Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the ... to the Subsequent Environmental Impact...

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the Mule Creek State

Prison Infill Site Enhanced Outpatient Program Building/Secondary

Effluent Spray Field Enhancement Measures and

Options

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

DIVISION OF FACILITY PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2012122038

July 2017

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the Mule

Creek State Prison Infill Site

Enhanced Outpatient Program Building/Secondary Effluent Spray Field

Enhancement Measures and Options

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2012122038

PREPARED FOR: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Division of Facility Planning, Construction and Management 9838 Old Placerville Road, Suite B

Sacramento, California 95827

CONTACT: Robert Sleppy

Design and Environmental Services and Standards Branch 916 255-1141

July 2017

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND ACTION TRIGGERING THE ADDENDUM ................................. 1-1 1.2 CEQA GUIDELINES REGARDING THE ADDENDUM TO THE EIR ............................ 1-5

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROTOCOLS ......... 2-1 2.3 MCSP INFILL PROJECT MINOR MODIFICATIONS ..................................................... 2-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................... 3-1

4 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................... 4-1

CDCR Table of Contents

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ii Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BMPs best management practices

CDCR California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CTS California Tiger Salamander

EIR Environmental Impact Report

LEF lethal electrified fence

MCSP Mule Creek State Prison MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

PRC Public Resources Code PYCF Preston Youth Correctional Facility

SEIR Subsequent EIR SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SR State Route SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND ACTION TRIGGERING THE ADDENDUM

EIR Certification and Project Approval. In November 2013, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) Site (the “MCSP Project”) and approved the project. Then, in November 2015, CDCR certified a Subsequent EIR (SEIR) to address modifications to the MCSP Project that included: (1) construction of additional administrative/program support offices to meet the needs of Level II Enhanced Outpatient Program inmates that will be housed at the new complex, (2) upgrading/enhancement of the existing irrigation system used for application of disinfected secondary wastewater effluent, and (3) installation of approximately 45 acres of new secondary effluent spray fields on vacant areas within prison grounds. The SEIR also evaluated, as an alternative to the new 45 acres of onsite effluent spray fields, an offsite effluent spray field option that involved the installation of a section of piping within MCSP grounds and a second section of piping extending from near the City of Ione’s tertiary treatment plant to approximately 100 acres of existing agricultural land on the adjacent Greenrock Ranch. The development of the Woodard Bottom farm field to irrigation with secondary disinfected effluent from MCSP, also referred to as the “offsite option,” that was evaluated in the SEIR included installation of piping within Dave Brubeck Road; installation of an above-ground pipe between Dave Brubeck Road and the 100-acre agricultural field, and modifications to provide for use of secondary effluent for irrigation of a fodder crop including the control and recirculation of tail water flows.

Summary of Minor Changes to the Project. Following approval of the modified MCSP Project, the offsite option was selected, and subsequent detailed planning and design identified the need for further modification of some elements of the offsite option. All of the following changes have been determined to be necessary to allow for timely construction and completion/initiation of full operation of the MCSP Project to meet federal Three-Judge Panel court compliance activation schedules. (See Coleman et al. v. Brown (No. CIV S-90-520-LKK JFM P (E.D. Cal.)); Plata et al. v. Brown (No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal.).)

The modifications to the off-site effluent disposal option consist of the following changes in construction methodology and project elements identified as a result of more detailed engineering planning. CDCR now plans to change the methodology for placement of an approximately 1,800-linear-foot section of pipeline where it crosses an area of pasture and oak woodland. CDCR determined that placement of this section of pipeline below grade would result in a smaller area of construction disturbance. More detailed construction planning also resulted in inclusion of a small (approximately 3 million gallon), lined, secondary-effluent regulating pond; the development of a 12-foot-wide, unpaved access road from Dave Brubeck Road to the edge of the farm field; and refinement of construction laydown and equipment staging areas. Finally, CDCR will provide supplemental disinfection equipment within the City of Ione’s wastewater treatment plant to assure that all secondary effluent discharged to the Woodard Bottom farm field will fully meet the requirements of the State Title 22 drinking water regulations. No other changes to the scope of the Mule Creek State Prison Infill Project described in the 2013 EIR and 2015 SEIR have been made to the project.

Further descriptions of the proposed changes are provided in Chapter 2. This addendum evaluates the revisions to the modified MCSP Project as compared to what was previously approved and to the existing environmental conditions. While this addendum addresses certain changes to the offsite option, three previously evaluated features of the offsite option, including improvements to the proposed 100-acre field, installation of a pipeline connection within CDCR property at MCSP, and installation of a pipeline within Dave Brubeck Road, were adequately addressed as part of the SEIR and are not further addressed herein. See Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 for regional and local identification of the project modifications under consideration.

California Department Introduction

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 2 Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project

Exhibit 1-1 Regional Location of Proposed Modifications

CD

CR

Intr

oduc

tion

Add

endu

m to

the

Subs

eque

nt E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Leve

l II I

nfill

Cor

rect

iona

l Fac

ilitie

s Pr

ojec

t 3

Exhi

bit 1

-2

Loca

tion

of P

ropo

sed

Mod

ifica

tions

to A

ppro

ved

Proj

ect a

t Woo

dard

Bot

tom

Cal

iforn

ia D

epar

tmen

t Int

rodu

ctio

n

A

dden

dum

to th

e Su

bseq

uent

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

4 Le

vel I

I Inf

ill C

orre

ctio

nal F

acili

ties

Proj

ect

Exhi

bit 1

-3

Ione

Was

tew

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

Con

nect

ion

Are

a

CDCR Introduction


1.2 CEQA GUIDELINES REGARDING THE ADDENDUM TO THE EIR

If, after certification of an EIR, altered conditions, changes, or additions to a project occur, CEQA requires no additional actions unless additional discretionary approval is required. If additional discretionary approval is required, CEQA provides three mechanisms to address these changes: a subsequent EIR (SEIR), a supplement to an EIR, and an addendum to an EIR.

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 and sections 15162-15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines describe the conditions under which an SEIR would be prepared. In summary, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no SEIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete was adopted, shows any of the following:

the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;

significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described above for Section 15162 calling for preparation of an SEIR have occurred. In evaluating whether a SEIR is needed under 21166 and 15162, the agency considers only the incremental difference between the original project and the project as modified (See Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467; Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians v. Rancho California Water Dist. (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 425.)

Introduction CDCR

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 1-6 Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project

Summary of Conclusions

Changes to the approved MCSP Project and any altered conditions since certification of the SEIR in November 2015 would:

not result in any new significant environmental effects, and

not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects.

In addition, no new information of substantial importance has arisen that shows that:

the project would have new significant effects,

the project would have substantially more severe effects,

mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or

mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

As described in Chapter 2 of this document, “Project Description,” and Chapter 3, “Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures,” none of the conditions described above for Section 15162 calling for preparation of a SEIR have occurred. Therefore, the differences between the approved MCSP Project, as described in the certified SEIR, and the project modifications now being considered constitute changes consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 that may be addressed in an addendum to an EIR.


2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The existing MCSP, located at 4001 State Route (SR) 104 in Ione, California, is situated on 866 acres and is owned by the State of California. MCSP is located in the City of Ione in Amador County, approximately 33 miles southeast of downtown Sacramento (Exhibit 1-1). Primary local access to MCSP is from SR 104. Regional access to MCSP is also provided by SR 104, which connects with SR 99 in the City of Galt, and SR 124, which connects SR 16 to Ione. The MCSP Infill Site is located on State-owned property east of the existing prison but within the State-owned property of this prison.

The previous SEIR evaluated conveyance of secondary effluent to 100 acres of off-site agricultural land (Woodard Bottom) that are owned and operated by Greenrock Ranch, LLC. No modifications are proposed to the location of the off-site agricultural lands, the size of the area to be converted to seasonal irrigation, or the general alignment of necessary pipelines and related appurtenances.

The previous SEIR evaluated the installation of a new section of pipeline along a route consisting of an existing right-of-way within Dave Brubeck Road and then extending across a pasture between the roadway and farm field. The proposed project changes involve the method of construction of the pipeline crossing the pasture, the installation of a small irrigation regulating pond, and gravel access road between Brubeck Road and the farm field, and other incidental appurtenances needed to activate the irrigation system. CDCR will also provide additional disinfection equipment within the grounds of the City of Ione’s wastewater treatment plant to assure that all secondary effluent discharged to the Woodard Bottom farm field fully complies with the State Title 22 water quality regulations for irrigation of fodder crops. See Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3 for the location of these improvements.

2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROTOCOLS

Since the initiation of pre-construction activities for the MCSP Project in January 2014, CDCR has required, through implementation of its adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), biological and cultural resource, including Native American, monitors to be present to directly observe a wide range of ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, initial felling and removal of trees, topsoil removal and storage, site grading/quarrying, subsurface trenching/utility extensions, placement of excess fill, trenching in riparian zones, and installation of temporary access facilities from SR 104. Onsite monitors completed initial pre-construction surveys, and provided daily monitoring of construction activity areas, to ensure that if resources were encountered, disturbance activities would be halted, the resource(s) evaluated, and appropriate avoidance/relocation efforts would be implemented to prevent further disturbance to the resource(s). All monitoring activities were documented with field journals and/or photographic recordation. Consistent with the MMRP adopted for the MCSP Project, the same mitigation requirements and monitoring protocol would be applied to the MCSP Project modifications, if approved.

2.3 MCSP INFILL PROJECT MINOR MODIFICATIONS

Following approval of the MCSP Project, including the modifications contemplated as part of the 2015 SEIR, the selection and subsequent detailed planning and design of the offsite effluent disposal option identified the need for limited modifications to the initial design of the pipeline and appurtenant facilities associated with the operation of Woodard Bottom. The modifications to this alternative consist of the following change in construction methodology and project elements identified as a result of more detailed engineering planning. CDCR now plans to change the project design regarding placement of an approximately 1,800 linear foot section of pipeline where it crosses an area of pasture and oak

Project Description CDCR


woodland. CDCR has re-designed the method of placement of this section of pipeline to be installed below grade, instead of the previous above-grade design. This project change would result in a smaller area of construction disturbance. More detailed construction planning also resulted in the need to include a small (approximately 3 million gallon) lined secondary effluent regulating pond; the development of a small, unpaved, access road from Brubeck Road to the edge of the farm field; and refinement of construction laydown and equipment staging areas. Finally, CDCR will be installing additional disinfection mechanical equipment within the City of Ione’s wastewater treatment plant as an element of the project. This disinfection equipment will assure that all secondary effluent conveyed to the Woodard Bottom farm field fully complies with State Title 22 water quality standards for the irrigation of fodder crops. No other changes to the scope of the MCSP infill site described in the 2015 SEIR have been made to the project.

UNDERGROUNDING OF PIPELINE

The SEIR’s evaluation of the previously proposed pipeline that would extend from Dave Brubeck Road to Woodard Bottom assumed that the pipeline would be installed aboveground and would not require ground disturbance. However, due to subsequent planning and design, as well as coordination with the local landowner, this was deemed to be infeasible due to potential hazards associated with continued grazing activities and potential maintenance costs. Construction of the pipeline would also not reduce ground disturbance because of the need to install supporting structures for the foundation of an elevated linear structure. As a result, the proposed pipeline will be buried in a trench with the surface restored to its existing condition and function as pasture/grazing land. During construction, the area to be affected will be restricted to a 50-foot wide corridor across the entire pasture for trenching and general equipment movement. Small, temporary construction staging areas would also be provided; these areas would also be restored upon completion of the work.

REGULATING POND

At the western terminus of the pipeline identified above and as shown in Exhibit 1-2, CDCR would construct an approximately three-million-gallon regulating pond to ensure a continuous and reliable supply of irrigation water for the field. The reservoir would be lined with an impermeable liner (e.g. high-density polyethylene geomembrane [HPDE]), in accordance with applicable water quality requirements, and fenced to prevent entry by cattle, other livestock, and wildlife. The reservoir would not include a spillway because it would be emptied at the beginning of every winter season using onsite pumps. Additionally, communication equipment, including a radio antenna (approximately 12 feet in height), would be installed on a concrete pad immediately to the north of the regulating pond to allow for offsite monitoring of flow and depth of the regulating pond.

CITY OF IONE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONNECTION AND EQUIPMENT

As part of the proposed modifications, CDCR would provide also install disinfection equipment within the grounds of the City of Ione wastewater treatment plant. The operation of this equipment will assure that all secondary effluent discharged to the Woodard Bottom farm land will fully meet State drinking water regulations. The new equipment will be installed on a small pad provided with electrical service and appropriate controls. The equipment will include a small tank for storage of the disinfection agent. All new equipment and the storage tank will meet state building code regulations. The location of this equipment is already highly disturbed by previous activities within the treatment plant, as shown in Exhibit 1-3.

ACCESS ROAD

Approximately 1,750 feet south of the proposed pipeline, CDCR would construct a gravel access and maintenance road that would proceed in a westerly direction through Greenrock Ranch property before

CDCR Introduction


turning north towards the proposed regulating pond and Woodard Bottom. A section would also extend to the east from Woodard Bottom to allow access to and maintenance of the communication equipment to be located near the proposed regulating pond. The proposed road would be approximately 5,000 feet in length and 12 feet in width and would be used during construction and operation. Additionally, CDCR would improve a portion of the existing dirt road (approximately 500 linear feet) located south of the site of the regulating pond to allow for a direct connection to the regulating pond, as shown in Exhibit 1-2.

CONSTRUCTION AREAS

Along the proposed pipeline route and access road additional land area would be required for temporary laydown and access, as shown in Exhibit 1-2. Portions of the access road may be temporarily widened (between 100 and 150 feet in total width) to allow for construction trailers, two-way vehicle access, and material storage. Once construction is completed, CDCR would restore the ground surface in these areas to pre-project conditions, which is currently used as pasture/grazing land.

Project Description CDCR


This page intentionally left blank.


3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This section of the addendum analyzes the potential effects on the existing physical environment from implementation of the proposed modifications, as compared to the approved MCSP Project. This analysis has been prepared to determine whether any of the conditions described above that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur as a result of the project modification.

3.1 APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

As stated previously, in Section 1.2, “CEQA Guidelines Regarding the Addendum to the EIR,” CDCR has determined that, in accordance with PRC Section 21166 and Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, minor technical changes or additions to the Infill EIR are necessary to address the modifications to the Infill Project at MCSP.

An addendum to a certified EIR is prepared when changes to a project are required, and the changes:

will not result in any new significant environmental effects, and/or

will not substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects.

The analysis of environmental effects provided below addresses the same impacts addressed in the MCSP Project EIR and SEIR. The environmental analysis evaluates for each environmental topic area (e.g., land use, traffic, air quality) whether there are any changes in the project or the circumstances under which it would be undertaken that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than considered in the MCSP Project EIR and SEIR.

3.1.1 ISSUES NOT ANALYZED FURTHER IN THIS ADDENDUM

The proposed modifications described in this addendum constitute changes to the approved MCSP Project that will not result in new significant impacts not previously identified in the EIR, nor a substantial increase in the severity or intensity of the significant impacts that were previously identified. The proposed modifications, compared to what was previously described and evaluated in the 2013 EIR and 2015 SEIR, would not involve an increase in use or type of equipment during construction nor an increase in the capacity of the existing MCSP wastewater treatment system, including effluent disposal. The proposed modifications would also not result in an increase in the intensity of certain activities (including construction) nor a modification of operations of an existing facility, including the Level II complex. For these reasons, an addendum was deemed appropriate for the proposed modifications. Resource areas that do not result in the need for additional detailed consideration therefore include:

Air Quality;

Employment, Population, and Housing;

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, Minerals, and Paleontology;

Greenhouse Gas Emissions;

Hazards and Hazardous Materials;

Hydrology and Water Quality;

Land Use, Agriculture, and Forestry Resources;

Noise;

Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures CDCR


Public Services and Recreation;

Transportation;

Utilities; and

Visual Resources.

Moreover, CDCR will continue to implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and comply with California Building Code standards (refer to Impact 4.3-1 on page 4.3-11 of the 2015 SEIR and Impact 3.5-1a on page 3.5-9 of the 2013 EIR) such that no additional impacts to hydrology and water quality nor geology and soils would result from the proposed modifications. The 2013 EIR for the MCSP Project addressed the potential impacts associated with disinfected secondary effluent disposal at the offsite agricultural field (refer to Impact 3.7-4a on page 3.7-16 of the 2013 EIR), so no changes to the type, quantity, and quality of effluent such that additional impacts would occur as part of the modifications. As noted above, construction equipment and workers necessary to implement the proposed modifications would not exceed that previously identified and evaluated in the 2013 EIR or 2015 SEIR (refer to Impact 3.1-1a on page 3.1-14 of the 2013 EIR), thereby resulting in no increased intensity of construction or construction-related emissions. The proposed modifications would involve temporary (construction-related) activities, and none of the contemplated project modifications would affect the previously disclosed operational impacts of the MCSP Project.

3.1.2 ISSUES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THIS ADDENDUM

The following issue areas have been evaluated in further detail in this addendum with respect to the proposed modifications to the approved MCSP Project, because of the potential for the modification to adversely affect these resources:

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, CDCR and Mitigation Measures


Environmental Issue Area Where Impact was Analyzed in the SEIR

Do Proposed Changes Involve

New or Substantially More Severe

Significant Impacts?*

Do Any New Circumstances Involve New or

Substantially More Severe Significant

Impacts?

Do Mitigation Measures in the 2013

EIR or 2015 SEIR Address/ Resolve Impacts, Including

Impacts That Would Otherwise be New or Substantially More

Severe?

1. Biological Resources. Would the project:

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

2013 EIR Impacts 3.2-1a, 3.2-2a, 3.2-3a, 3.2-4a, and 3.2-8a of Volume 3;

2015 SEIR Impacts 4.1-1, 4.1-2, 4.1-3,

4.1-4, and 4.1-5

No No Yes

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

2013 EIR Impact

3.2-5a of Volume 3; 2015 EIR

Impact 4.1-6

No No N/A

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Impact 3.2-6a of Volume 3; 2015 EIR

Impact 4.1-6

No No N/A

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Page 3-2-20 of Volume 3 of the

2013 EIR; Page 4.1-16 of the 2015 SEIR

No No N/A

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

Page 3.2-18 and Impact 3.2-6a of Volume 3; 2015 SEIR

Impact 4.1-7

No No Yes

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

Page 3-2-20 of Volume 3;

Page 4.1-16 of the 2015 SEIR

No No N/A

* - Determination is related to pre-mitigation conditions, including implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

EIR ANALYSIS

The certified EIR for the MCSP Project (Volume 3) found that the project could result in impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands, could affect nesting birds and raptors located in the area, and could conflict with the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act. These impacts were determined to be potentially significant, necessitating the implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant.



The SEIR prepared in 2015, which addressed the aforementioned project modifications, found that impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands from the previously contemplated modifications would be less than significant through avoidance by design.

The certified EIR for the MCSP Project (Volume 3) also found that the project would not conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans, would not substantially interfere with wildlife movement in the area, and would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species below self-sustaining levels. No impacts would occur with respect to these three issue areas.

MITIGATION MEASURES

With respect to nesting birds and raptors, Mitigation Measures 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 would require preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures to be developed in the event of active nests being located in proximity to construction activities. Impacts related to nesting birds and raptors are reduced to less than significant with implementation of these measures. As construction began in April 2014, nesting bird surveys were conducted prior to construction and periodically during construction, including the most recent May 2016 survey. Where active nests (i.e., red-tail hawk, turkey, hummingbird, and kingbird) were found to be present, buffers from construction activities were established and maintained until the young fledged, consistent with the adopted mitigation requirements.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 from the 2013 EIR and Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 from the 2015 SEIR require special-status plant species surveys to prevent impacts to Tuolumne button-celery, Hoover’s calycadenia, and Parry’s horkelia that may occur within the vicinity of the MCSP Project site. Impacts related to special-status plants are reduced to less than-significant with implementation of these measures. Prior to construction in April 2014, August 2015, and June 2016, surveys were performed, and no special-status plants were observed consistent with this measure.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires protection/avoidance of elderberry shrubs to prevent impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle. No elderberry shrubs are located within the disturbance footprint of the approved proposed complex or previously contemplated modifications.

Mitigation Measures 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 included specific measures to be implemented as part of the regulatory permitting for the MCSP Project. They included restoration of riparian habitat and purchasing of offsite mitigation land for the loss of riparian habitat and wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this mitigation. CDCR has obtained 404, 401, and 1600 permits for the MCSP Project and all conditions, including additional biological resources conditions imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are being implemented onsite during construction. This includes regular onsite biological monitoring, exclusion fencing (approximately four-feet high and installed six inches below grade) between the project site and Mule Creek, non-monofilament BMPs for stormwater controls to prevent the trapping of wildlife, and biological resource training for all construction personnel.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-8 requires CDCR to implement a multi-tier wildlife mitigation program to reduce impacts from operation of the proposed lethal electrified fence (LEF). Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant. No modifications to the LEF at MCSP are proposed.

CHANGES RESULTING FROM MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT

The proposed modifications to the MCSP Project would include trenching a 1,800-linear-foot section of the offsite pipeline instead of installing the pipe aboveground, installation of a regulating pond and communication equipment, and construction of an access road. Related construction activities, therefore, would result in some ground disturbance primarily along the length of the pipeline as it



extends from Dave Brubeck Road to the offsite agricultural field (which was previously evaluated as part of the 2013 EIR). As noted above, this area is currently used as grazing land and consists primarily of upland habitat dominated by non-native grassland. The area is subject to regular disturbance from grazing animals and maintenance activities by the local landowner (including mowing). The level, intensity, and length of construction activities would not change compared to what was previously evaluated as part of the 2015 SEIR. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the potential impacts associated with ground disturbance related to trenching to place the pipeline in the pasture below grade instead of on foundation pillars, excavation for the regulating pond, and grading to provide a gravel road to the farm field. As noted on page 4.1-8 of the 2015 SEIR, California Tiger Salamander (CTS) (Ambistoma californiense) has been documented approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed trenching activity. The area was surveyed on June 13, 2016 and May 17, 2016 to assess its potential for providing dispersal habitat for CTS. The project area, including a 100-foot buffer on either side of the proposed modifications, was surveyed for potential mammal burrows and other suitable refuge points such that it could serve as dispersal habitat. Based on the survey conducted, some small mammal burrows are present, but no ground squirrel burrows were observed. The burrows that are present are attributed to mice and gophers and are shallow in nature such that they would not provide suitable refuge points for CTS. As a result, the potential for CTS to be located where construction would occur is considered low (ICF 2017b), and no additional impacts beyond those identified in the certified SEIR are anticipated. Further, it should be noted that construction would be conducted during the summer (between April 15 and October 15), when CTS are generally inactive and would not wander into the project area.

With respect to the proposed connection and disinfection equipment to be installed at the City of Ione’s wastewater treatment plant, the connection would occur within a disturbed area of the existing plant (i.e. within a constructed berm area between two percolation ponds) and would not result in impacts to sensitive species or habitat.

CONCLUSION

The proposed modifications to the MCSP Project, which was previously evaluated in a 2013 EIR and November 2015 SEIR, would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to biological resources, nor would any change in circumstances occur that would result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to biological resources. No new information of substantial importance related to biological resources has been identified, and none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15162 and 15163 that require for preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR would occur.



Environmental Issue Area Where Impact was

Analyzed in the SEIR.

Do Proposed Changes Involve

New or Substantially More Severe

Significant Impacts?*

Do Any New Circumstances Involve New or

Substantially More Severe Significant

Impacts?

Do Mitigation Measures in the 2013

EIR or 2015 SEIR Address/ Resolve Impacts, Including

Impacts That Would Otherwise be New or Substantially More

Severe?

2. Cultural Resources. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

2013 EIR Impacts

3.3-2a and 3.3-3a of Volume 3;

2015 SEIR Impact 4.2-2

No No N/A

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

2013 EIR Impact

3.3-1a of Volume 3;

Impact 4.2-1; 2015 SEIR

Impact 4.2-1

Yes No Yes

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

Page 3.5-9 of Volume 3 of the

2013 EIR

No No N/A

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside the formal cemeteries?

2013 EIR Impact

3.3-4a of Volume 3; 2015 SEIR

Impact 4.2-3

Yes No Yes

* - Determination is related to pre-mitigation conditions, including implementation of previously adopted mitigation.

EIR ANALYSIS

The certified EIR and SEIR for the MCSP Project found that the project could result in significant construction impacts to unknown or previously undiscovered archaeological resources, human remains, and historic structures. These impacts were determined to be potentially significant, necessitating the implementation of mitigation. The potential construction impact to historic structures was related to the potential use of athletic fields at the former Preston Youth Correctional Facility (PVCF). Use of these fields is no longer part of the project, and as such, the impact would not occur.

The certified EIR for the MCSP Project (Volume 3) also found that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the historical significance of Preston Castle or paleontological resources. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The adopted Mitigation Measure 3.3-1(2013 Project EIR) requires the construction contractor to halt activities in the event of discovery of cultural resources and for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find and develop appropriate mitigation. Although not required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, CDCR has arranged for Native American monitors to be present onsite during all initial ground



disturbance activities that could result in disturbance of previously unknown Native American resources. However, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1c from the 2015 SEIR requires CDCR to have monitoring of all ground disturbance by monitors. This mitigation also requires CDCR to conduct a mandatory contractor/worker cultural resources awareness training for construction personnel. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 requires the halting of construction activities in the vicinity of any human remains encountered during construction.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, which requires the establishment of buffers from potentially historic structures at the former PYCF no longer applies to the MCSP Project, as the former athletic fields are not being used for construction management activities. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a requires CDCR to flag and/or fence known archaeological resources. However, no known archaeological resources are located in the vicinity of the proposed modifications and is not considered applicable to the modifications.

CHANGES RESULTING FROM MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT

The proposed modifications to the MCSP Project would involve the disturbance of additional land area not previously anticipated or evaluated as part of the MCSP Project EIR or SEIR, associated with the construction of the proposed pipeline, access road, and regulating pond (including communication equipment) within existing agricultural land that is used for grazing and 300 linear feet within the City of Ione’s wastewater treatment plant site. The construction area of the project modifications are subject to regular disturbance through either vegetation management and grazing activities or ongoing wastewater treatment plant operation. The alignment of the project modifications was surveyed on June 13, 2016 and May 17, 2016 to determine the potential presence of resources within or adjacent to the alignment. The survey involved a qualified archaeologist conducting pedestrian transects of the proposed alignment, approximately 15 feet apart and up to 50 feet on either side of the alignment. During the pedestrian survey of the alignment, no cultural resources were encountered (ICF 2017a), and as a result, the proposed modifications are not anticipated to affect known cultural resources.

However, as noted above, CDCR would conduct monitoring of all ground disturbances to ensure that no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur in the event that unknown cultural resources are encountered. CDCR will continue to have a Native American monitor present during all initial ground disturbance to ensure that if human remains or other Native American resources are found to be present, construction activities would be halted immediately until appropriate treatment/avoidance measures can be developed in cooperation with the tribe and State Historic Preservation Officer.

CONCLUSION

The proposed modifications to the MCSP Project, as modified through November 2015, would not result in any new significant impacts, or substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts related to cultural resources with ongoing implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. Continued compliance with the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts resulting from the proposed MCSP modifications to less than significant, the same impact determination made in the certified EIR (2013) and SEIR (2015). As a result, none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR would occur.



This page intentionally left blank


4 REFERENCES CITED

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 2013 (June). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project. State Clearinghouse No.: 2012122038. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA.

_____. 2013 (November). Final Environmental Impact Report for the Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project. State Clearinghouse No.: 2012122038. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA.

_____. 2015 (October). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the Mule Creek State Prison Infill Site. State Clearinghouse No.: 2012122038. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA.

_____. 2015 (November). Final Environmental Impact Report for the Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the Mule Creek State Prison Infill Site. State Clearinghouse No.: 2012122038. Prepared by Ascent Environmental, Sacramento, CA.

ICF. 2017a (July). Memorandum Re: Cultural Resources Survey for an off-site effluent pipeline to support the Mule Creek State Prison Infill Project.

_____. 2017b (July). Memorandum Re: Biological Resources Survey Along Off-Site Effluent Disposal Pipeline.

References Cited CDCR


This page intentionally left blank

Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the ... to the Subsequent Environmental Impact...

Documents

Transcript of Level II Infill Correctional Facilities Project at the ... to the Subsequent Environmental Impact...