted by the project applicant, but not documented. DMEC argues that there is 

no relevant “expert opinion” available with which to design a viable conservation plan for the SFVS, 

because the information needed to render such an opinion does not exist. 

26 ARCADIS. 2010. The Termo Company Significant Ecological Areas Biological Constraints Analysis: Termo Well Pads 

Aliso Canyon and Oat Mountain Oil Fields, Santa Susana Mountains, California. Santa Maria, California. 

27 Bonterra Consulting. 2009. Special Status Plant Survey for the Buck Gully Project Site, Corona del Mar, City of Newport 

Beach, Orange County, California. Pasadena, California. 

28 David Magney Environmental Consulting (DMEC). 2003. Newhall County Water District Vasquez Water Main Project: 

Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2002121116). 7 November 2003. (PN 01-0112). Ojai, 

California. Prepared for Newhall County Water District, Santa Clarita, California. 

29 David Magney Environmental Consulting (DMEC). 2006. Biota of Lyons Canyon Ranch, Newhall, California. 29 June 

2006. (PN 03-0213.) Ojai, California. Prepared for the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, on behalf of D.R. 

Horton, Woodland Hills, California. 

30 David Magney Environmental Consulting (DMEC). 2009. Biological Constraints Analysis for the Howell Property, Castaic, 

California. 21 October 2009. (PN 09-0141.) Ojai, California. Prepared for the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 

California, on behalf of Norman and Patricia Howell, Castaic, California. 

31 Keane Biological Consulting. 2002. Sloan Canyon School Biological Survey. Prepared for Castaic Union School District. 

http://www.keanebio.com/projects.html 

32 Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. 1998. Biological Conditions Report, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 

Ventura County, California. 

33 Zander Associates Environmental Consultants. 2010. Chatsworth Reservoir Wetlands and Riparian Mitigation Program. 

(States that no SFVS were seen during Summer 2005, April 2006, or Summer 2010 plant surveys)



1/3/2011 

Page 23 

Climate Data Required to Understand Plant Ecology 


DMEC 

Pages 4.5-51 and 4.5-1,734 of the RMDP-SCP DEIS/EIR states that climate data for Newhall Ranch were 

obtained from Western Regional Climate Center in 2008. An examination of the weather station site, 

located in the Santa Clara River Valley east of Piru, in western Los Angeles County, is at an elevation of 

730 feet above sea level. The information on the weather station indicates that no temperature data are 

available from this station. 

Climate has a tremendous influence on annual plant populations (Levine et al. 2008 34 ). Freas & Kemp 

(1983 35 ) found that annual species growing under climatic conditions similar to the SFVS have genetic 

coding that tells the seeds when it is appropriate and “safe” to germinate to maximize the probability of 

completing its life cycle. It is clear by the population dynamics shown by the data presented in the DEIR for 

the SFVS that it has such genetic coding to determine the best times to germinate and be successful in 

reproducing. 

In order for ecologists to understand habitat requirements of the SFVS, demographic monitoring and 

population models are needed to examine how seed banking responds to natural variation in precipitation 

and their competitive environment. Temperature data are also a critical part of any climatic assessment and 

understanding of the germination and growth requirements of annual species (Levine et al. 2008) like the 

SFVS. As Levine et al. (2008) remind us, many annual native to California require first major rainstorms of 

1 inch or more to stimulate germination to occur early in the wet season. It is critical that both temperature 

and precipitation are critical physical components that must be included in any study of plant ecology, 

particularly of annual species, to gain an accurate understanding of a plant’s ecology. 

The studies of the SFVS occurrences on Newhall Ranch lacked both accurate rainfall data (measured at or 

near the sites) and (any) temperature data. This is probably the primary reason that those that were 

studying the SFVS at Newhall Ranch could never understand the reasons for the population dynamics they 

observed. 

Levine et al. (2008) conclude that, “changes in the timing and temperatures associated with the first major 

rains may have much stronger effects on population persistence than changes in total annual rainfall. Even if 

season-long precipitation remains unchanged, warmer first rains will likely mean lower germination, and 

lower population growth rates for all three Santa Rosa Island annuals. Our work adds to a growing body of 

work (Visser & Both 2005) suggesting that alteration of environmental cues may strongly determine how 

climate change affects plant communities.” They are saying that changes in climate will affect rare annual 

plants like the SFVS, which can be inferred through changes in the microclimate resulting from global 

warming to adjacent development. Numerous studies (e.g. Aida & Gotoh 1982 36 , Kalma 1974 37 , 

Landsberg 1981 38 , Oke 1976 39 , Oke 1981 40 , Oke 1998 41 , Oke & Fuggle 1972 42 , Santamouris et al. 2001 43 , 

34 Levine, J.M., A.K. McEachern, and C. Cowan. 2008. Rainfall Effects on Rare Annual Plants. Journal of Ecology 96:795- 

806. http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/levine/publications/JofEcol96p795.pdf 

35 Freas, K.E., and Paul R. Kemp. 1983. Some Relationships Between Environmental Reliability and Seed Dormancy in 

Desert Annual Plants. Journal of Ecology 71:211-217. 

36 Aida, M., and Gotoh, K. 1982. Urban Albedo as a Function of the Urban Structure – a Two-dimensional Numerical 

Simulation. Boundary Layer Meteorology 23:415-424. Boundary Layer Meteorology 2: 290-308. Buildings. Solar 

Energy 70(3): 201-216. 

37 Kalma, J.D. 1974. An Advective Boundary-layer Model Applied to Sydney, Australia. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 

6:351-361. 

38 Landsberg, H.E. 1981. The Urban Climate. Academic Press, New York. 

39 Oke, T.R. 1976. The Distinction Between Canopy and Boundary-layer Urban Heat Islands. Atmosphere 14:268-277.



1/3/2011 

Page 24 


DMEC 

Swaid 1991 44 , and Panthi 2010 45 ) have shown that climate changes dramatically, in particular temperature, 

when a natural area is developed. 

In conclusion, it is clear that the SFVS is highly restricted in its range, only occupying about 30 acres 

throughout its known range. Numerous surveys have occurred in the SFVS distribution range without 

finding historic or new populations. Those that have studied the SFVS do NOT understand why it occurs 

where it does, and they do not understand what the environmental triggers are for germination. Since they 

do not understand the ecology of the plant, it is not logical or reasonable to conclude that they know what is 

necessary to conserve the plant. It is both illogical and unscientific for them to conclude that reducing the 

known population by 30% and surrounding five of the biggest portions of the Newhall Ranch population by 

urban development will not put this taxon at jeopardy of extinction. 

SCP Goals and Objectives 

SCP, starting on page 8, states: 

“The goal of this plan is to ensure the long-term persistence of spineflower within the project study 

area. As proposed by the applicant in this plan, the long-term conservation of spineflower will be 

achieved first by establishing a system of preserves to protect the core occurrences of spineflower 

in the project study area, and second, by implementing management and monitoring within an 

adaptive management framework to maintain or enhance the protected spineflower occurrences”. 

The SCP goes on to list specific goals, each supported by two or more objectives, which are listed below. 

“Goal 1: Maintain or increase San Fernando Valley Spineflower populations within the preserves”, which is 

supported by several objectives: 

�� “Objective 1.1 - Maintain or increase the distribution of the spineflower within each preserve 

�� Objective 1.2 – Maintain or increase the abundance of the spineflower within each preserve 

�� Objective 1.3 – Reduce or prevent the increase of identified stressors or anthropogenic factors that 

negatively impact spineflower individual and population performance 

�� Objective 1.4 – Increase understanding of the ecological factors influencing the distribution, 

abundance, and population persistence of the spineflower in order to inform management and 

monitoring within the preserves 

�� Objective 1.5 - Plan and conduct small scale experimental management trials to test the effects of 

proposed on-the-ground management treatments and evaluate effectiveness and spineflower’s 

response” 

40 

Oke, T.R. 1981. Canyon Geometry and the Nocturnal Urban Heat Island: Comparison of Scale Model and Field 

Observations. Journal of Climatology 1(3):237-254. 

41 

Oke, T.R. 1998. On the Confounding Role of Rural Wetness in Assessing Urban Effects on Climate. Second Urban 

Environment Symposium, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Americam Meteorological Society. 

42 

Oke, T.R., and R.F. Fuggle. 1972. Comparison of Urban/Rural Counter and Net Radiation at Night. Boundary-Layer 

Meteorology 2 (1972) 290-308. 

43 

Santamouris, M., N. Papanikolaou, I. Livada, I. Koronakis, C. Georgakis, A. Argiriou, and D.N. Assimakopolous. 2001. On 

the Impact of Urban Climate on the Energy Consumption of Urban Climate on the Energy Consumption of Buildings. 

Solar Energy 70(3), 201-216. 

44 

Swaid, H. 1991. Nocturnal Variations of Air-surface Temperature Gradients for Typical Urban and Rural Surfaces. 

Atmospheric Environment 25B(3):331-341. 

45 

Panthi, Jeeban. 2010. Urban Micro Climate and its Effect on Environment. Blog at 

http://jeebanpanthi.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/urban-micro-climate-and-its-effect-on-environment/



1/3/2011 

Page 25 


DMEC 

“Goal 2: Maintain or enhance the structure and native species composition of the native communities within 

the spineflower preserves”. Goal 2 is supported by four objectives, one of which is subdivided into two 

sub-objectives: 

�� “Objective 2.1 - Maintain a mosaic of naturally occurring native communities within the preserves. 

Under this objective, management would be implemented if a 25% or greater change is observed in the 

absolute cover of existing native plant communities within each preserve, as measured through a 

combination of remote sensing and aerial mapping at 10-year intervals 

�� Objective 2.1(a) – Restore damaged habitats potentially capable of supporting spineflower, within the 

preserves 

�� Objective 2.1(b) – Revegetate areas within preserves that have been damaged and do not support native 

habitats but are unlikely to support spineflower in the future 

�� Objective 2.2 – Maintain or increase the absolute cover of native plant species by 15% within each 

preserve every 10 years 

�� Objective 2.3 – Maintain or increase the diversity of native plant species within each preserve by at least 

15%, as measured within each preserve every 10 years 

�� Objective 2.4 – Increase understanding of the ecology of the native communities needed to inform 

management of the preserves by undertaking the studies specified as part of the adaptive management 

program” 

“Goal 3: Facilitate the natural ecological processes required to sustain the native populations and 

communities in the preserves” is supported by two objectives: 

�� “Objective 3.1 – Maintain or enhance opportunities for migration of plant and animal 

populations, including spineflower, between potentially isolated preserves 

�� Objective 3.2 – Maintain the hydrologic conditions within the preserves” 

DMEC believes that these goals have not been achieved under the current proposed preserve design. In 

order for the SFVS to be actually protected and preserved, much less mitigate for the proposed impacts to 

the species under any of the project development alternatives, except maybe the No Project alternative, the 

SCP must truly preserve the SFVS onsite, in perpetuity. It does not. 

The shortcoming of the SCP are described below. 

SFVS Knowledge Lacking 

The SCP acknowledges that there is fundamentally no baseline understanding of the processes governing 

the distribution and abundance of the SFVS. The SCP states regarding historical knowledge of processes 

determining spineflower abundance: “Historical records do not include information regarding the abundance 

of SFVS (page 14)”. Preliminary hypotheses about the processes determining SFVS distribution and 

abundance are based on population survey data collected from Ahmanson Ranch and the proposed project 

areas at Newhall (Table 2, page 14). 

The SCP was developed and assessed in the project EIS/EIR. The SCP presents several biological 

objectives for the conservation of the SFVS as described above. Among them is, as presented on page 8 of 

the SCP, “Objective 1.4: Increase understanding of the ecological factors influencing the distribution, 

abundance, and population persistence of the spineflower in order to inform management and monitoring 

within the preserves”. This objective should rather be to “Increase understanding of the ecological factors



1/3/2011 

Page 26 


DMEC 

influencing the distribution, abundance, and population persistence of the spineflower in order to inform 

management and monitoring of the species”, and it should be the first objective of the SCP. 

Understanding the ecology of the SFVS is vital to designing a viable preserve system. Little is known that 

is specific to the SFVS, much of the analysis dealing with the SFVS’s phenology have been inferred based 

on work done with species that may have similar life histories. Therefore, many of the conclusions in the 

EIS/EIR, SPC, and supporting reports are based on many assumptions. While these assumptions are very 

helpful in creating guidelines (or strategy), they cannot be relied upon until actual scientific studies have 

proven them accurate. For instance, the Adaptive Management Section of the SCP relies heavily on 

relocation/translocation if there is a drop in the population of the SFVS. However, there was no mention if 

any relocation/ translocation studies have were proven successful. 

The following sections describe the known ecology of the SFVS, based on prior investigations. DMEC will 

expose gaps in knowledge, where the SCP frequently defers to future studies. In order to set viable 

mitigation standards and meet the goal of ensuring the long-term persistence of spineflower, additional 

studies are necessary to obtain baseline knowledge of SFVS ecology and habitat predictors. The additional 

investigations should take place before preserve areas and mitigation standards are designated. 

Population Dynamics 

Understanding the population trends of the species and the role and extent of the seed bank across its 

overall range across the Newhall property should be a fundamental goal of any plan for the species 

conservation. The extreme population fluctuations of SFVS (e.g. fluctuating from 6.4 million individuals in 

2005 to 760 individuals in 2007, Table 2 on page 14 of the SCP) indicates a population dynamic that 

potentially exposes the species to high extinction risk if any catastrophic event strikes the population in a 

low population year and the seed bank is not adequately protected. This scenario is especially true when the 

SFVS is confined to an isolated system of preserves and the seed bank of the species outside of these 

preserves is destroyed, as is the scenario proposed in the SCP. 

Without understanding the population dynamics of the SFVS, the authors of the SCP cannot be certain that 

not only will the SFVS endure within the confounds of the preserves, but their population can increase. We 

feel without this knowledge, the SCP does not meet the objectives as listed above and described in the SCP. 

Seedbanks and Genetics 

As previously discussed, extreme population fluctuations in the SFVS were witnessed on the Ahmanson 

and Newhall properties. Germination of the SFVS seedbank typically occurs after late-fall and winter rains 

which results in winter and spring blooms, as in many other annual plant species. Seedbank and genetic 

information in the SCP is based on the Slender-horned Spineflower, a close relative of the SFVS. Research 

suggests that in situ, seedbanks are critical to maintaining genetic diversity among isolated populations and 

that population variations could indicate that seed banks make important contributions to the genetics and 

population biology (as suggested by Ferguson and Ellstrand (1999) for the Slender-horned Spineflower) 

(SCP, page 4.10-27). 

While these finding are helpful in considering the role seedbanks may play, no comparable research has been 

done for the SFVS. More investigations into the role that seedbanks play in the SFVS’s genetics and 

population dynamics is essential before 6.32 acres (31 %) of mapped SFVS occurrences on the Newhall 

property are destroyed to accommodate the proposed urban development.



1/3/2011 

Page 27 


DMEC 

The SCP authors also suggest that a genetic study be done as future research to investigate the genetic 

structure of the SFVS occurrence in the study area and the viability of seeds produced from selffertilization. 

They claim that this genetic study will be “conducted in the near-term within a 1-year time 

frame or in the first year where there are sufficient aboveground populations to undertake the study” 

(Adaptive Management Program Module, page D-27). 

The SCP does not provide sufficient management strategies to mitigate for possible loss of genetic diversity 

in the SFVS population. In the Adaptive Management Program Module section on the Loss of Genetic 

Diversity and subsequent management proposed to offset. The one strategy given is to maintain or enhance 

conditions for pollinators, seed dispersal and/or migration. Since they don’t understand the mechanisms by 

which the SFVS germinates and is dispersed, they cannot assume that they can maintain or enhance these 

conditions. Furthermore, the preserves are so isolated from each other, dispersal and migration are not 

likely possible between the remaining populations. 

One of the goals set forth in Objective 1.2 is to “maintain conditions conducive to persistence of a viable 

seed bank, in order to increase abundance and enhance long term population persistence” (SCP, page 1.2- 

11). There is not enough information given in the SCP to make this objective achievable. 

Preserve Design, Management Activities, 

and Monitoring Activities 

As previously discussed, the SCP identifies five proposed preserve areas to be established on Newhall 

Ranch (of Newhall Land Properties). The five preserves proposed in the SCP would conserve 

approximately 68.6% of the cumulative SFVS occupied area within the study area. 

The establishment of the proposed preserves and related management and monitoring activities in the SCP 

are designed as mitigation for the “take” or loss of 31% of the total SFVS occurrences on the Newhall Land 

properties. The entire Valencia Commerce Center (VCC) population will be taken under the current plan. 

The SCP states in Section 17.0 Conservation and Take Estimates, Page144: 

“At VCC, neither avoidance nor minimization is practicable in order to maintain the integrity of the 

approved development plan. The VCC project was approved for development in 1990, half of which 

has been built. Spineflower observed in the VCC planning area accounted for approximately 4% of 

all 2002 through 2007 cumulative spineflower occurrence area.” 

The following subsections are critiques of the SCP preserve design, management, and monitoring activities. 

PRESERVE DESIGN 

Initially Dudek performed the Habitat Stability Index (HSI) in order to identify if habitat features are 

predictors of SFVS occurrences. The six habitat features were used to compute the HIS were vegetation, 

soils, geology, elevation, slope, and aspect. The results of the HSI were unsatisfactory due to either too 

course of data or that habitat features were not good predictors of occurrences. The SCP states, “It is 

possible that further studies at a finer scale may better refine the various habitat parameters differentiating 

occupied SFVS habitat from unoccupied areas” (SCP, page 7.1-62). 

Since the HSI proved unsatisfactory, Dudek next used a representative model to evaluate the percentage 

contain suitable habitat within the five preserves by comparing distribution of SFVS to the six habitat 

features given above. However, this implies that the five preserve locations and sizes had already chosen 

before the representative model was used. The locations of the preserves might have been the best fit for



1/3/2011 

Page 28 


DMEC 

the residential developments; however, they are NOT the best fit for the long-term survival of the SFVS on 

Newhall Ranch. The preserves need to be significantly larger and directly connected to each other to 

minimize the negative influence of outside factors and variables. 

BUFFER AREAS 

Buffer area width can be a very complicated subject. There are many variables that all need to be fully 

addressed and understood before a specific number on what a buffer area should be can be 

applied/determined. These variables include: habitat type, pollinators, plant phenology, seed bank viability, 

edge effects, disturbance factors, drainage, prevailing winds, watershed (local), etc. 

The proposed spineflower preserves described in the Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) would protect 

68.6 % (13.88 acres) occupied spineflower habitat onsite. Buffer areas would be included within the 

preserves that would serve as protection against threats associated with edge effects from the adjacent 

urban development. Buffer widths where measured from the edge of the known spineflower occurrences to 

the nearest spineflower preserve boundary as described in the SCP. 

As seen below in Table 5, taken from the Applicant Take Permit Letter 46 page 12, the proposed SFVS 

preserves would include buffer widths ranging from a minimum of 80 feet to more than 300 feet. 

The letter states on page 12, “Within the SCP planning area, the vast majority (95.9%) of the preserved 

occupied area would be buffered by at least 100 feet, while 18.9% would be more than 300 feet from the 

nearest spineflower preserve edge”. While this statement is a correct calculation, it should not be implied 

that the 95.9% of area buffered by at least 100 feet is acceptable for protecting the state listed plant. Based 

additional literature reviewed, much having to do with risk of Argentine Ant in preserve areas, we believe 

that buffers of 80-200 feet are inadequate to provide protection within the preserve. 

The SPC states in Section 7.3 Accommodating Population Fluctuation with Preserve Areas on page 67: “In 

order to minimize edge effects and certain indirect impacts from development areas, a buffer zone has been 

incorporated within each preserve area.” 

There is only a brief discussion in the SCP on how they determined appropriate buffer size. The buffer 

areas for the SCP are based on the analysis set forth in the “Review of Potential Edge Effects on the San 

46 APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT (pursuant to 14 CCR Section 783.2 and California Public Resources 

Code, Section 2081) Dated: May 9, 2008, page 12.



1/3/2011 

Page 29 


DMEC 

Fernando Valley Spineflower”, prepared by Conservation Biology Institute (CBI 2000 47 ), prepared for 

Ahmanson Ranch, and other sources of scientific information and analysis. Since the buffers are based on 

this reports findings, the SPC needs to be included in the Newhall EIS/EIR so that it can be reviewed and 

commented on accordingly. The CBI report is listed in the literature-cited section of the 2007 SCP, but not 

included in the appendices. This needs to be rectified since it is such an important component and aspect of 

the SFVS preserve design. 

The majority of the buffer areas given for the proposed preserve areas are of 80-200 feet or more to 

separate the SFVS occurrences from adjacent development. The only mention of where the 80-200 feet 

buffer widths came from was in regards the CBI study. As stated in the Project Design Features Section of 

Dukes 2007 report, Relationship of Argentine Ant to Conserved San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

Populations (SCP, C-8): 

“to minimize initial establishment of Argentine ants adjacent to preserves, container plants to be 

installed within 200 feet of the preserves shall be inspected for pests, including the Argentine ant, 

and any plants found to be infested shall be rejected. The CBI (2000) study suggests that this 

measure will be moderately effective for buffer widths of 80 to 100 feet and highly effective at 

buffers greater than 200 feet.” 

Since the CBI study is not available, we cannot determine what other factors were considered when 

justifying suitable buffer widths, beside that of the Argentine Ant. 

The following subsection on Argentine Ants will address in further detail why a minimum buffer area of 80- 

200 feet as suggested in the SCP, is inadequate to protect the preserves from threats and allow for 

sustainability of the spineflower population. 

INSUFFICIENT BUFFER TO EXCLUDE ARGENTINE ANT 

The presence of the Argentine Ant is not a matter of if they invade, its when they will invade, if insufficient 

natural, undisturbed habitat does not separate the preserves from urban environments. The SCP even 

states, “it is assumed that they will occur within development areas and Open Areas adjacent to the 

preserves in the future” (SCP, page 9.2.9-117). 

DMEC believes that the 80-200 feet buffer areas applied around 46.7 % the SFVS preserves is 

insufficient. The Suarez et al. (1998 48 ) states that a 200 m (656 ft) buffer is appropriate for preserve 

areas in Southern California that are adjacent to urban development. While they do cite this article in 

regards to other issues, there is no mention of this suggested buffer anywhere in the Dudek (2007 49 ) 

report. 

Please note these quotes from the Suarez et al. 1998 article, Effects of Fragmentation and Invasion on 

Native Ant Communities in Coastal Southern California: 

“The Argentine ant can spread into an area immediately after isolation from surrounding urban edges 

where they are most abundant. The association between Argentine ant activity and distance to the 

47 

CBI (Conservation Biology Institute). 2000. Review of Potential Edge Effects on the San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

(Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina). 19 January 2000. Escondido, CA. 

48 

Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger, T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of Fragmentation and Invasion on Native Ant Communities in Coastal 

Southern California. Ecology 79(6):2041-2056. 

49 

Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2007. Relationship of Argentine Ant to Conserved San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

Populations. December. California. Prepared for the Newhall Land and Farming Company, Valencia, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 30 


DMEC 

nearest urban edge suggests that urban reserves in coastal southern California will only be effective at 

maintaining natural populations of native ants at distances 200 m from an edge.” 

“At the urban–scrub interface, Argentine ants decrease sharply in abundance with increasing distance 

away from edges such that by 200m few remain.” 

The SCP states, “In addition, the spineflower preserves are about 25 to 30 miles from the coast and 

experience hotter and drier summers than the coastal areas of San Diego (i.e. within 10 to 11 miles of the 

coast) where Suarez et al. (1998) observed ants in all sampled areas. It is possible that the spineflower 

preserves in the more inland area of Santa Clarita (where the Newhall Ranch spineflower preserve areas are 

located) would be less susceptible to Argentine ant invasion—all else being equal—than native habitats in 

coastal San Diego County, although this hypothesis would need to be tested (Dudek 2007, page 7)”. We 

assume this is their justification of why the buffer size in the Santa Clarita (frequently 80-200 ft) should be 

less than the buffer size recommended for the preserve in San Diego (>200 m or 656 ft) (as suggested by 

Suarez et al. 1998). 

Additional research was done on Argentine Ants in fragmented communities in San Diego County in a 

2003 report by Suarez & Case 50 . The report primarily looked to see if exotic vegetation was a 

contributing factor of spread of the Argentine ant into natural vegetation areas. The report states, “…in 

Rice Canyon (Fig. 9.4) the vegetation in the east end is predominately native, implying that the spread of 

Argentine ants into the habitat fragment and the subsequent loss of native species is not dependent on 

exotic vegetation. This is also supported at the University of California’s Elliot Reserve and Torrey Pines 

State Park where Argentine ants have penetrated over 400 and 1000 m, respectively, into the reserves in 

areas dominated by native scrub vegetation (Suarez et al. 1998; J. King, unpubl.). This also highlights 

that the degree to which Argentine ants can penetrate into natural habitat varies depending upon the 

topography and abiotic conditions of the landscape. For example, in more xeric sites in Riverside 

County, California, Argentine ants appear only able to penetrate up to 50 m into native vegetation from 

neighboring urban developments (Suarez and Case, unpubl.)”. 

DMEC believes that Newhall Ranch falls somewhere between the coastal environments represented in the 

San Diego research and the xeric environments of Riverside County. Even if we were to use the Riverside 

County example, it still states that the Argentine Ants is able to penetrate up to 50 meters (164 feet), the 

proposed preserve areas don’t prove sufficient buffers. 

It is well documented that the invasion of the Argentine Ant is directly tied to urban development and 

associated irrigation (Dudek 2007). The SCP states that by maintaining a “dry zone” of 200 feet between 

the urban development and the preserve, the Argentine Ant will not be able to colonize. Within the “dry 

zone”, soil moistures are maintained below 10% saturation. While they do attempt to combat the issue of 

the dispersal of Argentine Ant, it is still an inadequate buffer to protect against invasion. 

Connectivity Between Preserves 

Due to the size and shape of the SFVS core habitats in the proposed SFVS preserves, as well as the isolated 

patch locations, in order for the preserves to remain viable and sustainable populations it is extremely 

50 Suarez, A.V. and T.J. Case. 2003. The ecological consequences of a fragmentation mediated invasion: The Argentine Ant, 

Linepithema humile, in southern California. Pages 161-180 in G.A. Bradshaw and P. Marquet (eds.) How landscapes 

change: Human disturbance and ecosystem disruptions in the Americas. Ecological Studies, vol. 162. Springer Verlag, 

Berlin.



1/3/2011 

Page 31 


DMEC 

important they allow for connections to other habitat patches. To see connectivity feature as described in 

detail below, please refer to part of Figure 13 Proposed Open Space taken SCP, page 73. The five preserve 

areas area outlined in purple. 

The Potrero and Grapevine Mesa Preserve Areas are both connected to the Santa Clara River corridor 

through lands designated as open areas. The Airport Mesa Preserve Area connects to open area via a 

wildlife-movement arched culvert. The SCP clearly states, “There is no direct connectivity linking the San 

Martinez Grande Preserve Area to natural habitat areas. A 50- to 100-foot-wide band of proposed 

development along San Martinez Grande Road separates the San Martinez Grande Preserve Area from a 

narrow open area located east of the road along the stream corridor. It is not known whether pollinators or 

dispersal agents would be able to cross developed lands to reach this preserve area” (SPC, page 7.1-71). 

The Entrada Preserve Area does have a utility easement connecting it to the Santa Clara River corridor, but 

the report fails to say how long this corridor is and whether it would actually function as a viable connection 

pathway between SFVS preserve sites. All it describes is that the corridor is 175-feet in width. From hand 

measurement of the Figure 13 on page 72 of the SCP, this “corridor” is approximately 5,000 feet 

(approximately 1 mile) to open space not on Newhall property and an additional 7,500 feet (1.4 miles) to 

the man-made open space on Newhall property and then continuing down the utility easement corridor 

another approximate 12,500 feet (2.4 miles) to the Santa Clara River corridor. This is a total of 4.8 miles to 

the Santa Clara River corridor. 

The preserve areas fail to provide means of migration for not only the SFVS, but also other plant and animal 

populations. Only the Potrero and Grapevine Mesa preserves can be directly connected, but only through a 

long distance (approximately 13,750 feet or 2.6 miles) of open space. The other three preserves (San



1/3/2011 

Page 32 


DMEC 

Martinez, Airport, and Entrada) can only be connected through long and narrow utility easement corridors 

or wildlife movement corridors associated with heavily trafficked streets, and the connecting habitat is likely 

not suitable for SFVS, making dispersal problematic. Therefore, Objective 3.1 will not be achieved. This 

may result in localized extinctions and a decrease is genetic exchange for all isolated populations. 

The SCP fails to address the distance between each preserve by merely stating what connectivity features 

are present (if any). From what can be easily observed from looking at Figure 13 (page 72) is that there are 

expansive distances between each of the preserves. If SFVS pollinators and seed dispersal agents cannot 

easily travel between preserves, the preserve design fails to allow for genetic exchange. 

Much of the land use areas adjacent to the preserves are referred to as “open space” but no specific 

information is given. The SCP report states that, “open areas may include undeveloped land, passive and 

active use parks, and trails. Development plans are not currently available for open areas, and, therefore, 

open area land uses adjacent to the proposed spineflower preserves are not known at this time” (SPC, page 

7.1-71). This is not sufficient. Land use activities adjacent to preserve will have direct influence on quality 

and/or long-term viability of the natural vegetation and the amount wildlife that will frequent the preserves. 

Management and Monitoring Activities 

The proposed management plan described in the SCP was intended to permanently protect and manage a 

system of preserves designed to maximize the long-term persistence of the SFVS within the project study 

area. Since so little is known about the ecology and habitat predictors of the SFSV, the management of the 

proposed preserves relies on consistent monitoring and future studies. The close proximity (80 feet at the 

closest point) of the preserves to urban development will result in numerous risk factors that need to be 

constantly monitored so not to impact SFVS populations. 

Preserve Manager 

The duties of the proposed preserve manager are outlined in Section 9 on page 76 of the SCP, stating, “A 

preserve manager will be contracted with and paid for by Newhall to perform environmental monitoring, 

oversee the spineflower preserve areas, and ensure the monitoring and management activities outlined 

herein are carried out”. 

Given the large amount of work that will go into maintaining the preserves and the vast amount of scientific 

monitoring that the SCP will entail, it seems quite unrealistic that one person could accomplish both the 

managerial and scientific duties necessary for adequate SFVS conservation. We recommend that minimally 

there be separate preserve management and scientific monitor-investigator positions be created as part of 

any conservation agreement reached between CDFG and Newhall. 

Landscaping Adjacent to Preserves 

In the Construction Plans and Specifications, Section 9.1.2 of the SCP, there is a list of 

measures/restrictions in order to avoid impacting SFVS during construction. One such restriction is, 

“Avoid planting or seeding invasive species in development areas within 200 feet of spineflower preserve 

areas” (SCP, page 9.1.2-110). It is incorrect to assume that the Preserve Manager can correctly manage the 

distribution of competing plant species in the preserves and still allow “invasive species” to be located only



1/3/2011 

Page 33 


DMEC 

200 feet from SFVS preserves. This restriction should have been stated as “avoid planting or seeding all 

invasive species within the development area and preserve areas”. 

As described in Section 9.2.3, the use of container plants within public areas within 200 feet of the SFVS 

preserves seems a meager means of protection from threats to the preserve; disease, weeds, and pests, 

including Argentine Ant. Inspection of all of these container plants by the Preserve Manager is simply 

impracticable. Much of the property adjacent to the preserves will be residential. Even with landscaping 

restrictions (no plants on the Cal-IPC list and their Invasive Ornamental Plants list), it is not feasible for the 

Preserve Manager to have to deal with landscaping associated with the homes. To do this, the Preserve 

Manager would also have to be responsible for inspecting the backyards of the adjacent residences. This 

seems like an outlandish statement; however, it is not feasible to have such tasks given to the Preserve 

Manager, especially when the report states “it is assumed that they (Argentine ants) will occur within 

development areas and Open Areas adjacent to the preserves in the future” (SCP, page 9.2.9-117). 

Access 

As described in Section 9.2.4, all portions of the SFVS preserves shall be closed, with the exception of preidentified 

existing dirt roads and utility easements. However, next it explains that “paths proposed for use 

as nature trails shall have openings in the fencing at identified trailhead locations wide enough only for trail 

users to pass through” (page 82). This is a direct contradiction to the previous statement. The only other 

mention of trails is Section 9.3.3 Management of Grapevine Mesa Preserve area (page 25), where it says the 

existing dirt roadways m ay be incorporated into a pedestrian-only walking trail system with appropriate 

signage. The trail system will have to be reviewed by CDFG. CDFG needs to have more involvement then 

just reviewing of the plan. CDFG needs to have override authority for the review to have any meaning. 

Trails through preserve areas can lead to soil compaction and possible tramping, not to mention other direct 

impacts to SFVS plants such as removal and destruction. The extent to which such soil disturbances affect 

the SFVS is still unknown. Therefore, in order to maintain the protection of the SFVS, no trails should 

cross the preserves. 

Management for Argentine Ant 

Section 9.2.9 on page 117 of the SCP states: 

“The goal of management is to preclude the invasion of Argentine ants into the preserves and their 

associated buffers. Controls will be implemented using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

approach and will likely require a combination of methods. The primary management strategy 

focuses on prevention by maintaining an inhospitable habitat condition in the buffer between the 

development edge and the preserve.” 

As mentioned above, the CBI study suggested the 80-100 feet buffer would be moderately effective as a 

buffer width to protect the preserve from Argentine ants. Moderately effective is not good enough to meet 

the goal that will “preclude the invasion of the Argentine ant”. This is especially true since 46.72% of the 

SFVS occupied preserve areas would be buffered by a minimum of 200 feet (4.13% 80-100 feet and 

42.59% 100-200 feet), as shown in Table 5 earlier in the letter. 

Since the 200-foot “dry zone” will be located next to or within urban landscaping, the SCP will require 

container plants to be installed within 200 feet of the preserves. The container plants will purportedly be 

inspected by the Preserve Manager for pests and disease, which assumes that they can actually detect and



1/3/2011 

Page 34 


DMEC 

identify all the pests and diseases. The SCP once again cites the CBI (2000) study that “suggests that this 

measure will be moderately effective for buffer widths of 80 to 100 feet and highly effective at buffers 

greater than 200 feet (Dudek 2007). Again, the CBI study is not included in the Appendices of the SCP 

and we are unable to distinguish what these assumptions were based on. 

Monitoring for the Argentine Ant would be performed quarterly. As discussed later in the Qualitative 

Monitoring of Preserve Areas, this allows for too great of a time gap to adequately detect Argentine Ant 

colonies in time. The report justifies this time gap based on the Suarez et al. (2001) study, in which it was 

shown that populations of Argentine Ant disperse at a rate of about 15 to 270 meters per year and that 

“quarterly monitoring for Argentine Ant should be adequate to detect incipient invasions” (Dudek 2007, 

page 10). If you do the math, this is around 50-885 feet in one year, even if monitored quarterly, Argentine 

Ant could reach the preserve areas with a buffer area of 80-200 feet in one quarter. 

The report claims that the “invasions by Argentine ants, if they occur, are reversible under appropriate 

conditions” (Dudek 2007, page 10). There have been no studies reporting successful long-term eradicated 

the Argentine Ant. While restoring the level of soil saturation back to 10% might decrease the abundance 

of the Argentine Ant, as demonstrated in the Menke and Holway (2006) report, it will not result in full 

eradication. Additionally, there is no consideration that climatic conditions are highly variable and changing, 

and the “perfect storm” situation will happen at some time in the foreseeable future. In this case, that would 

be a situation where a high rainfall season, with rainfall late into the spring, occurs at the same time as 

Argentine Ant colonies are introduced at multiple points from irrigated landscaped areas adjacent to one or 

more preserves. 

Restoration Activities within Preserve Areas 

The SCP puts a lot of emphasis on further analysis that will be included in the Habitat Characterization 

Study Further (described in Appendix A of the SCP) that will better characterize the SFVS’s physical and 

biological habitat requirements at a fine scale. “Restoration and enhancement efforts within the preserve 

areas shall be informed by the results of the Spineflower Habitat Characterization Study to be conducted” 

(SCP, page 9.2.10-118). It is our understanding from email correspondence with Jodi McGraw 51 that the 

habitat assessment or characterization was not implemented, at least not by her firm. If this is the case, then 

it is premature for preserve design and future management framework be constructed in the SCP since the 

basis for many of the restoration and proposed experimental trials depend on the results of this Study. 

As described in Section 7.1, “it is not possible at this time to identify suitable habitat for the spineflower” 

(SCP, page 61). Results of the HSI were unsatisfactory and habitat studies described in Section 5.3 only 

narrowed down possible suitable habitat based occurrence percentages. Of these, both soil chemistry and 

soil texture proved not to be good predictors of whether a site represents potentially suitable habitat for the 

SFVS. It is not justified or reasonable that the SCP can recommend restoration and possible introduction 

when there is not enough scientific knowledge on what is suitable habitat for the spineflower. 

51 Jodi M. McGraw, Ph.D., Jodi McGraw Consulting, Freedom, CA, personal communication: email dated 6 August 2009 

regarding status of the SFVS habitat assessment study; jodi@jodimcgrawconsulting.com.



1/3/2011 

Page 35 

Monitoring Activities 

The Spineflower Monitoring Program 


DMEC 

The Spineflower Monitoring Programs (Section 11.2 of the SCP) purpose is to achieve the biological goals 

and objective concerning SFVS populations as addressed in Goal 1 (Section 3.0). 

“The goal of the Spineflower Monitoring Program is to provide objective, repeatable methods for 

collecting, analyzing, and interpreting ecologically meaningful information that can be used to 

evaluate the status of spineflower populations, the effectiveness of the conservation strategy, and 

the design of future management and monitoring, using the most cost-effective methods possible” 

(SCP, page 11.2-132). 

While restoration and improvements made within the preserves will most likely improve growing conditions 

and they may allow existing SFVS populations the ability to expand, these will only be short-term 

expansions since the isolation of these preserves will not allow for sustainability of the species; e.g. genetic 

diversity. 

The Spineflower Monitoring Program includes protocols for monitoring both the distribution and 

abundance of SFVS populations within the preserves. Monitoring will be done by mapping the areal extent 

of the SFVS distribution. The problem with the protocol as described on page 1 of Appendix E (Draft 

Monitoring Protocols) is that this will only be done every 10 years, “to reduce the potential for inter-annual 

variability in density to influence areal extent”. Next, it states that mapping will only be conducted in “years 

with weather conditions appropriate for establishment and survival (i.e., years with above-average rainfall)”. 

The parameters used to determine when mapping will occur needs to be more refined, more than just 

“above-average rainfall” as this is fairly nebulous, and could include years with just 0.1 inch more rainfall 

than average. Furthermore, the actual average rainfall at the SFVS populations is not known since no 

weather stations have been established at any of the population sites, or even the proposed preserve sites. 

California is currently experiencing a drought (with normal rainfall seasons interspersed) and even if the 

years post SCP approval have the conditions appropriate, there is too much room for error. Ten-year gaps 

in areal mapping is insufficient and only mapping in above-rainfall years is ridiculous since dramatic changes 

to site conditions can occur in much shorter timeframes, and by the time the Preserve Manager conducted 

the mapping, the damage could be irreversible. 

Climate is known to play a large role in the germination of the SFVS. Therefore, it is even more important 

to do mapping in years with little precipitation. Since the population dynamics of the SFVS are still not well 

known, any opportunity to map and compare their distribution year to year will lead to a better 

understanding of its ecology. 

The Spineflower Monitoring Program along with the implementing the general management measures 

(Section 9.2) still prove to be inadequate due to the insufficient buffer area size that will still allow for the 

invasion of threats such as the Argentine Ant. 

Qualitative Monitoring Activities within Preserve Areas 

The monitoring proposed, and time frame for report preparation, is not satisfactory and will allow for too 

much error. The SCP states, “Qualitative monitoring will be performed quarterly and include an overall 

review of the spineflower populations and habitats within the preserve and preserve buffer” (SCP, page 

11.5-133).



1/3/2011 

Page 36 


DMEC 

Following development and residence, “quarterly monitoring shall be initiated for Argentine ants along the 

urban–open space interface at sentinel locations where invasions could occur (e.g., where moist 

microhabitats that attract Argentine ants may be created)” (SCP, page 11.5-134). As previously discussed, 

the SCP report states, “based on a study by Suarez et al. (2001), Argentine ant populations disperse at a 

rate of about 15 to 270 meters per year; therefore, quarterly monitoring for Argentine Ant should be 

adequate to detect incipient invasions” (SCP, page 11.5-134). This actually proves that quarterly 

monitoring in not adequate because by 15 to 270 meters per year (50-885 feet) ants could invade the 80- 

200 feet buffered areas in the first quarter. 

The SCP claims, “because Argentine ants can be effectively managed within and adjacent to the preserves 

through general aspects of preserve design with a limited need for active management and human 

mediation, it is not necessary to address Argentine ants through adaptive management” (SCP, page 10.4- 

130). Their presence in the adjacent urban development is likely inevitable and containment will require 

continuous monitoring and treatment to keep out of the preserve areas. This is an inefficient use of the 

Preserve Manager’s time, the use of larger buffers would require less labor and be much more effective in 

keeping the Argentine Ant out of the SFVS preserves. 

The monitoring plans state that if Argentine Ant is detected during monitoring, “the qualified biologist shall 

distinguish between foraging ants versus nesting ants and implement appropriate direct control measures 

immediately to help prevent the invasion from worsening” (SCP, page 11.5-134). The training necessary 

for the said biologists to distinguish between ants is onerous. The plan continues to go through the next 

steps to be taken if ants are detected, insecticide treatment, and identify/correction the possible source of the 

increased moisture. However, once the ants have colonized, local treatment can prove effective to decrease 

volume (with the use of baits and insecticides) but full eradiation is highly unlikely. 

The quarterly monitoring will also determine the presence or absence of native ant species within the 

preserves. “If native ant species are determined to be absent, further research into the cause of their 

disappearance will be conducted, and management measures will be developed to mitigate this effect.” Ants 

have been shown to be effective pollinators for the SFVS, as shown in the Jones et al. (2004) study, if 

native ants numbers diminish there could be direct impacts on the germination of the SFVS within the 

preserves. Quarterly monitoring is simply too little! 

As discussed in the Monitoring Results section (SCP, page 11.7-135), reports of the quarterly monitoring 

results are only to be prepared annually for SFVS abundance and every 10 years for SFVS distribution and 

vegetation in the preserves. This is just too much of a gap in distribution data for a State-listed species. 

The risk (extirpation) is too great to rest on such infrequent monitoring. 

Spineflower Introduction Program 

As stated in Section 12.0, “if CDFG determines that avoidance and minimization efforts and establishment 

of the preserves are not adequate to substantially lessen the significance of direct and indirect impacts to the 

spineflower, a reintroduction program may be implemented” (SCP, page 12.0-136). 

Seed Collection 

Section 12.2 calls for approximately 5% additional “seed will be collected in each preserve area each year, 

only in years of within 20% or greater of normal rainfall, for 10 years, beginning in the year the preserves 

are established”. SFVS seed collection will follow the approved seed collection protocol as described in the



1/3/2011 

Page 37 


DMEC 

October 8, 2003 CDFG letter. However, they will only collect the 5% of seeds in years within 20% or 

greater normal rainfall, for the next 10 years” (SCP, page 12.2-136). 

These seeds will be used to create additional SFVS occurrences if necessary. Section 12.3 Seeding on page 

137 states, “Direct seeding will include identifying locations within the preserve areas with appropriate soils, 

geology, aspect, slope, and vegetation conditions that have no historical occurrences of spineflower”. 

However, based on the earlier discussion, they don’t know what these appropriate conditions are yet. 

The seed generated each season will likely have slightly to significantly different genetic coding that is 

important for the ultimate survival of the SFVS by maintaining and reproducing the variation in the genetic 

code of the taxon. This variation in genetic code is a vital part of the SFVS’s survival strategy, to always 

have some part of the seedbank germinating and producing new plants that in turn contribute to the 

seedbank. This genetic variability is even more important considering the expected changes in climate in 

California as a result of Global Warming. 

Conservation of the Seed Bank 

A fundamental assumption of the SCP is that the seed bank of this species outside of the preserve areas can 

be stored at botanical gardens and other seed repositories (SCP, page 12.1-136) and used to restore 

populations should the preserves fail to adequately protect SFVS populations. Protocols for restoration of 

SFVS populations from captive propagation are detailed in Section 12 of the SCP (Pages 136-138); 

however, there has been no study done or demonstration that reintroduction of the SFVS, or any 

Chorizanthe species, to previously unoccupied habitat or currently occupied habitat will actually work. 

Spineflower Information Center 

A major part of the proposed adaptive management plan is the creation of a Spineflower Information 

Center, a centralized data storage system with all of the relevant SFVS scientific and management data. 

The Spineflower Information Center should be accessible to the public so that the review of the SFVS 

status is transparent and can be monitored by members of the public in parallel with the SFVS specialist 

taskforces that are called for in the adaptive management plan. 

Funding 

Section 13 of the SCP, Pages107-109, concerns funding the activities outlined in the plan. The longest time 

horizon addressed in the plan is a 50-year projection for qualitative monitoring and monitoring report costs. 

There is no financial endowment contemplated or discussed for perpetual scientific monitoring and 

sustained spineflower preserve maintenance. Newhall is responsible for ensuring the permanent 

conservation of the SFVS populations on their property and a permanent sustained endowment or 

comparable financial mechanism to ensure sustained resources for SFVS conservation activities must be 

provided as part of any conservation plan. 

Funding is shown in Table 20 (SCP, page 13.0-139) depicts the costs of the management measures for 

existing agricultural activities during construction and after construction, as well as costs associated with 

monitoring and reporting requirements totaling $5,829,180.00 for the next 50-years. The majority of 

projected costs are fixed and are calculated accordingly. However, nowhere in this assessment is there any 

room for error. The funding should allow for errors and for continued management after 50 years. Also,



1/3/2011 

Page 38 


DMEC 

$1 million of this is to be directed to conservation efforts at the Ahmanson Ranch/Laskey Mesa population; 

however, that population is already officially protected; therefore, directing a large percentage of the 

mitigation funding for the SFVS to a site that is already protected from development takes away from 

where the funding is needed even more, at the Newhall population, which is much larger, and at risk of 

extirpation. 

As recent economic conditions have shown, availability of funds from taxes, assessments, or corporations 

such as Newhall Land and Farming Company, or its parent company, Lennar, cannot be depended upon 

when the economy sours. Therefore, a permanent endowment needs to be established and adequately 

funded to provide a secure and permanent source of funding to pay the salaries of the Preserve Manager, 

other support staff, and implement routine and adaptive management measures to protect the SFVS 

populations on the Newhall Ranch, in perpetuity. 

To ensure adequate funding is available to manage the preserves in perpetuity, the minimum time frame that 

should be considered to actually be meaningful in protecting the SFVS from extinction. An endowment 

must be established, and funded well enough, to provide funds annually that are sufficient to fund permanent 

staff and implement adaptive management strategies, much less the routine maintenance required for 

managing any preserve. The entire costs associated with managing the SFVS preserves should be born only 

by the developer, not the taxpayer, since Newhall is the sole beneficiary of any issued take permit from 

CDFG. 

SCP is Inadequate to Mitigation Impacts to SFVS 

As currently written, the SCP is inadequate and fails to set forth a sound or feasible plan that can feasibly 

mitigation project-related impacts on the SFVS. This results in failure of the SCP to meet CEQA 

requirements without a finding of overriding consideration of impacts to San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

survival must be rectified. 

The Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) states on page 7: 

“The goal of this plan is to ensure the long-term persistence of spineflower within the study area. 

As proposed by the applicant in this plan, the long-term conservation of spineflower will be 

achieved first by establishing a system of preserves to protect the core occurrences of spineflower 

in the study area, and second by implementing management and monitoring within an adaptive 

management framework to maintain or enhance the protected spineflower occurrences.” 

DMEC finds that the SCP is inadequate to ensure the long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley 

Spineflower (SFVS) in the proposed project area. Essential knowledge needed to assure the long-term 

persistence of the spineflower in the proposed preserve system does not exist. The SCP defers acquisition 

of the knowledge needed to ensure the long-term persistence of this species into the future. 

This plan does not adequately provide for mitigation of take of proposed project impacts to the long-term 

persistence of the SFVS. We argue that the deferral of acquiring essential knowledge needed to meet the 

fundamental goal of the SCP (i.e. ensuring the long-term persistence of the species) is in practice deferring 

overall formulation of a viable mitigation plan for proposed impacts to the SFVS by the project applicant. 

Deferral of formulation of a mitigation plan is a violation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). 

In the absence of a viable mitigation plan, a finding of overriding consideration must be found in regards to 

SFVS in order for this EIS/EIR to be in compliance with CEQA (citation). The Lead Agency must make



1/3/2011 

Page 39 


DMEC 

findings that the value of this project (Newhall Specific Area Plan and related developments) is more 

important than the survival of the SFVS to justify the take of the species. 

The implementation of the SCP fundamentally depends upon meeting Goal 1 and attendant objectives 

needed to implement this goal. The goals are listed earlier in this letter. 

The other goals in the SCP are subsidiary to attaining the success of Goal 1 (Maintaining or increasing 

spineflower populations within the preserves) and the objectives needed to implement it. We thus focus this 

critique on the problems with Goal 1 and its objectives, which render the SCP inoperative as a valid 

mitigation plan under CEQA. 

Lack of Adequate Data 

As discussed above, understanding the population trends of the species and the role and extent of the seed 

bank across its overall range across the Newhall property should be a fundamental goal of any plan for the 

species conservation. There is a serious lack of adequate data to implement the primary goal and objectives 

of the SCP. 

The SCP acknowledges that there is fundamentally no baseline understanding of the processes governing 

the distribution and abundance of the SFVS. Also stated above, analysis of population survey data has 

yielded the initial conclusion regarding ecological processes controlling spineflower distribution and 

abundance: “More data is [sic] needed, but the preliminary interpretation is that preferred spineflower 

location is controlled by intrinsic environmental characteristics (e.g. soil type), while population density 

(and, in turn, actual numbers of individuals) is controlled by extrinsic environmental characteristics (e.g. 

rainfall) (Pages15-16)”. The basic ecological processes controlling SFVS distribution and abundance 

remain fundamentally unknown and the current state of knowledge of these processes is most directly 

summarized by the authors of the SCP in this statement: “Many gaps remain in the understanding of the 

ecology of the spineflower, making it difficult to devise management strategies to prevent its extirpation, 

and to design efficacious monitoring protocols (SCP, page 8)”. 

The primary goal and objectives of the Spineflower Conservation Plan cannot be met with existing 

knowledge and thus the SCP cannot meet CEQA requirements. Objective 1.1 and Objective 1.2 imply that 

the fundamental baseline knowledge of the ecological processes controlling SFVS distribution and 

abundance needed to manage these processes exists. As illustrated above, this baseline knowledge does not 

currently exist. We cannot assume that we have the requisite knowledge to increase or maintain SFVS 

distribution or abundance and thus cannot codify these processes as management goals until this knowledge 

exists as Objective 1.1 and Objective 1.2 currently do. 

There is no knowledge of how to maintain or increase SFVS distribution or abundance as the SCP goals 

imply. These goals are not practicable and thus the fundamental assumptions of the SCP are not viable or 

valid. The research needed to acquire the necessary knowledge to maintain SFVS distribution and 

abundance is deferred to future studies (e.g. Goals 1.4 and 1.5). The reality of the SCP is that the 

knowledge and management practices needed to make it a viable mitigation tool are deferred to the future. 

This is a violation of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 and negates the validity of this SCP. 

We provide a detailed critique below of the areas in which the fundamental baseline knowledge of the 

ecological processes controlling SFVS distribution and abundance are deficient for implementing the SCP 

as currently written.



1/3/2011 

Page 40 

1. Failure of Reintroduction as a Viable Spineflower Mitigation Strategy 


DMEC 

There has been no study done or demonstration that reintroduction of the SFVS, or any Chorizanthe 

species, to previously unoccupied habitat or currently occupied habitat will actually work. 

Before destruction of any known part of the SFVS population is contemplated, much less permitted, 

demonstration that the SFVS seed bank can be successfully stored and sustainably reintroduced to the wild 

must be demonstrated. Fiedler (1991 52 ) surveyed the effectiveness of reintroduction of Californian 

special-status plant species as a mitigation strategy and concluded that “it is suggested that because of the 

lack of or limited success of most of the transplantation, reintroduction, or restoration attempts 

documented, and the uncertainty of many of the on-going projects, the Endangered Plant Program of the 

California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Heritage Division should remain extremely cautious in 

any mitigation agreement that will allow any of these techniques to serve as mitigation for project impacts”. 

There are no data presented in this plan that the proposed mitigation for destruction of the SFVS seed bank 

outside of the preserve areas will work. 

In the Spineflower Draft Conservation Agreement (page 18), the authors state: 

“Although the reintroduction program is experimental at this stage, the parties consider such a 

program to be a feasible form of conservation at this juncture based upon available studies.” 

The authors do not cite any specific studies that validate their conclusion that a reintroduction program is 

feasible. There are no baseline data extant that collection and storage of the SFVS seedbank is a viable 

conservation strategy. There is no valid scientific logic presented to support the applicant’s assertion that 

reintroduction is a viable conservation plan for the spineflower. 

All knowledge and demonstration that reintroduction is a viable conservation strategy is deferred to the 

future and thus invalidates reintroduction as a viable mitigation strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 

15126.4. Proceeding with reintroduction strategies with the current lack of knowledge that they are viable 

would result in the destruction of 6.32 acres (31 %) of mapped SFVS occurrences on the Newhall property 

and the associated SFVS seedbank underlying these known SFVS population occurrences. The destruction 

of this seedbank cannot be mitigated for with the current lack of ecological knowledge. 

The SCP puts much emphasis on further analysis that will be included in the Habitat Characterization Study. 

It is our understanding from email correspondence with Jodi McGraw, the designer of the proposed study 

that the habitat assessment or characterization was not implemented. If this is the case, then it is premature 

for preserve design and future management framework be constructed in the SCP since the basis for many 

of the restoration and proposed experimental trials depend on the results of this Study. 

It is not justified or reasonable that the SCP can recommend restoration and possible introduction when 

there is not enough scientific knowledge on what is suitable habitat for the SFVS. 

2. Lack of Knowledge About Genetics 

There is a lack of knowledge about genetic structure and diversity of the SFVS seedbank, which is needed 

for adequate management of SFVS abundance and diversity. As discussed extreme population fluctuations 

occur in spineflower populations. Germination of the SFVS seedbank typically occurs after late-fall and 

winter rains which results in winter and spring blooms, as in many other annual plant species. Research on 

52 Fiedler, P. 1991. Mitigation Related Transplantation, Translocation and Reintroduction Projects Involving Endangered and 

Threatened and Rare Plant Species in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 41 


DMEC 

the Slender-horned Spineflower suggests that seedbanks are critical for maintaining genetic diversity among 

isolated populations and that population variations could indicate that seed banks make important 

contributions to the genetics and population biology (SCP, page 4.10-27). No comparable research has 

been done for the SFVS. More investigations into the role that seedbanks play in the SFVS’s genetics and 

population dynamics is essential before 6.32 acres (31 %) of mapped SFVS occurrences on the Newhall 

property are destroyed to accommodate the proposed urban development. 

The SCP authors suggest that genetic studies will be done to understand the baseline genetic structure of 

the population and investigate the genetic viability of seeds produced by self-fertilization. The authors state 

that these genetic studies will be “conducted in the near-term within a 1-year time frame or in the first year 

where there are sufficient aboveground populations to undertake the study” (Adaptive Management 

Program Module, page D-27). We are not aware of any technology or methodology that would allow 

complex genetic studies such as the ones proposed to be completed in the one year time frame indicated. 

We argue that the genetic knowledge the authors say is needed for SFVS management should be conducted 

prior to the approval of any mitigation plan and not be allowed as a vague afterthought in an unrealistic 

timeline as is proposed in the SCP. 

3. Pollination Not Fully Understood and Existing Data Not Used 

A pollination study was conducted on the Newhall property (Jones et al. 2004 53 ), the results showed 

variation in pollinators present depended on location (three study sites) and season. Among the most 

common visitors to the study sites were ants, flies, and beetles. Honeybees were also shown to be effective 

pollinators although their numbers weren’t as prevalent as the other three pollinators were. 

Jones et al. (2004) also performed a lab experiment to evaluate the effectiveness of ants as SFVS 

pollinators. The results confirmed ants to be not only effective pollinators, it also proved that when the 

plant was alone it was able to self pollinate. These results are important since the pollination of the SFVS is 

still relatively unknown and any impacts to potential pollinators need to be mitigated as part of the SCP. 

The invasion by the Argentine Ant is one of the threats to the pollinators with in the proposed preserves. 

The Argentine Ant is associated with urban development (Dudek 2007 54 , Section 6, C-11). Invasions by 

the Argentine Ant often results in the displacement of existing invertebrates that serves as seed predators 

and are effective as seed dispersers. page D-47 of the Adaptive Management Program Module addresses 

the threat of the Argentine Ant, stating, “In coastal San Diego county, Argentine ants were ineffective in 

safely dispersing seeds of the myrmecochorous tree poppy (Dendromecon rigida) relative to displaced 

native harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex subnitidus) as seeds left by Argentine ants were not sufficiently buried 

to avoid subsequent predation at the soil surface”. 

The EIS/EIR spent a fair amount of time describing the threat of the Argentine Ant (Relationship of 

Argentine Ant to Conserved San Fernando Valley Spineflower Population, Dukek 2007) and plans to 

manage them; however, the EIS/EIR basically ignored the roll of other pollinators, and how they would be 

impacted by the project. Flies and beetles were also found to be the most common visitors along with ants 

and honeybees depending on what seasons the pollination studies were conducted. For example, the only 

53 Jones, C.E., S. Walker, F. Shropshire, R. Allen, D. Sandquist, and J. Luttrell. 2004. Newhall Ranch Investigation of the San 

Fernando Valley Spineflower, Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina (S. Watson) Jepson. 

54 Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2007. Relationship of Argentine Ant to Conserved San Fernando Valley Spineflower 

Populations. December. California. Prepared for the Newhall Land and Farming Company, Valencia, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 42 


DMEC 

time honeybees are mentioned is on page D-25 of the Adaptive Management Program Module, Loss of 

Genetic Diversity: 

“European honeybees have been observed visiting spineflower’s at the Laskey Mesa site (Jones et al. 

2002) and may be able to transfer pollen between preserves. It is believed that European honey bees 

currently may be experiencing colony collapse syndrome, and pollination relying upon them therefore 

may be tenuous.” 

Page 5, paragraph 2, Section 3.8 Phenology, Seed Production and Pollination, states, “However, ants are 

not efficient pollinators, and the rate of fruit set measured by researchers was high, which would indicate 

another, more effective pollinator was visiting the plants (USFWS 2004)”. This statement alone is strong 

evidence that the SCP should have examined in greater detail what other pollinators are present, and the 

EIS/EIR should have assessed how the proposed project would impact those pollinators. 

The preserves need to be large enough to ensure viable populations of SFVS pollinators existing onsite, and 

will persist onsite over the long term. 

4. Seed Dispersal 

Little is known about dispersal of SFVS seeds. As discussed above, Argentine Ants may pose a threat to 

native SFVS seed dispersers. Potential interactive effects of granivory and invasion by the Argentine Ant, 

which may displace native invertebrate granivores, could be significant. In addition, trapping studies 

conducted by Sapphos in 2001 on Ahmanson Ranch did not clarify whether small mammals play a role in 

SFVS seed dispersal (SCP, page 4.9-27). 

DMEC believes that the buffer areas as proposed under the current plan will be inadequate protection from 

the invasion of the Argentine Ant within the preserves areas. There will be further discussions on the threat 

of Argentine Ant and a critique of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) proposed later in the letter. 

5. Soils 

With the use of a representative model described later, Dudek found that SFVS occurrences varied among 

combinations of sandy and gravelly silt and clay loams as discussed in Section 5.3.2 of the SCP. Soil 

texture and soil chemistry both proved not to be good predictors of whether a site represents potentially 

suitable habitat for SFVS. 

On both the Ahmanson Ranch and Newhall Land properties, SFVS is also in areas with disturbed soils and 

in areas disturbed by fossorial rodent activity. The SCP suggests that soil disturbances might also directly 

facilitate spineflower performance by increasing soil nutrients (J. McGraw, unpublished data) (Adaptive 

Management Module D-51). It is possible that SFVS relies on fossorial rodents since SFVS was found 

often occurring in areas disturbed by fossorial rodent activity. The size of the preserves may impact the 

rodent populations if they are too small. 

It is clear that more investigation needs to focus on the soil requirements of the SFVS, especially since SCP 

suggests that enhancement should occur if there is a decrease in SFVS populations within the preserves. 

There is not information to make these important decisions.



1/3/2011 

Page 43 

6. Elevation, Slope, and Aspect 


DMEC 

The SFVS occurs primarily on slopes with a south-facing aspect. These southern exposures experience 

more sunlight and heat (solar insolation), which leads to less dense herbaceous growth and/or less dense 

vegetation when compared to areas with a northern exposure. Therefore, SFVS’s tendency to occur on 

these slope exposures may be due to the prevalence of more sparsely vegetated habitat areas on hotter, drier 

slopes (SCP, page 4.6-23). 

7. Competition 

Dudek found that the majority of co-occurring species in 2007 were non-native annual species, suggesting 

the similarity of ecological requirements and the potential that competitive effects of non-native plants may 

be especially important in years of below-average rainfall (SCP, page 4.7-23). However, without focused 

ecological studies and soils analysis, the actual relationships will remain speculative at best. It has been 

hypothesized that European grasses dominating California landscapes are present and thriving as a result of 

an increase in soil nitrogen originating from smog. If that excess nitrogen in the soil is depleted, many of 

those alien species may die off, or at least be reduced in density, which will return the advantage to 

California native species. 

8. Predators 

There is currently no evidence that disease or predation are factors affecting the SFVS. Heavy grazing 

activities have taken place on both the former Ahmanson Ranch site and Newhall's property for many 

decades. The SCP states, “these factors are not applicable threats to survival of the spineflower” (CCA 55 , 

page 4.1.3-8). 

The SCP defers to the Habitat Characterization Study to document the extent of herbivory and to address 

possible SFVS browsing, effects of herbivory and management for SFVS plants. This study was to be 

conducted in Spring 2008. To our knowledge this study has not been done (Jody McGraw pers. comm. 56 ); 

therefore, there is not enough evidence to state the extent of herbivory and if a threat to the SFVS. 

We can infer from the proposed preserve design that it will result in isolated patches of habitat and lead to 

impaired connectivity between preserves. This will likely result in declines in the top predators (Mountain 

Lion, Coyote, Bobcat, raptors) and further result in an increase of small mammal prey species and an 

increase in herbivory. An increase in herbivory by these prey species could lead to increased competition 

with invertebrates species that are thought to be potential seed dispersers of the SFVS. 

Though the Adaptive Management Program Module section on Herbivory and Seed Predation (D-48) 

maintains that, “maintenance of large core open-space areas (i.e., High Country Special Management Area 

(SMA), Salt Creek area, and River Corridor SMA) and biological connectivity between preserves is 

intended to maintain the presence of top predators, such as raptors, coyotes, and bobcats and would prevent 

the occurrence of predator release within the preserves”, the preserves are located so far apart that this is 

not likely. 

55 

The Newhall Land And Farming Company, "Draft Newhall Land Candidate Conservation Agreement for San Fernando 

Valley Spineflower" (February 14, 2008) 

56 

Jodi M. McGraw, Ph.D., Jodi McGraw Consulting, Freedom, CA, personal communication: email dated 6 August 2009 

regarding status of the SFVS habitat assessment study; jodi@jodimcgrawconsulting.com.



1/3/2011 

Page 44 

9. Climate 

Section 11.6 Local and Regional Weather Conditions (SCP, page 11.6-135) states, 


DMEC 

“Rain gauges and possibly other basic measurement devices for measuring temperature and soil moisture 

will be installed on the preserves to ensure that local environmental conditions are being accurately 

monitored. Because Santa Ana winds may play a role in interacting with drought conditions to reduce 

survival at critical times, data on wind conditions will also be tracked.” 

As has been shown by population data gathered to date, the SFVS population varies wildly from year to 

year, as is typical for many annual species of Mediterranean and desert climates. Exactly what 

environmental cues the SFVS is responding to stimulate germination is unknown. So far, the trend, from 

sampling data, is one of decline, suggesting that drought conditions do not stimulate seed germination 

(which may seem obvious); however, there have not been enough sampling for enough years to cover a 

typical climate cycle of drought periods and wet periods to identify any clear patterns. 

No site-specific climatic data have been gathered at any of the SFVS populations. Precipitation data exist 

only from established weather stations, which are widely scattered and none close to the SFVS population 

sites. The nearest self-recording weather stations are Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s 

Newhall-Soledad (406) and Del Valle (446) stations, both at least 5 miles from the nearest SFVS 

population. The nearest raingage is at the Valencia Reclamation Plan (1263) at 1,000 feet above mean sea 

level, which is checked manually on a daily basis. Another nearby station, an automatic recording station, is 

at Castaic Junction (1012B), at 1,005 feet above mean sea level. Precipitation data from these stations may 

be useful for determining actual rainfall on the nearby SFVS populations; however, the usefulness of this 

nearby station may provide erroneous data since the topographic position of this site is different than most 

of the SFVS population sites. 

Precipitation is extremely variable in where and how much falls in any given storm, varying significantly 

from mile to mile and with relatively small changes in elevation and slope aspect. This means that simply 

using the nearest weather station data as the means to determine precipitation and temperatures at the 

SFVS populations may very well provide misleading or incorrect information in determining the actual 

ecological conditions existing at one or more of the SFVS population sites. 

The SCP authors acknowledge that they have not addressed the potential implications of climate change in 

their plan: 

“Anthropogenic contributions to global climate change are generally accepted by the scientific community, 

and these changes over time may influence the type and composition of native vegetation communities as 

well as other aspects of the natural environment in Southern California. Although it is an objective of this 

plan to prevent anthropogenic changes to the naturally-occurring communities within the preserves, 

management of the preserves is not intended to reverse or slow changes that are the result from global 

climate change.” 

This blanket dismissal of the potential affects of climate change on SFVS persistence seems completely 

inadequate. The question of whether the potentially suitable or unoccupied habitat set aside in the preserves 

is adequate to control for potential movements of SFVS populations due to climate change should be 

addressed in the SCP. The adaptive management framework proposed in the SCP is designed to 

contemplate future uncertainty in SFVS population dynamics. It is unclear why potential effects of climate 

change are not addressed within the adaptive management framework and they should be.



1/3/2011 

Page 45 


DMEC 

Page 4.3-306 Mission Village DEIR, Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-66 states: “Direct impacts to known 

spineflower populations within the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area shall be avoided or minimized through 

the establishment of one or more onsite preserves that are configured to ensure the continued existence of 

the species in perpetuity. Preserve(s) shall be delineated in consultation with the County and CDFG, and 

will likely require changes and revisions to Specific Plan development footprints for lands within and around 

the Spineflower Mitigation Area Overlay (Figure 2.6-8). 

“Delineation of the boundaries of Newhall Ranch spineflower preserve(s) for the entire Specific Plan 

area shall be completed in conjunction with approval of the first Newhall Ranch subdivision map filed 

in either the Mesas Village, or that portion of Riverwood Village in which the San Martinez 

spineflower population occurs. 

“A sufficient number of known spineflower populations shall be included within the Newhall Ranch 

spineflower preserve(s) in order to ensure the continued existence of the species in perpetuity. The 

conservation of known spineflower populations shall be established in consultation with the County 

and CDFG, and as consistent with standards governing issuance of an incidental take permit for 

spineflower pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081, subdivision (b). 

“In addition to conservation of known populations, spineflower shall be introduced in appropriate 

habitat and soils in the Newhall Ranch preserve(s). The creation of introduced populations shall 

require seed collection and/or top soil at impacted spineflower locations and nursery propagation to 

increase seed and sowing of seed. The seed collection activities, and the maintenance of the bulk 

seed repository, shall be approved in advance by the County and CDFG. 

“Once the boundaries of the Newhall Ranch spineflower preserve(s) are delineated, the project 

applicant, or its designee, shall be responsible for conducting a Spineflower population census within 

the Newhall Ranch spineflower preserve(s) annually for 10 years. (These census surveys shall be in 

addition to the surveys required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-53, above.) The yearly spineflower 

population census documentation shall be submitted to the County and CDFG, and maintained by the 

project applicant, or its designee. If there are any persistent population declines documented in the 

annual population census reports, the project applicant, or its designee, shall be responsible for 

conducting an assessment of the ecological factor(s) that are likely responsible for the decline, and 

implement management activity or activities to address these factors where feasible. In no event, 

however, shall project-related activities jeopardize the continued existence of the Newhall Ranch 

spineflower populations. If a persistent population decline is documented, such as a trend in steady 

population decline that persists for a period of 5 consecutive years, or a substantial drop in 

population is detected over a 10-year period, spineflower may be introduced in consultation with 

CDFG in appropriate habitat and soils in the Newhall Ranch preserve(s), utilizing the bulk 

spineflower seed repository, together with other required management activity or activities. These 

activities shall be undertaken by a qualified botanist/biologist, subject to approval by the County and 

CDFG. The project applicant, or its designee, shall be responsible for the funding and 

implementation of the necessary management activity or activities, including monitoring, as approved 

by the County and CDFG. 

“Annual viability reports shall be submitted to the County and CDFG for 10 years following 

delineation of the Newhall Ranch spineflower preserve(s) to ensure long-term documentation of the 

spineflower population status within the Newhall Ranch preserve(s). In the event annual status 

reports indicate the spineflower population within the Newhall Ranch preserve(s) is not stable and



1/3/2011 

Page 46 


DMEC 

viable 10 years following delineation of the spineflower preserve(s), the project applicant, or its 

designee, shall continue to submit annual status reports to the County and CDFG for a period of no 

less than an additional 5 years.” 

As stated in this comment letter, there simply is not enough known about the ecology of this plant to rely on 

the SCP to conserve this species. There is no evidence that planting seeds will succeed. Why hasn’t 

Newhall and CDFG run planting trials yet? This is a critical part of the SCP, yet there is no evidence that 

such a crucial part of the plan will be viable. So much of the SCP is based on inadequate or junk science 

that a real scientist wouldn’t even consider putting a species at risk without running trials. Newhall has had 

plenty of time to do so. 

Locally Rare Plants Not Adequately Assessed 

The DEIR did not adequately consider or assess project-related impacts on locally rare plant species. A 

review of the list of plants observed at the project site finds several problems, some of which are easily 

rectified, and others requiring significant revisions. First, a large number of vascular plants were not fully 

identified to subspecies or variety, which is necessary to understand which taxon is present, and if that taxon 

is a rare species meeting the intent and definition of rare under CEQA. Second, no consideration or 

discussion or assessment is given to species that are rare regionally or within Los Angeles County. 

DMEC’s preliminary assessment of the species present found several plant taxa that should be considered as 

significant resources, and assessed accordingly. 

Based on reviewing Appendix B of SCP DEIS/EIR Appendix F, a list of vascular plants that are not fully 

identified and may be rare in the region and/or Los Angeles County of which some subspecies or varieties 

are rare: 

Chaenactis glabriuscula – which variety? 

Chrysothamnus nauseosus – which subspecies? 

Heterotheca sessiliflora – which subspecies? 

Lessingia glandulifera – which variety? 

Stephanomeria exigua – which subspecies? 

Pectocarya linearis – which subspecies? 

Plagiobothrys collinus – which variety? 

Lepidium virginicum – which variety? 

Lonicera subspicata – which variety? 

Symphoricarpos sp. – which species? 

Spergularia sp. – which species? 

Atriplex canescens – which subspecies? 

Atriplex lentiformis – which variety? 

Dudleya cymosa – which subspecies? 

Astragalus trichopodus – which variety? uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010) 

Lathyrus vestitus – which subspecies? 

Lupinus excubitus – variety excubitus? Should we assume this variety since variety hallii is also listed? 

Trifolium sp. – which species? 

Trifolium albopurpureum – which variety? 

Trifolium gracilentum – which variety? 

Ribes aureum – which variety?



1/3/2011 

Page 47 


DMEC 

Ribes malvaceum – which variety? 

Nemophila menziesii – which variety? 

Phacelia cicutaria – which variety? Rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010) 

Phacelia ramosissima – which variety? 

Stachys ajugoides –variety ajugoides? Should we assume this variety since variety rigida is also listed? 

Mentzelia sp. – which species? 

Camissonia boothii – which subspecies? 

Clarkia purpurea – which subspecies? 

Oenothera elata – which subspecies? 

Orobanche sp. – which species? 

Leptodactylon californicum – which subspecies? 

Navarretia ojaiensis in not on the species list; however, it is assessed as a special-status species in the 

EIS/EIR, but not in the Mission Village DEIR. 

Rumex salicifolius – which variety? 

Calyptridium – which species? 

Claytonia parviflora – which subspecies? 

Claytonia perfoliata – which subspecies? 

Ceanothus tomentosus – which variety? 

Cercocarpus betuloides – which variety? Two varieties are listed below this entry on Appendix B of 

Appendix F of the SCP DEIR/EIS, including variety betuloides, so which other variety could it be? 

Prunus ilicifolia – which variety? 

Galium angustifolium – which subspecies? 

Salix lasiolepis – which variety? 

Antirrhinum coulterianum – which subspecies? 

Castilleja densiflora – which subspecies? 

Cordylanthus rigidus – which subspecies? 

Linaria canadensis – which subspecies? 

Mimulus aurantiacus –variety aurantiacus? Should we assume this variety since variety pubescens is also 

listed? 

Urtica dioica – which subspecies? 

Carex sp. – which species? 

Scirpus acutus – which variety? Rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010) 

Juncus sp. – which species? 

Juncus balticus – which variety? 

Bloomeria crocea – which variety? 

Dichelostemma capitatum – which variety? 

Bromus catharticus – which variety? Variety catharticus is already listed. 

Eragrostis mexicana – which variety? 

If any of these taxa have ten or fewer populations in Los Angeles County, they should be evaluated as 

potentially locally rare, and losses to one or more populations should be considered significant, and 

appropriately mitigated. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines state that impact assessments will only consider 

impacts to species that are rare statewide or globally. Certainly, such species must be evaluated; however, 

the intent of CEQA is to document and evaluate a project’s impacts on biological resources. This requires 

the consulting biologists to actually think and evaluate the impacts the Mission Village project will have on 

the biological resources onsite. Organizing this assessment into categories and boxes in necessary to clearly



1/3/2011 

Page 48 


DMEC 

and simply explain the resources present and the project’s impacts on them, but it does not mean that the 

biologists should simply ignore them as has been done at Newhall Ranch. 

Below is a list of 35 vascular plants listed in the SCP DEIR or supporting documents that are rare in the 

region and/or Los Angeles County but where not evaluated as sensitive biological resources pursuant to 

CEQA: 

Juniperus californica – While this species is relatively common in the desert portions of Los Angeles 

County and southern California, this occurrence on Newhall Ranch represents the southwestern-most 

occurrence of this species. The limits of a species range, and a disjunct population such as on Newhall 

Ranch, represents a significant botanical resource that should be assessed. This status is the similar to that 

for Artemisia tridentata ssp. parishii, which is treated as a special-status species. 

Amaranthus palmeri - uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010 57 ); there are only 11 vouchered 

records for this species in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010 58 ), representing 8 

populations of which only 2 are extant, plus the Newhall Ranch populations, meaning that this taxon should 

be considered rare in Los Angeles County. 

Amaranthus powellii - uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010); rare in Los Angeles County with 8 

vouchered populations, all but one of which where made over 80 years ago (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2010) and most are likely extirpated. The Newhall Ranch population is possibly the only extant 

population and it should be treated as rare in Los Angeles County. 

Baccharis sarothroides – not in Ventura County; there are only 2 known populations in Los Angeles 

County is on the project site (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); therefore, it should be treated as a 

rare species. 

Helianthus californicus – not in Ventura County; rare in Los Angeles County with only 3 known 

populations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010). This species should be treated as a rare species. 

Pluchea sericea – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by only about 10 extant populations 

in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a rare species. 

Wyethia ovata – could this be misidentified? – Balsamorhiza deltoidea occurs in Ventura County and looks 

similar to Wyethia ovata. Balsamorhiza is scattered (not rare) in northern Ventura County but W. ovata is 

not known from Ventura County. This population represents an extralimital population well below its 

known elevational range and should be treated as a rare species. 

Opuntia basilaris var. ramosa – not found in Ventura County; only known occurrence in Los Angeles 

County; this taxon should be treated as a rare species. Appendix B of Appendix F lists Opuntia basilaris 

var. ramosa as present on Newhall Ranch; however, there is no explanation as why this variety is listed 

when many taxonomic sources place it as a synonym of Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris. It is not listed in 

the flora for the Liebre Mountains (Boyd 1999 59 ), which only includes the northeast and easternmost 

portions of Newhall Ranch. The only collections of this variety deposited and reported in the Consortium 

of California Herbaria (CCH) online database 60 are from San Diego County, collected by Mark Elvin. 

57 

Magney, D.L. 2010. Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants. 9 October 2010, Eighteenth edition. California Native Plant 

Society, Channel Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. Published on www.cnpsci.org. 

58 

Consortium of California Herbaria. 20107. Database search of California public herbaria 30 December 2010. Jepson 

Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley. (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/) 

59 

Boyd, S. 1999. Vascular Flora of the Liebre Mountains, Western Transverse Ranges, California. November. Rancho Santa 

Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California. 

60 

Consortium of California Herbaria online database search: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ dated 25 August 2009 for 

Opuntia basilaris var. ramosa.



1/3/2011 

Page 49 


DMEC 

Sanders (pers. comm. 2009 61 ) believes the Newhall Ranch populations of Opuntia basilaris are unique, and 

best fit under the description for Opuntia basilaris var. ramosa. The actual identity is unknown; therefore, 

it should be treated as a special-status species. 

Opuntia californica var. parkeri – not found in Ventura County; Newhall Ranch site it the only other 

known occurrence in Los Angeles County and should be treated as a rare species. Appendix B of Appendix 

F lists Opuntia californica var. parkeri as present on Newhall Ranch. This variety should be considered a 

special-status species. There are only a very small number of known populations in California, from San 

Diego County and western Riverside County (Consortium of California Herbaria online database (2009 62 ). 

If this taxon was indeed found on Newhall Ranch, then it should be treated as a special-status species. 

Loeflingia squarrosa var. squarrosa– rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010), rare in Liebre Mountains 

(Boyd 1999, Magney 2003 63 ), with only 8 known populations in Los Angeles County (Consortium of 

California Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a special-status species in the EIR. 

Atriplex serenana var. serenana – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by only 10 

populations in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be considered as a 

rare species. 

Atriplex triangularis – uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles County 

by about only about 9 extant populations at most (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be 

treated as a rare species. 

Vicia hassei – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles County by about only 9 

extant populations at most (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a rare 

species. 

Stachys ajugoides var. rigida – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles 

County by about 9 populations, most of which are based on vouchers over 60 years old (Consortium of 

California Herbaria 2010 64 ); this taxon should be treated as a rare species in the EIS/EIR. 

Malacothamnus fasciculatus ssp. laxiflorus – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los 

Angeles County by only 6 populations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); this taxon should be 

treated as a rare species. 

Clarkia speciosa – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010) with only one population; Newhall Ranch 

collection represent the only known population in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 

2010); this species is rare in Los Angeles County and should be treated as such in the EIR. 

Orobanche parishii ssp. parishii – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by up to 9 

populations in Los Angeles County, 2 of which are on Newhall Ranch (Consortium of California Herbaria 

2010) and should be considered a rare species. 

Argemone corymbosa – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010) with only one occurrence; represented by 

only 4 populations in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) besides the Newhall 

Ranch occurrence, and should be treated as a rare species. 

61 

Sanders, Andrew, Curator, University of California at Riverside Herbarium, email correspondence on 25 August 2009 

regarding taxonomic status of Opuntia basilaris var. ramosa and the plants at Newhall Ranch. 

62 

Consortium of California Herbaria online database search: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ dated 25 August 2009 for 

Opuntia californica var. parkeri. 

63 

Magney, D.L. 2003. Rare Plants of the Liebre Mountains, Los Angeles County. California Native Plant Society, Channel 

Islands Chapter, Ojai, California. Published at http://www.cnpsci.org/html/PlantInfo/Liebre_Rare.htm 

64 

Consortium of California Herbaria online database search: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ dated 30 December 2010.



1/3/2011 

Page 50 


DMEC 

Eriastrum densifolium ssp. mohavense – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los 

Angeles County by only 3 populations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a 

rare species. 

Chorizanthe fimbriata – only record for Los Angeles County is on Newhall Ranch with no other known 

population in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); not in adjacent Ventura 

County. 

Eriogonum viridescens – uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles 

County by about 6 populations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010), most of which were collected 

before 1930. It should be treated as a rare species. 

Lastarriaea coriacea – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles County by no 

more than 10 extant populations (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a rare 

species. 

Rumex maritimus – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles County by no 


species. 

Galium nuttallii ssp. nuttallii – CNPS List 4, occasional (not rare) in Ventura County (Magney 2010); 

represented in Los Angeles County by no more than 8 extant populations (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a rare species. 

Parthenocissus vitacea – Rare in California and in Los Angeles County, not found in adjacent Ventura 

County; represented in Los Angeles County by no more than 6 extant populations (Consortium of 

California Herbaria 2010), all on Newhall Ranch, and should be treated as a rare species. 

Eleocharis rostellata – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los Angeles County by no 


species. 

Scirpus robustus = Bolboschoenus robustus – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented in Los 

Angeles County by only one other extant population in the Liebre Mountains (Consortium of California 

Herbaria 2010) and should be treated as a rare species. 

Juncus longistylis – not found in Ventura County; no other populations in Los Angeles County other than 

Newhall Ranch (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); loss of the only population of this taxon in Los 

Angeles County should be considered a significant impact. 

Juncus triformis – rare in Los Angeles County; not found in Ventura County; represented by only 1 extant 

populations in Los Angeles County on Newhall Ranch (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); loss of 

this one Los Angeles County population or individuals of this taxon should be considered a significant 

impact. 

Lemna minuscula – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by only 5 historic populations in 

Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); loss of one or more populations of this 

taxon should be considered a significant impact. 

Lemna valdiviana – uncommon in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by only 9 historic 

populations in Los Angeles County (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); loss of one or more 

populations of this taxon should be considered a significant impact. 

Brodiaea terrestris ssp. kernensis – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by only 5 historic 


populations of this taxon should be considered a significant impact.



1/3/2011 

Page 51 


DMEC 

Yucca schidigera – rare in Los Angeles County; not found in Ventura County; represented by only 1 extant 

population in Los Angeles County on Newhall Ranch (Consortium of California Herbaria 2010); loss of this 

one Los Angeles County population or individuals of this taxon should be considered a significant impact. 

Is this planted onsite and not native on the ranch? 

Potamogeton foliosus – rare in Ventura County (Magney 2010); represented by about 10 historic 


populations of this taxon should be considered a significant impact. 

The loss of any of these 35 plant taxa should be analyzed for significance. There is no doubt as to their 

rarity in Los Angeles County, the only area in California in which the County has any jurisdiction, but these 

plants that are rare in Los Angeles County were not considered in the DEIR as significant biological 

resources. As is practiced in other jurisdictions, such as Ventura County, the loss of a population of any of 

these taxa would be considered a significant impact, and appropriate mitigation proposed, if feasible. This 

was not done in the EIR, rendering it inadequate in this area. 

Special-status Wildlife in the DEIR 

The DEIR takes great leaps in its assessment that all the proposed mitigation measures will fully reduce 

impacts to almost all special-status wildlife species to less-than-significant levels. Their logic is flawed and 

not supported by the evidence, as explained below. 

The Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) is likely to occur in the same habitat as the Southwestern 

Pond Turtle and two-striped garter snake. As the draft EIR/EIS states: “Suitable breeding habitat for the 

western spadefoot toad on site includes riparian areas and seasonal drainages containing seasonal pools and 

suitable aestivation habitat includes surrounding uplands within at least several hundred meters of breeding 

sites. Because western spadefoot toads are associated with specific microhabitats, however, their total 

suitable habitat on site was not quantified” (page4.5-984). The Mission Village DEIR (page 4.3-191) states 

that it was observed from two sites within the Mission Village development area. 

Given the known occurrence, and likely presence of the Western Spadefoot Toad in the same habitat as 

Southwestern Pond Turtle and parallel dependence on both terrestrial and aquatic habitat elements, the 

determination of “significant unavoidable impacts” should be made for the Western Spadefoot Toad 

following the same reasoning that was used to determine this status for the Southwestern Pond Turtle. The 

determination that there will be no significant impacts to the Western Spadefoot Toad after mitigation is 

thus arbitrary and wrong. 

Unarmored Threespine Stickleback is a California Fully Protected Species. The DEIR states that 

authorization for take was issued by CDFG on page 4.3-405. However, this is misleading as there is no 

take provision for Fully Protected Species. Only the footnote for Table 4.3-20 on page 4.3-406 clarifies 

that take was not issued by CDFG for this taxon. A more casual read of the DEIR clearly gives the reader 

the distinct impression that Newhall Ranch had been previously issued a permit to “take” Unarmored 

Threespine Stickleback, which is not true and would be illegal under current law. 

Special-status Mollusks in the DEIR 

Following the thread started above, focusing on mollusks, the DEIR provides a description of the mollusks 

found onsite on page 4.3-65:



1/3/2011 

Page 52 


DMEC 

“(4) Gastropods. Three native species of shoulderband snails were detected during the surveys for 

the Trask shoulderband snail within the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area and nearby areas, including 

Southern California shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta tudiculata cf. H.t. convicta), Vasquez 

rocks shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta vasquezi), and Grapevine shoulderband snail 

(Helminthoglypta uvasana). None of these species are designated by CDFG as special-status 

species [emphasis added]. The Southern California shoulderband snail and Vasquez rocks 

shoulderband snail were detected in the project area in a variety of habitat types, including California 

annual grassland, coastal scrub, and in riparian areas. All snails were found in association with their 

expected microclimates (i.e., under rocks, in leaf litter, woody debris piles, under the decaying bases 

of yucca bushes, and similar moist environments). Vasquez rocks shoulderband snail was found at 

several locations in the proposed project area and proposed open space areas, including the mouth of 

Middle Canyon; portions of upper Middle Canyon; and the Magic Mountain Canyon watershed. 

Southern California shoulderband snail was found at several locations in the proposed project area, 

including the Middle Canyon area. Grapevine shoulderband snail was not detected in the project 

area, but was located in the Piru Creek floodplain near the confluence with the Santa Clara River. 

This species was previously known only from the type locality near Fort Tejon State Historical Park 

in Kern County. This detection extends the known range of this species at least 42 miles southwest 

of the type locality and greatly expands the known distribution of the species. Based on these new 

occurrences, this species is expected to also occur in the project area.” 

DMEC is pleased to see that field surveys were conducted for terrestrial gastropods. Three native species 

found. What the DEIR fails to recognize is that all three species, especially those not yet listed by the 

CNDDB as sensitive species, clearly qualify for federal and state listing as endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act, respectively. All those species of 

Helminthoglypta found onsite should be treated as rare and endangered species since they all easily and 

clearly meet listing, rarity, and endangerment criteria. 

Helminthoglypta uvasana (Grapevine Shoulderband Snail) was previously known only from two 

populations, one in upper Grapevine Canyon just south of Old Fort Tejon in southern Kern County and the 

other at Oak Flat Ranger Station in the Liebre Mountains in northwestern Los Angeles County (Magney 

2009 65 ). The Newhall Ranch population now represents one-third of the known occurrences in the world. 

By any measure, the loss of any individuals, much less portions of the Newhall Ranch population must be 

considered a significant adverse impact. 

Helminthoglypta vasquezi (Vasquez Shoulderband Snail) was previously known only from two 

populations, one at Vasquez Rocks and the other in Agua Dulce Canyon [only a few miles from Vasquez 

Rocks] (Magney 2009 66 ). The Newhall Ranch population now represents one-third of the known 

occurrences in the world. By any measure, the loss of any individuals, much less portions of the Newhall 

Ranch population must be considered a significant adverse impact. 

Helminthoglypta tudiculata cf. convicta (Southern California Shoulderband Snail) was previously known 

from 15 collections from 14 populations from eastern Ventura County to western Orange and western San 

Bernardino Counties (Magney 2009). The Newhall Ranch population represents 6.3% of the known 

65 Magney, D.L. 2009. Terrestrial Snails of Los Angeles County. 20 August 2009. David Magney Environmental Consulting, 

Ojai, California. Published through the Sespe Institute (www.sespeinstitute.com) 

66 Magney, D.L. 2009. Terrestrial Snails of Los Angeles County. 20 August 2009. David Magney Environmental Consulting, 

Ojai, California. Published through the Sespe Institute (www.sespeinstitute.com)



1/3/2011 

Page 53 


DMEC 

populations of this subspecies. It is very likely that several of the historic records have been extirpated, 

increasing the relative importance of the Newhall Ranch population. By any measure, the loss of any 

individuals, much less portions of the Newhall Ranch population must be considered a significant adverse 

impact. 

Since all of these gastropod species are rare, their locations should be mapped to determine the extent of the 

direct and indirect impacts the proposed project would have on them. Then occupied habitat should be 

avoided or impacts to them minimized and feasible mitigation measures proposed to compensate for 

adverse impacts to them. Furthermore, the report describing the methods and results of the terrestrial 

gastropod surveys should have been included as a technical appendix so that the public could review it as 

part of the DEIR. 

Interestingly, the DEIR fails to note that the Helminthoglypta survey report stated that two of the species 

found on Newhall Ranch may actually be two species new to science, undescribed, as stated on page RTC- 

053-8 of the SPC FEIR/EIS, “The Southern California shoulderband snail range widely through coastal 

southern California and northwestern Baja California, and the snails collected at these localities were 

preliminarily identified as the subspecies, H.t. convicta. However based on morphological variations 

of the shells, these specimens did not exactly match other H.t. convicta specimens in reference 

collections. It is, therefore, possible that these specimens represent a new species of shoulderband 

snail [emphasis added]; however, additional study of live specimens would be required to determine 

the taxonomic relevance of these differences (B. Roth, pers. comm. 2010).” Why was this fact not 

included in the DEIR when it was already known and published in the FEIR for the SCP? Newhall Ranch 

consultants are taking great liberties with factual data and extrapolating them without scientific basis to 

claim that the species at hand are not sensitive species. They state that the new occurrences at Newhall 

Ranch greatly expand the range of the two species, using simple distance measurements between known 

populations. They conveniently happen to ignore that fact that the world’s expert on the taxonomy of 

Helminthoglypta, Dr. Barry Roth, believes that they actually may be new species. If that is the case, then 

Newhall’s or the state’s biologists can claim that the Newhall Ranch populations greatly expand the 

distribution of those species. They also disregard the fact that these species have NOT been found in 

habitats in between Newhall Ranch and their type localities. For example, most of habitat between Vasquez 

Rocks, the type locality for Helminthoglypta vasquezi, and Newhall Ranch has been developed by the City 

of Santa Clarita and other intensive developments approved by the County of Los Angeles. If occupied, 

only remnant populations would remain, which may not be viable. Not one occurrence of that species, or 

any other Helminthoglypta species, has been reported for any of those numerous developments that have 

been approved in the last 20 years. They were found on Newhall Ranch because of its largely intact nature, 

its large size, and the diversity of habitats present within a small area. 

To expand on the results of the surveys conducted for Helminthoglypta species but not disclosed in the 

Mission Village DEIR, the SCP FEIR starting on page RTC-053-8 states: 

“Surveys for terrestrial gastropods were conducted in portions of the proposed RMDP development 

area, the Salt Creek area, High Country SMA, and River Corridor SMA. Survey methods included 

control sites that consisted of suitable habitat in areas not proposed for development or intended as 

mitigation lands in both Los Angeles County and Ventura County. These surveys were conducted 

over a five-day period from November 2009 to January 2010 by a biologist familiar with the ecology 

of shoulderband snails.



1/3/2011 

Page 54 


DMEC 

Surveys for terrestrial gastropods where conducted in a broad array of habitat types, including, but 

not limited to, California annual grassland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, big 

sagebrush scrub, mulefat scrub, oak woodland, and chaparral. Surveys focused on suitable 

microhabitats within these communities where these species had the potential to occur. Suitable 

microhabitats included, but were not limited to, brush and debris piles, rock piles, isolated rocks, leaf 

litter, logs, trash/debris piles and other unique features that may provide soil moisture or refugia. 

These areas were searched by raking through leaf and stick litter, visually inspecting cracks and 

crevices, and turning over objects, such as logs and rocks. Specimens were tentatively identified in 

the field, and then sent to Dr. Barry Roth, a Helminthoglypta snail expert located at the California 

Academy of Science in San Francisco, California, for positive identification. 

“Three native species of shoulderband snails were detected during the surveys, including Southern 

California shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta tudiculata cf. H.t. convicta), Vasquez rocks 

Shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta vasquezi), and Grapevine shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta 

uvasana). The first two of these were also found on the Project site. These snails were detected in a 

variety of habitat types including California annual grassland, coastal scrub, and in riparian areas. All 

the snails were found in association with their expected microclimates (i.e., under rocks, in leaf litter, 

woody debris piles, under the decaying bases of yucca bushes, and similar moist environments). 

“Southern California shoulderband snail was found at several locations on and around the proposed 

RMDP area (see discussion in revised Section 4.5 of the Final EIS/EIR). These areas included the 

Santa Clara River floodplain at the mouth of Potrero Canyon, the mouth of Ayers Canyon, the 

Middle Canyon area and the lower San Martinez Grande Canyon. This species was also detected 

near the confluence of Piru Creek and the Santa Clara River, approximately 4.8 miles downstream of 

the proposed Project. The Southern California shoulderband snail range widely through coastal 

southern California and northwestern Baja California, and the snails collected at these localities were 

preliminarily identified as the subspecies, H.t. convicta. However based on morphological variations 

of the shells, these specimens did not exactly match other H.t. convicta specimens in reference 

collections. It is, therefore, possible that these specimens represent a new species of shoulderband 

snail; however, additional study of live specimens would be required to determine the taxonomic 

relevance of these differences (B. Roth, pers. comm. 2010). 

“Vasquez rocks shoulderband snail was detected at several locations on the proposed RMDP Project 

area and proposed mitigation sites, including the upper Potrero Canyon area; lower and upper 

portions of Salt Creek; the east fork of Salt Creek; the Santa Clara River floodplain at the mouth of 

Potrero Canyon, the mouth of Middle Canyon; portions of upper Middle Canyon and the Magic 

Mountain Canyon watershed. 

“This species was also detected at several locations outside the Project area, including Hasley 

Canyon two miles upstream of the Newhall Ranch, Castaic Creek approximately 12 miles northwest 

of Newhall Ranch, and the Castaic Junction area, less than one mile northwest of the project area. 

This species was previously known only from the type locality at Vasquez Rocks County Park near 

Agua Dulce in Los Angeles County. The shells collected in this study also differ in several 

morphological characteristics from the type series, but additional study would be required to 

determine the taxonomic relevance of these differences (B. Roth, pers. comm.). This detection 

extends the known range of this species at least 25 miles west of the type locality and greatly expands 

the known distribution of the species.



1/3/2011 

Page 55 


DMEC 

“Grapevine shoulderband snail was not detected on the RMDP Project area, but was located in the 

Piru Creek floodplain near the confluence with the Santa Clara River west of Santa Paula. This 

species was previously known only from the type locality near Fort Tejon State Historical Park in 

Kern County. This detection extends the known range of this species at least 42 miles southwest of 

the type locality and greatly expands the known distribution of the species. Based on these new 

occurrences, this species is expected to also occur on Newhall Ranch. 

“The surveys also found other native and non-native snails, including the introduced garden snail 

(Helix aspersa), decollate snails (Rumina decollate [sic]) an introduced predatory gastropod sold in 

local garden stores, and an aquatic snail belonging to the Family Succineidae a native, cosmopolitan 

family not considered rare in California by the CDFG. 

“The ecology of terrestrial land snails, including shoulderband snails in most of Southern California, 

is very poorly understood. This may be in part because the species are highly cryptic, extensive 

surveys for these groups have not been systematically conducted, and, with the exception of a few 

species, are not considered sensitive by CDFG or USFWS. Based on the findings of the surveys 

conducted in response to this and other comments, field survey data and preliminary identification of 

specimens suggests that at least three or more species of shoulderband snail may occur in the 

proposed Project development area and proposed mitigation lands, including the River Corridor 

SMA, High Country SMA, and Salt Creek area. 

“In addition, the data suggest that the known or expected distribution of these shoulderband species 

appears to be much wider than previously thought. For example, Vasquez Rocks shoulderband and 

Grapevine shoulderband snails were previously known from much more restricted ranges, but were 

both located in the proposed Project development area, proposed mitigation areas, or areas near the 

Project area. These occurrences represent range extensions for these two species of 25 and 42 miles, 

respectively. 

This suggests that some species of shoulderband snails do not appear to be restricted to discrete 

locations. Conversely, a review of literature indicates that Trask shoulderband snail occurs across 

most of southern California and northern Baja California Mexico in areas supporting coastal scrub 

and chaparral communities. However, this species was not observed during the surveys. Nonetheless 

based on the information provided by the surveys, and because a Trask shoulderband shell 

(Helminthoglypta traskii) was found in Potrero Canyon in 2005, it is reasonable to conclude that 

other helminthoglyptid taxa, including the special-status Trask shoulderband snail, have the potential 

to occur on Newhall Ranch. 

“If special status Trask shoulderband snails (subspecies traskii) are present in the Project area, 

construction of the proposed Project (Alternative 2) or Alternatives 3 through 7 could result in loss 

of individual snails through mechanical disturbance or alteration of habitat during vegetation clearing 

and/or grading. If present on site, construction of the proposed Project or Alternatives would also 

result in the loss of microhabitat occupied by the special status Trask shoulderband snail subspecies, 

as well as short-term and secondary effects. Short-term construction-related effect could include 

exposure to construction-related dust and ground vibration that could inhibit the species from using 

suitable habitat for refugia, foraging, and reproduction. Potential long-term secondary effects this 

species may occur, including habitat fragmentation; off-road vehicles; cattle grazing; altered wildfire 

regimes; invasive plant species; increased human activity; Argentine ants; other introduced non-native 

snails such as decollate snails; increased activity by pet, stray, and feral cats and dogs, and pesticides.



1/3/2011 

Page 56 


DMEC 

“These impacts, should they occur, would be considered significant absent mitigation. A variety of 

mitigations measures identified in the Draft EIS/EIR would reduce these impacts to less-thansignificant 

levels. The key mitigation measures relate to the dedication of the River Corridor SMA, 

High Country SMA, and Salt Creek area (Mitigation Measures SP-4.6-23, SP-4.6-37, and BIO-19, 

respectively). These mitigation lands total 6,300 acres and provide good quality habitat that could 

support special status Trask shoulderband (ssp. traskii) snails, if present, and would be preserved and 

managed in perpetuity. These areas contain a suite of topographical features including rocky 

outcrops, canyons, and drainages; all features where helminthoglyptid species have been documented 

in the literature. In addition, these areas support a variety of vegetation communities and provide 

large areas of open space that would allow for gene flow between watersheds or populations. 

Additional mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to Trask shoulderband to less than 

significant include SP-4.6-1 through SP-4.6-42, SP-4.6-53, SP-4.6-59, SP-4.6-63, BIO-1 through 

BIO-16, BIO-19 through BIO-21, BIO-52, BIO-63, BIO-64, BIO-69, BIO-73, and BIO-87. 

“Gastropods identified by the CNDDB (CDFG, July 2009) as sensitive or considered sensitive by the 

criteria identified for the Draft EIS/EIR, were not detected on the proposed Project site. However, 

the results of the surveys and potential impacts to special-status gastropods, including Trask 

Shoulderband (ssp. traskii) snail, have been added to the Final EIS/EIR and included for analysis of 

impacts.” 

All the evidence regarding the status of the Helminthoglypta snails found on Newhall Ranch indicates that 

they are indeed rare and impacts to them and their habitat should be considered significant impacts. The 

DEIR failed to do this. 

Loss of Local Biodiversity Not Assessed 

One of the primary objectives of CEQA, in regards to biological resources, is to protect biodiversity. This 

general objective can be overwhelming and difficult to quantify, and has often been ignored, as in the case 

with the Mission Village DEIR. The loss of local biodiversity is “exceedingly important” from an ecological 

and evolutionary perspective (Bond et al. 2006 67 ). This is because population extinction disrupts 

fundamental evolutionary and evolutionary processes, which impacts future potential for evolutionary 

response and change. 

For example, some groups of invertebrates, such as the Mygalomorphae (trapdoor spiders and their kin), 

have very long life spans (compared to many invertebrate species), with most species having very specific 

habitat requirements (Bond et al. 2006). Disturbances to these habitats may result in local population 

extinctions, which in turn may lead to regional extirpation. Since there are many endemic Mygalomorph 

species in the Los Angeles Basin, and most of the historic habitats have already been destroyed by urban 

and industrial development, the remaining habitats and populations are vital to the continued existence of 

local endemic Mygalomorph species. Bond et al. (2006) point to two species of Apomastus that are 

threatened with extinction by habitat disturbance and loss. 

The DEIR fails to adequately describe the biodiversity of the project site or evaluate the potential changes 

or impacts to that biodiversity. This should be rectified. 

67 Ibid.



1/3/2011 

Page 57 

Vegetation Classification 


DMEC 

The vegetation was not mapped or classified to current standards and methods for the Mission Village 

project even though the DEIR did use the Alliance and Association labels. However, the definitions for 

Alliance and Associations are incorrect, and do not follow the CNPS’ Manual of California Vegetation as 

found in the second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009 68 ). The Alliance is the vegetation type level that is 

emphasized in the Manual 69 , stating, “This level is best for considering vegetation at a regional and 

statewide level…”. The Manual goes on to state that the Association level “is best used a the local scale”. 

DMEC concurs. The vegetation on Newhall Ranch should have been, and needs to be, mapped and 

classified at the Plant Association level “because it reflects predictable combinations of plant species that 

typically have more local specificity as it applies in certain mountain range or an ecological subsection”. 

The vegetation mapping at only the alliance level for Newhall Ranch, and the Mission Village portion of the 

Ranch, overly simplifies and undervalues the biodiversity and habitat diversity of the project site. 

Besides ignoring the basic need to adequately classify and map the vegetation of the project site, Impact 

Sciences misused or misidentified the alliances that were mapped. For example, Table 4.3-3 on page 4.3-46 

lists “California annual grassland” as the first entry under the heading “Floristic Alliance”. The Manual does 

not have such an alliance listed/described. Rather, Impact Science’s California annual grassland best fits the 

group – California annual form/grass vegetation (page 1,232 of the Manual in Appendix 3), which is part of 

the California Annual and Perennial Grassland Macrogroup (MG045). That group includes seven 

described alliances. 

Of the 104 grassland associations (including 12 alliances without named associations) listed by CDFG’s 

CNDDB (2010 70 ) on its Hierarchical Natural Communities list, 71 are considered sensitive. Statistically, the 

probability of one or more sensitive grassland associations occurring on Newhall Ranch is very high. One 

of the alliances/associations listed by CDFG as sensitive in its Natural Communities list is Leymus 

condensatus Alliance (Leymus condensatus Association), which almost certainly occurs on Newhall Ranch. 

The DEIR missed this entirely. 

As stated on CDFG’s website 71 , the CNDDB includes “…350 alliances, 2140 associations, 82 provisional 

alliances, 66 provisional associations, 96 semi-natural stands, 15 stand types (within semi-natural category), 

and 15 special stands”. 

The vegetation of the project site needs to be remapped and classified at the Association level to be able to 

determine which, and how much of each, sensitive plant association occurs onsite and how much would be 

adversely affected by the proposed project. 

Grasslands 

Page 4.3-55 of the DEIR states that the grasslands onsite are “Non-native Grassland” when referring to 

California Annual Grassland, as described in the CNPS’ 1 st edition of its Manual of California Vegetation 

68 

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California 

Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 

69 rd 

Ibid. page 11, 3 paragraph. 

70 

CDFG. 2010. Natural Communities – List. (September 2010.). 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp 

71 

CDFG’s Biogeographical Data webpage for Natural Communities List: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp



1/3/2011 

Page 58 


DMEC 

(Sawyer & Keeler-Wolf 1995 72 ), listing numerous nonnative grass and forb species without recognizing or 

identifying the many species of native annual and perennial plant species that occur in almost all variations of 

California Annual Grassland. This characterization is a mischaracterization of the true ecological nature and 

value of the annual grasslands found on Newhall Ranch. For example, the DEIR states on pages 

�� 4.3-62 that a number of raptors and other birds are found in grasslands onsite; 

�� 4.3-65 that [rare] native shoulderband snails were found in grassland habitats onsite; 

�� 4.3-72 that the listed plant, San Fernando Valley Spineflower, occurs in these grasslands onsite; 

�� 4.3-75 that Slender Mariposa Lily occurs in grasslands; 

�� 4.3-77 that Pierson’s Morning-glory occurs in grasslands onsite; 

�� 4.3-79, Table 4.3-4, lists grasslands as habitat for a number of special-status plant species; 

�� Table 4.3-5 lists grasslands as habitat for a number of special-status wildlife species; 

�� Page 4.3-191 states that grasslands onsite are habitat to the Western Spadefoot Toad; and 

�� Pages 4.3-195-6 state that grasslands onsite are habitat for Coast Horned Lizard. 

The fact that the DEIR includes the SFVS, which during some years has over 1,000,000 plants present at 

one time in areas mapped as Non-native Grassland (as stated on page 4.3-55) exemplifies the gross 

generalization and minimalization of the species richness and sensitivity of the herbaceous vegetation types 

present on Newhall Ranch and in the Mission Village development area. Those areas that are seasonably 

dominated or characterized by SFVS should be classified as Chorizanthe parryi Alliance as just one 

example of how the grassland vegetation should be classified and mapped, as was actually done and 

illustrated on Figure 4.3-6. 

Page 4.3-142, Table 4.3-8, states that 80% (66.1 acres) of grassland habitats will be disturbed/developed by 

the proposed project. 

Page 4.3-146 of the DEIR then concludes that since the Non-native grasslands onsite are not considered 

sensitive habitats by CDFG, the loss of 80% of this habitat type onsite would not be a significant impact. In 

reality, the grasslands onsite, if properly characterized and mapped, would show an entirely different 

situation, one that identifies the importance and significance of annual grasslands onsite and that the loss of 

a substantial portion of that habitat would indeed be considered a significant impact. 

Impacts to “Common” Plant Communities 

The DEIR, page 4.3-417, suggests that several common plant communities impacted by the project would 

be considered less than significant because there is a lot of these types in the region. However, the basis for 

Impact Science’s conclusions are flawed because they relied upon very coarse data, the Gap Analysis for the 

Southwest Region (Davis et al. 1995 73 ). While that study provides useful data from a regional perspective 

(much greater than for the Santa Clara Valley region), the coarseness of the mapping and classification 

makes it inappropriate to use for comparisons at the project scale, as it has large errors of omission and 

commission. Furthermore, the Gap Analysis did not capture the very high plant community (vegetation 

alliance and association) diversity found in the region, and on the project site. It is not apparent that Impact 

Sciences examined the metadata or attribute tables for the Gap Analysis vegetation polygons as each 

72 Sawyer, J.O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, 

California, in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

73 Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Borchert, and A.D. Hollander. 1995. Gap Analysis of the Actual Vegetation of 

California: 1. The Southwestern Region. Madroño 42(1):40-78.



1/3/2011 

Page 59 


DMEC 

polygon includes information about the dominant species, as well as the dominant species of the major 

unmapped inclusions of other plant communities. 

To make the DEIR’s arguments even less valid is the fact that the acreage values of developed lands within 

the Santa Clara River watershed have increased dramatically since 1998, the date of the Santa Clara River 

floodplain study. It does not appear that Impact Sciences took all those acres of habitat converted to urban 

and industrial uses since the 1998 study, which makes their calculations erroneous and minimizes the near 

historic losses of habitat in the region of the project site. The impact of the Mission Village development to 

natural habitat is much greater, from a cumulative perspective, then stated in the DEIR. 

As another example of the caution that must be taken when using the Gap Analysis mapping, the large area 

in northwestern Ventura County as Agricultural Lands (on Figure 4.3-19) is an error. This is the San 

Emigdio Mesa, a large native grassland area in the Chumash Wilderness of the Los Padres National Forest. 

It has never been farmed; however, it has been grazed historically. A comparison of this area with recent 

aerial photography, such as available through Google Earth, would provide evidence to a trained aerial 

photo interpreter, as well as most laymen, that the area has never been farmed. 

Inadequacy of Mitigation Measures 

DMEC found numerous deficiencies in the mitigation plans and found that many of proposed plans would 

result in both direct and indirect potentially significant impacts to biological resources onsite. 

Inadequacy of the RMDP/SCP & EIS/EIR 

Various proposed mitigation measures included in the Mission Village DEIR refer to the Newhall Ranch 

Management and Development Plan and the Spineflower Conservation Plan (RMDP/SCP) 74 . As previously 

stated in a comment letter to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on behalf of the FSCR 

in response to the RMPD/SCP and EIS/EIR, DMEC found the mitigation measures given to be insufficient 

resulting in plans that would lead to impacts to biological resources onsite. 

In summary, DMEC (2009 75 ) found that the RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR failed to adequately assess all projectrelated 

impacts to the biological resources onsite and failed to provide adequate and/or feasible mitigation to 

reduce the significant impacts to a level of less than significant. The proposed SPC fails to protect SFVS 

occurrences and would put it at risk of extinction, or at least local extirpation in the long term. Other 

specific issues covered in this comment letter included: the inadequacy of the assessment of Newhall Ranch 

biological resources; the inadequacy of the assessment of special-status species; the inadequacy of impact 

assessment on wetland resources and functions; the feasibility of wetland mitigation plan; and feasibility of 

the SCP. A copy of DMEC’s 2009 comment letter on the RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR is attached as an 

appendix to this letter and incorporated herein. Many of the same issues have also been restated in this 

letter due to their relevance to the issues raised in the Missoin Village DEIR. 

74 

Dudek. 2009. Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan and 

EIS/EIR. 4.5 & Apx 1 (April 2009) 

75 

David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2009. Comments on Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development 

Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan and EIS/EIR. 25 August 2009. Ojai, California. On behalf of the Friends of the 

Santa Clara River, California Native Plant Society, and Sespe Institute, Inc.



1/3/2011 

Page 60 


DMEC 

The RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR had not been certified by the CDFG by the time the Mission Village DEIR 

was released, as only the draft SCP has been issued to date. CDFG certified the SCP EIR only on 3 

December 2010, and DMEC’s clients will file a CEQA and CESA legal challenge on that decision in early 

January 2011. Therefore, there is no legitimate mitigation plan that would compensate for the proposed 

impacts to Special-status species and waters of the U.S. 

Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan 

Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-29 (page 4.3-345) states: “The project applicant will retain a qualified biologist 

to develop an Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan and implement a control program for bullfrog, African 

clawed frog, and crayfish… After the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be responsible for 

controlling exotic aquatic species.” 

Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-48 (page 4.3-353) states: “Upon completion of landscaping within a 

development area, quarterly monitoring shall be initiated for Argentine ants along the urban–open space 

interface at sentinel locations where invasions could occur (e.g., where moist microhabitats that attract 

Argentine ants may be created)… After the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be responsible for 

controlling Argentine ants.” 

There is no biological evidence presented that the ecological threats posed by the Argentine Ant and species 

included in the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan will end after 5 years. There are no enforcement and 

funding provisions for continuation of the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan and Argentine Ant control 

beyond 5 years. These mitigation measures must assume as a baseline condition that exotic wildlife control 

will be required in perpetuity and require an endowment of adequate financial resources needed for 

perpetual implementation of the Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan. 

These mitigation measures will not continue in perpetuity as there function beyond 5 years is essentially 

terminated with the vague statement that “after the first 5 years, the NLMO or other entity will be 

responsible for controlling Argentine ants”. The mitigation measures must have explicit funding and 

enforcement of Argentine Ant and exotic wildlife species control programs that will continue in perpetuity. 

As constructed, the mitigation measures absolve the project applicant of responsibility for fully mitigating 

the impacts of Argentine Ant and exotic wildlife species, which must be assumed to be a permanent impact 

and not one that will be resolved in 5 years. 

In the absence of clear language that these mitigation measures will be continued and adequately funded in 

perpetuity, Mitigation Measures MV 4.3-29 and MV 4.3-48, will not reduce the impacts that they address 

to less-than-significant levels and the many impacts that depend on these mitigation measures will not be 

reduced to less than significant levels as the project applicants claim. 

WETLANDS 

Wetlands, focusing only on wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps, are discussed starting on page 4.3- 

133 of the DEIR). The area and types of wetlands on the Mission Village project site are derived entirely 

from a 2007 wetland delineation performed by URS, and then by Glenn Lukos Associates in 2008, and a 

revised preliminary delineation was prepared in mid-2010. There was no effort to identify all wetlands that 

were not under the Corps’ jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act regulations focus the Corps’ jurisdiction 

narrowly and excludes a wide range of wetlands that the State and ecologists recognize. The GLA



1/3/2011 

Page 61 


DMEC 

delineation did include riparian areas that are also under CDFG permit authority; however, these two 

agencies do not require permits for work within/modification to all types of wetlands. This is a major flaw 

in the CEQA assessment of project-related impacts to wetlands, focusing only on wetland types for which a 

permit is required to do work within or disturb in some fashion. 

The wetlands assessment in the Mission Village DEIR primarily refers to the Resource Management 

Plan/Spineflower Conservation Plan DEIR/EIS. 

The Mission Village project is estimated to impact (Table 4.3-9 on page 4.3-144): 

�� 1.6 acres of 4.0 acres of herbaceous wetlands (page 4.3-59); 

�� 19.7 acres of 115.1 acres of River Wash waters/wetland; 

�� 0.5 acre of 0.5 acre of Alluvial Scrub wetlands; 

�� 22.3 acres of 24.6 acres of riparian Big Sagebrush Scrub wetland; 

�� 0.1 of 55.6 acres of Giant Reed wetland; 

�� 6.9 acres of 7.6 acres of Arrow Weed wetlands; 

�� 5.6 acres of 5.8 acres of Mexican Elderberry Riparian Scrub wetlands; 

�� 2.8 acres of 2.8 acres of Mulefat Scrub wetlands; 

�� 0.7 acre of 1.5 acres of Southern Willow Riparian Scrub wetlands; and 

�� 28.8 acres of 109.2 acres of Fremont Cottonwood Riparian Forest wetlands. 

That is a total of 89 acres of jurisdictional wetlands that will be impacted, most of it permanently, to 

accommodate over 1,400 acres of non-water-dependent urban development uses. 

Several mitigation measures are proposed for wetland habitats to be created or enhanced as mitigation for 

wetlands destroyed by the Newhall Ranch project. Mitigation measures specifically pertaining to wetlands 

are detailed on Pages 4.5-1,975-1,982 under mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-16 in Section 4.5 

(Biological Resources) of the EIS/EIR. 

Page 4.3-151 of the DEIR states: “Further, the River Corridor SMA/SEA 23 (totaling 977.5 acres) would 

be protected in perpetuity. Combined, these measures would reduce the project impacts on riparian habitat 

to below a level of significance. This finding is consistent with the findings of the Newhall Ranch Final 

Additional Analysis (May 2003).” Claiming that implementation of the previously adopted and 

recommended mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level is not supported 

by the evidence. As clearly stated by DMEC previously and by the EPA in its comment letter on the SCP 

DEIR/EIS, the approach used and mitigations proposed are not even close to sufficient to reduce projectrelated 

direct and indirect impacts to wetland functions at Newhall Ranch. 

For example, development of a “conceptual mitigation plan” is not mitigation as defined by CEQA, it is a 

plan, a study. There must be details provided on how it will accomplish the goal of reducing the larger 

variety of impacts to wetland functions before it can meet the high test of reducing impacts to a less-thansignificant 

level. 

Specific issues/problems with this approach are discussed below. 

Appropriate Taxa for Mitigation Plant Palettes 

The mitigation measures section of Section 4.5 mentions that all detailed wetlands mitigation plans must 

include several specific elements as outlined in the Comprehensive Mitigation Implementation Plan (page



1/3/2011 

Page 62 


DMEC 

4.5-1,975). Element (2a) must outline the quantity (seed or nursery stock) and species of plant to be 

planted (all species to be native to region). Any mitigation plant palette should also require that all seeds, 

propagules, and plantings come from the appropriate taxonomic stock (e.g. species, subspecies, variety) 

endemic to the mitigation site. A qualified biologist should be required to verify that taxonomically 

appropriate vegetation stock is being used before any work on the mitigation project starts. 

Definition of “Self-sustaining” for Monitoring Success Needed 

Proposed mitigation measure BIO-3 (page 4.5-1,977) concerns the creation of new vegetation communities 

and restoration of impacted vegetation communities. BIO-3 states: “All [mitigation] sites shall contain 

suitable hydrological conditions and surrounding land uses to ensure a self-sustaining functioning riparian 

vegetation community”. 

The concept of mitigation sites being “self-sustaining” is thus a key component for measuring success of 

mitigation projects and determining completion of the project applicant’s responsibilities. Measure BIO-6 

(page 4.5-1,978) details the success criteria upon which “completion” of the revegetation site will be 

determined. The first criterion listed is, “Regardless of the date of initial planning, any restoration site must 

have been without active manipulation by irrigation, planning, or seeding for a minimum of three years prior 

to Agency consideration of successful completion”. This criterion is the closest thing to a definition for 

“self-sustaining” that can be found in the mitigation measures. 

All monitoring plans must contain a biologically meaningful definition of “self-sustaining” with which to 

measure the success of each proposed mitigation project. The definition of “self-sustaining” should be 

defined based on measurable biological standards derived from reference sites directly comparable to the 

type of wetland being mitigated for. 

It seems likely that a biologically meaningful definition of “self-sustaining” could require monitoring the 

ecological functioning of mitigation sites for an extended period of time. For example, measure BIO-15 

concerns guidelines for establishing healthy populations of riparian trees at mitigation sites. This measure 

states (page 4.5-1,982) that “the growth and survival of the planted trees shall be monitored until they meet 

the self-sustaining success criteria in accordance with the methods and reporting procedures specified in 

BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-11, and BIO-12”. A biologically meaningful definition of “self-sustaining” for longlived 

riparian tree species may require monitoring for several years. 

The proposed mitigation measures do not seem to account for the possibility that monitoring could be 

required for many years into the future. DMEC suggests that the project applicant be required to endow an 

ecological monitoring position (or positions as needed) to ensure that all wetland mitigation sites are 

biologically self-sustaining. The size of the endowment needed should be commensurate to the time-scale 

needed for monitoring to assure that the wetland mitigation sites are self-sustaining. 

Eliminate Loophole for Modifying Mitigation Success Criteria 

Measure BIO-6 (page 4.5-1,978) states, “In a sub-notification letter, the applicant may request modification 

of success criteria on a project by project basis. Acceptance of such request will be at the discretion of 

CDFG and the Corps”. 

This language raises concerns that the biological criteria for success of any given mitigation project could 

retroactively be changed for any unspecified reason. DMEC recognizes that biological systems are dynamic



1/3/2011 

Page 63 


DMEC 

and that initial conditions for success criteria may be altered by unforeseeable changes in the biological 

nature of the mitigation project. However, DMEC suggests that any request for modification of previously 

agreed upon success criteria for wetland mitigation projects must be prepared and submitted by a qualified 

biologist and available for public review to assure that success criteria are modified only for scientifically 

valid reasons. 

Inappropriate Use of Invasive Exotic Species as Habitat Creation Mitigation 

BIO-9 (page 4.5-1,979) states, “As an alternative to the creation/restoration of vegetation communities to 

compensate for permanent removal of riparian vegetation communities, in the Santa Clara River, the 

applicant may control invasive exotic plant species within the Upper Santa Clara River Sub-Watershed for a 

portion of the Santa Clara River mitigation required under BIO-2”. 

There is no scientific, logistical, or any other reasoning or justification given as to why the project applicant 

should be relieved of any of their responsibility for mitigating the loss of ANY permanent removal of 

riparian vegetation communities. While control of invasive plants is an important goal, the project applicant 

should not be relieved of any of their obligations without valid scientific explanation. 

Use of RestorationAreas as Mitigation Banks 

BIO-13 (page 4.5-1,981) states, “Nothing in the section 404 or section 2081 Permit or section 1605 

agreement shall preclude the applicant from selling mitigation credits to other parties wishing to use those 

permits or that agreement for a project and/or maintenance activity included in the permits/agreement”. 

DMEC’s interpretation of this language is that the project applicant may intend to use the restored areas 

required for their project mitigation as a mitigation bank at some point in the future. If this interpretation is 

correct, then DMEC would argue that this practice should be prohibited as it would constitute “doubledipping” 

by the project applicant to profit twice-over from their required mitigation activities. 

Establishing Accounting System for Wetland Mitigation Requirements 

BIO-11 concerns the establishment of an accurate and reliable accounting system for mitigation. In this 

measure, the project applicant dictates the terms by which the Corps and CDFG will respond to the annual 

reporting of mitigation credits by the project applicant. This dictation of terms by the project applicant, 

while perhaps understandable from the perspective of project efficiency, is inappropriate. The project 

applicant should not be allowed to dictate the terms by which the mitigation accounting system will be 

developed and implemented. 

Improper Impact Assessment of “Giant Reed” Habitat 

Page 4.3-253 of the DEIR states that, “Giant Reed” is a plant community that would be significantly 

impacted by the project: “Giant Reed (42.080.00). The project site contains 5.6 acres of giant reed. The 

proposed project would not result in the permanent conversion of giant reed; however, 0.1 acre would be 

temporarily disturbed by bank stabilization and/or haul roads, but would be revegetated following 

completion of construction. Of the total acreage present within the boundaries of the River Corridor



1/3/2011 

Page 64 


DMEC 

SMA/SEA 23, 0.1 acre would be temporarily disturbed. Given the riparian nature of this plant community, 

the impacts to giant reed would be significant.” 

Giant Reed is Arundo donax, an invasive exotic plant. Conserving this plant community directly contradicts 

several mitigation measures that require eliminating this plant. Mitigation Measure MV 4.3-36 (page 4.3- 

349) states that revegetation plans will not be considered complete unless Giant Reed (Arundo donax) is 

completely absent from the vegetation restoration site. Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-11 (page 4.3-288) 

defines removal of Giant Reed as part of “habitat enhancement”. Mitigation Measure SP 4.6-15 (page. 4.3- 

289) calls for the elimination of Giant Reed. 

The DEIR should require that the entire 5.5 acres of Giant Reed should be restored to appropriate wetland 

habitats as a condition of project approval. 

Impacts to Santa Clara River and 

Inadequacy of Wetland Mitigation Measures 

The Mission and Landmark Village project sites are located directly adjacent to the Santa Clara River. 

Several mitigation measures are proposed for wetland habitats to be created or enhanced as mitigation for 

wetlands destroyed by the Mission Village project. 

EPA Recommends Denial of the RMDP/SCP Project 

In a comment letter 76 addressed to the Corps, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded 

to the public notice of the Newhall Ranch Management and Development Plan. A copy of EPA’s letter has 

been attached as an appendix to this letter and is incorporated herein. The EPA letter states: 

“[T]he Santa Clara River is Southern California’s longest free-flowing river. The Santa Clara is 

home to 12 federally endangered plant and animal species and another 25 species of special 

concern. The river also supports an aquifer that provides drinking water to half of the residents 

in the Santa Clarita Valley. For these reasons, we are defining the Santa Clara River as an 

aquatic resource of national importance. Several of the drainages in the Newhall Ranch project 

area are significant tributaries to the Santa Clara River that provide important watershed 

functions (e.g., aquatic habitat, water and sediment supply and retention, and groundwater 

recharge). Modifications of these tributaries have the potential to cause adverse impacts to the 

Santa Clara River. Given the available information and the potential impacts to the Santa Clara 

River and its tributaries, EPA has determined that the project as presently proposed may result 

in significant and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance and 

therefore recommends denial of the project. This letter follows the field level procedures 

outlined in the August 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the Department 

of Army, Part IV, paragraph 3(a) regarding section 404(q) of the CWA.” 

The Corps must approve the project under the regulations of the Clean Water Act. As a result of the EPA’s 

opposition (which has oversight authority over the Corps on the Clean Water Act), the authors of the DEIR 

cannot rely on the Corps previous permit application as EPA has stated strongly that it is inadequate. 

76 United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Pubic Notice (PN) 2003-01264-AOA for the proposed 

Newhall Ranch Management and Development Plan, Los Angeles County, California. (24 August 2009)



1/3/2011 

Page 65 

Potentially Significant Impacts the Santa Clara River and Tributaries 


DMEC 

The Santa Clara River is an important river not only on a regional and statewide level, but also on a national 

level. In the EPA letter referenced above it states; “The Santa Clara River is an Aquatic Resource of 

National Importance (ARNI) because it is Southern California’s longest free-flowing river and is home to 

12 federally endangered plant and animal species plus another 25 species of special concern. The River also 

supports an aquifer that provides drinking water to half of the residence in the Santa Clarita Valley.” 

DMEC believes that the mitigation measures given to address these losses in both Corps and CDFG 

jurisdictional wetlands are inadequate and will still result in significant impacts that are not fully mitigated. 

Mitigation Rule Not Followed 

There is no approved (by the Corps) compensatory mitigation plan that would compensate for the proposed 

impacts to waters of the U.S. To deem a Section 404 application complete, there must be a compensatory 

mitigation plan in place. Without an accepted mitigation plan in place, there is not enough information; 

therefore, it is premature to say whether the mitigated impacts will be below the level of significance. 

However, we can comment on the suggested mitigation measures included in this and other draft reports 

made available by the applicant. 

As previously stated in this letter, the RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR has not been approved under the regulations 

of the Clean Water Act by the Corps or EPA. Therefore, an accepted/approved compensatory mitigation 

plan that would compensate for the proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. is lacking, and it is highly 

presumptuous for Newhall Ranch to assume that their application and proposed mitigation plan would be 

approved by the regulatory agencies, particularly since the EPA has found the EIS prepared by the Corps 

for the project inadequate. 

Any mitigation plan must fully assure to replace in-kind losses. The removal of invasive plants is not an 

accurate way of mitigating the impacts to waters/wetlands of the U.S. While the removal of such species is 

beneficial, this actions in no way replaces the lost of functions of lost waters/wetlands. The losses must be 

replaced in-kind; therefore, there should be equivalent vegetation created before the mitigation would be 

considered adequate. 

A compensatory mitigation plan cannot be created until the impacts to jurisdictional waters are accurately 

assessed, which they are not currently. 

Jurisdictional Waters Not Properly Assessed 

A major criticism of a previous project document submitted by the project applicant, the Landmark Village 

DEIR 2007 77 , was that impacts to wetland functions were not adequately addressed (DMEC 2007, page 

11). The suggestion was made that the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) method (Smith et al. 1995) could be 

used to objectively determine and measure wetland functionality and assessment of project-related impacts 

to wetland functionality in the project area. 

77 DMEC. 2007. Landmark Village Draft EIR Comments. (30 January 2007)



1/3/2011 

Page 66 


DMEC 

DMEC suggests that our comments on the use of adequate wetland determination be readdressed with our 

current position that a new wetland assessment is needed in order to measure current riparian functions and 

project related impacts. 

The investigators of wetland assessment for the Newhall SCP EIS/EIR have used a modified version of the 

HGM method to assess baseline wetland functionality and estimate project-related impacts to this 

functionality on the project site. They call their methodology the Hybrid Assessment of Riparian Condition 

(HARC). The details of what the HARC is, justifications for its use, and how it is implemented to measure 

wetland functionality are discussed on page 4.6-32-4.6-37 in Section 4.6 (Jurisdictional Waters and 

Streams) of the SCP EIS/EIR. 

The assumptions and methods used to develop and implement the HARC appear sound on the surface. The 

SCP EIS/EIR authors state that it can be used to determine both baseline wetland functionality and 

estimated project impacts to this functionality. 

For whichever project alternative is adopted, DMEC recommends requiring that the HARC or comparable 

HGM methodology be used to estimate baseline wetland functionality and the mitigation needed to create 

or restore equivalent functionality to impacted wetlands. All of the assumptions, implementation 

procedures, and outputs of the HARC or comparable methodology must be made available for external 

review by the public to ensure that the process is transparent and the results are scientifically valid. 

DMEC also stated in our previous comment letter: “URS’s wetland delineation was verified by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on 4 February 2004” (DMEC 2007 78 , page 10). We suggested that the 

wetland delineation be updated to show current conditions since verifications are only valid for a period of 

two (2) years, per Clean Water Act regulations and Corps policy, especially since the current riparian 

functions since the 2005 flood event would have surely altered the riparian areas along the Santa Clara 

River. 

DMEC reaffirms the suggestion and advises that the Corps requests reverification of jurisdictional waters 

for Section 404(b)(1) Permit authorization. A mitigation plan cannot be created until the impacts to 

jurisdictional waters are properly assessed. No application should be deemed complete until it is clear 

where the jurisdictional waters/wetland boundaries are onsite and then appropriate mitigation measures can 

be determined for the proposed impacts. 

Proposed Buffered Size Inadequate 

The DEIR suggests that riparian buffers along the Santa Clara River should range from a minimum of 100 

to 150 feet in width, depending on the quality of the upland habitat (a larger buffer width required if the 

upland habitat is of low quality). This suggestion was partially based on a study by Impact Sciences 

(1997 79 ) that focused on bird, in which vegetation analyses, focused bird surveys, and small mammal 

trapping along the Santa Clara River and adjacent uplands were conducted. However, in their analysis of 

the appropriate buffer width, the focus was partially based on the riparian bird and small mammal use of 

high and low quality upland habitat and upland/riparian ecotone. 

78 DMEC. 2007. Landmark Village Draft EIR Comments. (30 January 2007) 

79 Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997. North Valencia Annexation Buffer Study. Draft. Prepared for Newhall Land and Farming 

Company (April 28, 1997)



1/3/2011 

Page 67 


DMEC 

While protecting quality wildlife habitat is essential in determining adequate buffer size, it is only represents 

one element of the functions and characteristics of riparian buffers. DMEC believes in order to determine 

buffer width, you must also look at filtration (nitrogen, phosphorous, and other contaminants), reduction in 

erosion and sedimentation, other factors influencing aquatic habitat (woody debris, liter, temperature, and 

light), and the social and cultural aesthetics values places on riparian areas. 

As DMEC 80 suggested in its critique of the previous project DEIR, HGM methods should be used to 

quantify and qualify riparian functions. The widths of buffers needed to maintain wetland functions vary 

considerably based on the specific function under consideration. Since HGM is a holistic approach, 

identifying and measuring 14 different wetland functions, the buffer width that protects all wetland functions 

would be identified and recommended. 

Robins 81 (2002) reviewed the scientific literature on the buffer widths along riparian ecosystems that are 

needed to conserve specific riparian ecosystem functions. He found that a 300-foot-wide buffer zone likely 

encompasses enough area for conserving many riparian ecosystem functions. A 300-foot-wide buffer zone 

is likely adequate for maintaining channel complexity (stream meander and inputs of large wood debris to 

the riparian watercourse), filtration of sand and silt, removal of fecal coliform, and moderation of water 

temperature and microclimate (e.g. provision of shade and control of summer stream temperatures essential 

for maintaining the population dynamics of salmonid fishes). In a review of the effect of riparian buffer 

width on nitrogen removal, Mayer et al. 82 (2006) noted that riparian buffers greater than 50 meters (150 

feet) were the most consistent in removing significant amounts of nitrogen entering the riparian ecosystems 

studied. 

Riparian ecosystem buffers provide habitats for many species of plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals. 

Robins (2002) notes that 60% of amphibian species, 16% of reptiles, 34% of birds, and 12% of mammals in 

the Pacific Coast ecoregion are classified as “riparian obligate” species (i.e. are dependent on riparian 

ecosystems, such as the Santa Clara River, for their survival). In California, more than 225 species of 

mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are dependent upon riparian ecosystems for their survival (RHJV 

2004 83 ). As the ecological needs of plant and animal species varies widely, Robins found a wide variety of 

buffer widths cited as necessary for maintenance of species in riparian ecosystems. The consensus of the 

scientific studies reviewed by Robins is that a 300-foot-wide buffer zone is likely adequate for protecting a 

wide variety of plant and animal species. Among the specific recommended buffer width/ranges cited by 

Robins for conserving habitat for specific groups are 160 feet or greater for riparian mammal habitat, 98- 

540 feet for reptile and amphibian habitat, 130-1,600 feet for bird habitat, and 30-100 feet for riparian 

ecosystem plant diversity. For bird habitat the recommended buffer width applies specifically to breeding 

bird communities in bottomland heartwoods, an ecosystem type found in the Southeastern U.S. and not 

typical of the Santa Clara River. The majority of bird habitat studies related to riparian buffer width 

reviewed by Robins recommend a buffer width/range of 130-325 feet for adequately conserving bird 

habitat. 

80 DMEC. 2007. Landmark Village Draft EIR Comments. (30 January 2007) 

81 Robins, James D. 2002. “Stream Setback Technical Memo” 26. Napa, California: Jones & Stokes Associates, Sacramento, 


82 Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds, M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. 2006. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and 

Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. EPA/600/R-05/118. Cincinnati, OH, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

83 RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. California Partners in Flight. Version 

2.0. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v-2.pdf



1/3/2011 

Page 68 


DMEC 

Therefore, DMEC recommends a 300-foot-wide buffer zone for the Santa Clara River, which is consistent 

with the above discussion on protecting a number of riparian functions. For the main and secondary 

tributaries, DMEC recommends a 100-foot-wide buffer zone. This is in contrast to the 50-foot-wide buffer 

as recommended by Impact Sciences (1997 84 ) for the main tributaries, and the 25-foot buffer for the 

secondary tributaries. Those narrower buffer zones are simply too narrow to provide adequate protection 

for most of the 14 riparian wetland functions, as identified by the two southern California HGM riverine 

regional models (Lee et al. 2001 85 , Lee et al. 2003 86 ). 

Preservation of a buffer zone around main tributaries, high-gradient streams, is important because these 

streams are the first point where sediments, nutrients, and potential contaminants enter the riparian 

ecosystem (Robins 2002). The majority of studies on sediment and nutrient removal by riparian buffers 

cited by Robins recommend that buffer widths should be in the range of 30-100 feet to maintain this 

essential riparian ecosystem function. This finding is consistent with the recommended 100-foot-wide 

buffer for the high-gradient stream tributaries of Santa Clara River. Furthermore, for example, the Ventura 

County General Plan includes a policy establishing a 100-foot-wide riparian wetland buffer zone. 

As stated above, Impact Sciences suggests that riparian buffer widths should range from a minimum of 100 

to 150 feet, depending on the quality of the upland habitat. In which “a larger buffer width required if the 

upland habitat is of low quality”. Buffers to riparian wetlands need to be set at 300 feet, as shown by 

Robbins (2002) to adequately buffer most of the 14 wetland functions, as identified by Smith (1995) and 

Lee et al. (2001, 2003). 

The DEIR also states that habitat enhancement in areas where the buffer is narrower could compensate for 

the smaller buffer. Thus, habitat enhancement in areas where the buffer is narrower could compensate for 

the smaller buffer. As previously stated, DMEC believes that removal of invasive plants is not an accurate 

way to mitigating the impacts to waters/wetlands of the U.S. 

Inadequate Attention Paid to Federal Floodplain Development Policy 

in Analyzing Project Alternatives 

The Mission Village project described in the DEIR would result in the net loss of the 100-year floodplain of 

the Santa Clara River. In their critique of the Newhall Ranch Management and Development Program 

(RDMP) DEIR/EIS the EPA cites President’s Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988 and the 

draft Floodplain Management Executive Order as regulations ordering that federal agencies “shall avoid 

placing fill in the floodplain to achieve flood protection to the extent practicable.” This critique is directly 

applicable to net loss of Santa Clara River floodplain that will be caused by the currently proposed Mission 

and Landmark Village projects. 

84 

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997. North Valencia Annexation Buffer Study. Draft. Prepared for Newhall Land and Farming 

Company (April 28, 1997) 

85 

Lee, L.C., P.L. Fiedler, S.R. Stewart, R.R. Curry, D.J. Partridge, J.A. Mason, I.M. Inlander, R.B. Almay, D.L. Aston, and 

M.E. Spencer. 2001. Draft Guidebook for Reference Based Assessment of the Functions of Riverine Waters/Wetlands 

Ecosystems in the South Coast Region of Santa Barbara County, California. Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Santa 

Barbara, California. 

86 

Lee, L.C., P.L. Fiedler, S.R. Stewart, D.J. Partridge, J.A. Mason, E.M. Inlander, and M.C. Rains. 2003. Draft Operational 

Guidebook for Assessment of the Functions of Riverine Waters/Wetlands in the Santa Margarita Watershed, Riverside & 

San Diego Counties, California. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Technical Publication. San Diego, 

California.



1/3/2011 

Page 69 

Inadequate Mission Village Wetland Mitigation Measures 


DMEC 

MV 4.3-23 (page 4.3-338) is the development of a conceptual wetlands mitigation plan. A plan is not 

mitigation and certainly a conceptual one would lack enough specificity to be able to determine if it was 

both feasible and serve to mitigate the stated impact(s). It leaves open far too many questions about how, 

where, and when the mitigation would be implemented and whether it is feasible. A conceptual mitigation 

plan is insufficient to satisfy CEQA requirements. Specific criteria need to be identified for all mitigation 

measures and this one is entirely lacking in specificity or criteria. If the success criteria listed under MV 4.3- 

36 are intended to be part of this mitigation measure, then it should not be a separate measure. 

MV 4.3-31 (page 4.3-346) simple states that permanently impacted wetland habitats under Corps and 

CDFG jurisdiction must be mitigated. It states that the mitigation wetlands would need to “habitats of 

similar functions and values/services (see MV 4.3-33) on the project site, or as allowed under MV4.3- 

39”. While this sounds good, there are many questions and concerns about this approach. First, the hybrid 

HGM assessment approach is not tested to show that it can capture wetland functions as well as a pure 

HGM model. DMEC has successfully used two regional HGM models in the Santa Clara River watershed, 

the Santa Margarita River Riverine HGM model and the Santa Barbara South Coast Riverine HGM model. 

The first model is most appropriate for use on the Santa Clara River as the morphology and dynamics of the 

two rivers are most similar. The Santa Barbara model may be the most appropriate for the tributaries; 

however, the Santa Margarita River model may be appropriate as well. These models have been tested and 

used several times in the region within and beyond each model’s reference domain (DMEC 2000 87 , 2001 88 , 

2004 89 , 2006a 90 , 2006b 91 , 2009 92 ), and the results have been accepted by the regulatory agencies (EPA, 

Corps, CDFG, California Coastal Commission, County of Ventura). Second, there are no success criteria 

identified, and the mitigation sites and approaches are left open without the opportunity for the public or 

lead agency to determine feasibility during the CEQA review process. The public will have no other 

opportunities to review this mitigation measure. 

MV 4.3-36 on page 4.3-349 provides some wetland mitigation success criteria; however, the locations of 

mitigation and the control sites are unknown. This should be rectified. 

87 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2000. Wetland Functional Assessment of the Reinke Development Mitigation 

Plan, Thousand Oaks, California. November 2000. (PN 00-0131.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Rudy Reinke, Thousand 

Oaks, California. 

88 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2001. Wetland Functional Assessment of the Odyssey Program Middle School 

Project, Malibu, California. December 2001. (PN 00-0301.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Odyssey Program, Malibu, 


89 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2004. Wetland Functional Assessment of the Camarillo Regional Park Wetlands 

and Golf Course Projects, Ventura County, California. June 2004. (PN 02-0121-2.) Ojai, California. Prepared for 

California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, California. 

90 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2006a. Baseline HGM Assessment for Mountains Restoration Trust, Dry 

Canyon Creek, Calabasas, California. (Corps File No. 200601215-JWM). August 2006. (PN 05-0262-1). Ojai, 

California. Prepared for Mountains Restoration Trust, Calabasas, California; City of Calabasas, Calabasas, California; 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ventura, California; and California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego, California. 

91 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2006b. Wetland Functional Assessment of the Gramckow Property Project, 

Rancho Matilija, California. 15 June 2006. (PN 06-0041.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Ventura County Planning 

Division, Ventura, California, on behalf of Martin Gramckow, Ojai, California. 

92 David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2009. Wetland Functional Assessment of the Lyons Property Mitigation Bank 

Project, Santa Paula Canyon, California. 10 March 2009. (PN 08-0152.) Ojai, California. Prepared for BioResource 

Consultants, Ojai, California, on behalf of Richard Lyons & Laurie Prange Lyons, Ojai, California.



1/3/2011 

Page 70 


DMEC 

In summary, DMEC finds that the EIR fails to adequately assess all project-related impacts to the biological 

resources onsite and fails to provide adequate and/or feasible mitigation to reduce the significant impacts to 

a level of less than significant. The project EIR relies almost exclusively on the SPC, which fails to protect 

the SFVS and would put it at risk of extinction, or at least local extirpation in the long term. The Friends of 

the Santa Clara River, California Native Plant Society, and others, are filing a legal challenge on the 

adequacy of the EIR for the SCP and CDFG’s issuance of a take permit pursuant to Section 1081 of the 

California Endangered Species Act since the SCP does not fully mitigate project-related impacts to the 

SFVS. 

Thank you for considering our concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR. 

Sincerely, 

David L. Magney 

President 

David Brown, M.S. 

Biologist 

Attachments: EPA letter to Corps 

DMEC’s 2009 comment letter on the RMPD/SCP & EIS/EIR 

cc: Ron Bottoroff, Friends of the Santa Clara River 

Greg Suba, California Native Plant Society

David Magney Environmental Consulting - California Native Plant ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?