FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER … · FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT PROJECT University of California, Davis State Clearinghouse

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTREPLACEMENT PROJECT

University of California, Davis

State Clearinghouse Numbers 95123027 and 96072024

Lead Agency:

The Regents of the University of California

Prepared by:

University of California, DavisPlanning and Budget Office

376 Mrak HallDavis, CA 95616-8678

Contact: A. Sidney England, Environmental Planner916/752-2432

Environmental Consultant:

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.2600 V Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95818-1914Contact: Kim Erickson, Project Manager

916/737-3000

March 1997

i

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1-1

Chapter 2. Revised Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................... 2-1

Chapter 3. Text Changes to the Draft EIR .............................................................................. 3-1

Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program.............................................................................. 4-1

Chapter 5. Responses to Comments ......................................................................................... 5-1

Chapter 6. Citations ................................................................................................................... 6-1

Chapter 7. List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendices available at UC Davis, 376 Mrak Hall.

Appendix A. Summary of Attachments to the G. Fred Lee Comment Letters ..................... A-1

Appendix B. Waste Discharge Requirements for Aquatic Center andPutah Creek Research Facilities........................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Waste Discharge Requirements for USDA Aquatic Weed Control LaboratoryC-1

Appendix D. Public Scoping Meeting Handout and Attendance Roster............................... D-1

Appendix E. Public Letter and Mailing List............................................................................E-1

Appendix F. Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements and Cease andDesist Order........................................................................................................F-1

Appendix G. March 1997 Amendment to the 1994 LRDP and Revisionsto the 1994 LRDP EIR ...................................................................................... G-1

ii

List of Tables

Table Page

2-1 Updated Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................... 2-2

4-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program for the UC Davis WWTPReplacement Project ........................................................................................ 4-3

4-2 University of California, Davis Long Range Development PlanMitigation Monitoring Program......................................................................... 4-8

5-1 List of Agencies and Individuals Commenting on the Draft EIRfor the WWTP Replacement Project ................................................................ 5-1

5-2 List of Master Responses ................................................................................. 5-3

5-3 Summary of Existing and Proposed Disinfection Requirements......................... 5-18

5-4 Comparison of Operating Parameters of the City of Davis WPCPand the Proposed UC Davis WWTP.............................................................. 5-21

5-5 Summary Comparison of Draft EIR Conclusions and LeonWegge’s Comments about the Ability of the Proposed Projectand Alternative 3 (Pump to the City’s WPCP) to MeetProject Objectives ......................................................................................... 5-88

3-5 Revised Wastewater Monitoring Program.................................................................. 5-184

3-6 New Biosolids Monitoring Program...................................................................... 5-186

4.1-2 Revised Background Water Quality in Putah Creek Upstream ofCampus Boundary....................................................................................... 5-190

4.1-5 Revised Summary of Selected NPDES Permit Limits for the Putah CreekResearch Facility and Aquatic Center ........................................................... 5-193

iii

4.16 Revised Summary of Selected NPDES Permit Limits for the USDAAquatic Weed Control Laboratory............................................................... 5-194

4.1-15 Revised Potential Future Water Quality Criteria and WWTPEffluent Data (µg/L)...................................................................................... 5-202

E-3 Revised Pollutants of Greatest Concern: Detected at Levels ExceedingState or Federal Standards or Proposed Local Limits ................................... 5-221

5-6 Summary of Analytical Data and Pollutant Concentrationsfor Cyanide.................................................................................................. 5-281

5-7 Estimated Pollutant Concentrations Below the WWTP OutflowPoint in Putah Creek .................................................................................... 5-281

iv

List of Acronyms

BOD biochemical oxygen demandCaltrans California Department of TransportationCCR California Code of RegulationsCEH Center for Equine HealthCEQA California Environmental Quality ActCFR Code of Federal Regulationscfs cubic feet per secondCIWMB California Integrated Waste Management BoardCorps U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCSU California State UniversityCVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control BoardDFG California Department of Fish and GameDHS California Department of Health ServicesDOE U.S. Department of EnergyEIR environmental impact reportEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFR Federal RegisterHSU-1 hydrostratigraphic unit 1ITEH Institute for Toxicology and Environmental HealthLandfill EIR UC Davis Landfill Expansion and Permit Revision project environmental impact

reportLAWR UC Davis Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesLDU #3 Landfill Disposal Unit No. 3LEHR Laboratory for Energy-Related Health ResearchLRDP UC Davis Long Range Development PlanMCL maximum contaminant levelmg/L milligrams per litermgd million gallons per dayMPN/100 ml most probable number per 100 millilitersN nitrogenNOV notice of violationNOP Notice of PreparationNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNTU nephelometric turbidity units

v

PNNL Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryPOTW publicly owned treatment worksppb parts per billionSCDS South Campus Disposal SiteSSB solids storage basinSWRCB State Water Resources Control BoardTIE toxicity identification evaluationTRE toxicity reduction evaluationUC University of CaliforniaUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUV ultravioletVELB valley elderberry longhorn beetleVOC volatile organic compoundWPCP water pollution control plantWWTP wastewater treatment plantµg/L micrograms per liter

WWTP Replacement Project Final EIRUniversity of California, Davis March 19971-1

Chapter 1. Introduction

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the University of California (UC)procedures for implementing CEQA, UC Davis is required, after completion of a draft environmental impactreport (EIR), to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies that have legal jurisdiction withrespect to the proposed project, and to provide the general public with opportunities to comment on thedraft EIR. UC Davis is also required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review andconsultation process. This final EIR has been prepared to respond to agency and public comments receivedon the draft EIR for the UC Davis wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) replacement project. The draftEIR was issued for public review on October 29, 1996. The public review period lasted from October 29,1996, through December 13, 1996. UC Davis held a public meeting on December 3, 1996, to receivecomments on the draft EIR; however, the court reporter did not attend, and the comments could not berecorded. Therefore, a public hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 1996, to receiveinput on the adequacy of the draft EIR, and a court reporter prepared a transcript of the meeting.

This document and the draft EIR constitute the final EIR. The draft EIR is hereby incorporated bythis reference. Copies of the draft EIR and additional copies of the final EIR are available for inspectionand review during normal business hours at the UC Davis Planning and Budget Office at 376 Mrak Hall,UC Davis; the Reserve Reading Room, Shields Library, UC Davis; the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E.14th Street, Davis; and the Fairfield Suisun Community Library at 1150 Kentucky Street, Fairfield.

The draft and final EIRs include extensive references to the 1994 UC Davis Long RangeDevelopment Plan (LRDP) and the 1994 LRDP EIR. The 1994 LRDP was designed to accommodateprojected Campus population growth and facilities development through 2005-06, and the 1994 LRDPEIR evaluated the environmental impacts of that growth and development. As allowed under Section15150 of the CEQA Guidelines and as stated in the draft EIR, UC Davis is incorporating by referenceportions of the 1994 LRDP EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 94022005). Copies of the 1994 LRDPand the 1994 LRDP EIR are available for inspection and review during normal business hours at thelocations listed above.

The Regents of the University of California (The Regents) will certify this final EIR prior toamending the 1994 LRDP to change the designated land use of the project site from Teaching/ResearchFields to Support. Approval of the WWTP replacement project does not require the approval of TheRegents and will be done by the Campus. The Campus will certify this final EIR before making a decision


on the project. Other agencies may also use this EIR in their review and approval of related actions; seeChapter 3 of the draft EIR for a listing of agencies and actions that may be involved in project approval andimplementation.

NEW INFORMATION

The draft EIR for the WWTP replacement project analyzes the information that was available atthe time of publication in October 1996. The draft EIR is therefore necessarily a “snapshot” in time of thecircumstances and information surrounding that facility. However, the existing WWTP is an ongoingoperation, and information and circumstances involving the WWTP are constantly evolving. The followingnew information regarding the existing WWTP has become available since the draft EIR was published.

UC Davis submitted an application to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board(CVRWQCB) on August 30, 1996, to renew the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit for the existing WWTP. This application was part of the routine 5-year permit renewalcycle for the existing plant. On February 11, 1997, the CVRWQCB issued a tentative draft permit(Appendix F). This tentative permit includes new, proposed conditions affecting the operation of theexisting WWTP and was circulated to government agencies, the public, and UC Davis for review andcomment in February 1997. The comment period will end on March 24, 1997, and the CVRWQCB couldhold a hearing on the permit renewal and adopt the new requirements as early as April 1997. The tentativeNPDES permit applies only to the existing WWTP; the proposed WWTP will be the subject of separatepermitting proceedings.

The public review period and hearing process allow concerned parties to raise issues related topotential permit conditions. As routinely happens, the CVRWQCB or the State Water Resources ControlBoard (SWRCB) may delete or modify proposed conditions circulated in the draft or may add newconditions. The Campus plans to raise issues with the CVRWQCB during the public comment period andat the hearing on the tentative permit concerning the necessity and appropriateness of the numerical limitsproposed in the tentative permit for toxic constituents.

The proposed conditions in the tentative permit are similar to those in the current NPDES permitfor the existing WWTP with two significant differences. First, the monthly median total coliform limit wouldbe 2.2 MPN/100 ml (most probable number per 100 milliliters) and the daily maximum limit would be 240MPN/100 ml. The current permit limits for fecal coliform are a monthly median of 23 MPN/100 ml anda daily maximum limit of 400 MPN/100 ml. This term of the tentative permit would not apply untilNovember 30, 2000 (i.e., after the scheduled date to complete and operate the new WWTP). In theinterim, the existing limits in the current permit would apply.

Second, the tentative permit includes numerical limits for seven toxic constituents (tributyltin,aluminum, bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, copper, cyanide, hexachlorobutadiene, and hexachloroethane). Based on information submitted by UC Davis as part of the application process, CVRWQCB staff hasconcluded that the existing WWTP is not capable of meeting the proposed effluent limits for the seven toxics


listed above. Based on this conclusion, instead of preparing a compliance schedule, the CVRWQCBcirculated a tentative cease and desist order (Appendix F) anticipating potential, future exceedances foragency and public review along with the tentative permit. This draft cease and desist order would requirefinal compliance on November 30, 2000.

As explained in the responses to comments received on the draft EIR, the existing campus WWTPhas a good history of compliance with all applicable existing NPDES permit discharge limits (please seeMaster Response 1 in Chapter 5 of this final EIR). If the numerical limits for specified toxics in the tentativepermit are adopted and become enforceable, the existing WWTP might be in violation of one or morepermit conditions regarding these toxics. If a cease and desist order is adopted by the CVRWQCB, thisaction would not indicate a poor compliance history at the existing WWTP, but would reflect a change inthe CVRWQCB’s regulatory standards applied to the prospective operation of the WWTP.

The proposed action evaluated in the EIR is construction and operation of a new WWTP toreplace the existing WWTP. In the event that the toxics limits proposed in the tentative NPDES permit areadopted for the existing WWTP, they are likely to be proposed in the NPDES permit for the new WWTPas well. Estimated potential concentrations in treated effluent from the existing plant were calculated in thecumulative water quality impacts analysis prepared for the EIR (Please see appendix D in the draft EIR). The analysis was performed for 18 potential pollutants of concern based on recent, historical, or potentialdetections. This analysis included three of the seven toxics for which potential numerical limits are identifiedin the tentative permit (bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate, tributyltin, and copper). In response to a commentreceived on the draft EIR, an analysis was added for cyanide (please see response to comment 15-21).Hexachlorobutadiene and hexachloroethane were not part of the cumulative water quality analysis becausethey have not been detected in the last 17 effluent samples collected during the past 4 years. Aluminum wasnot analyzed because the effluent from the existing WWTP has never exceeded any of the selected waterquality criteria for aluminum used in the cumulative impacts analysis.

Based on the cumulative water quality impacts analysis, the potential for degradation of waterquality in Putah Creek due to toxics was identified as potentially significant because of the predictedconcentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, tributyltin, and copper (please see the discussion of Impact4.1-6 on page 4.1-54 of the draft EIR). A mitigation measure recommending implementation of apretreatment program was identified to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level (pleasesee Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 on page 4.1-55 of the draft EIR). For additional discussion of thepretreatment program, please see Appendix E of the draft EIR and Master Response 6.

If proposed toxics limits in the tentative NPDES permit for the existing WWTP do becomeenforceable for the new WWTP, quicker action and/or additional responses than are currently planned aspart of the pretreatment program might be needed to ensure compliance. Therefore, the following mitigationmeasure for Impact 4.1-6 is hereby added, and this addition is reflected in mitigation measures for Impacts4.1-7, 4.1-12, and 4.4-14 (Mitigation Measures 4.1-7, 4.1-12[a], and 4.4-14, respectively):

4.1-6(b) The Campus will modify the operation and/or treatment processes atthe new WWTP as necessary to comply with all applicable permit


conditions related to toxics that are in the final NPDES permit for thenew WWTP.

Implementation of this mitigation measure, in addition to the measure described in the draft EIR, willensure that discharges of treated effluent from the proposed WWTP will comply with the NPDES permitlimits for toxics. Therefore, with the adoption of the recommended mitigation measures, the potential fordegradation of water quality and chronic toxicity in aquatic organisms in Putah Creek because of thepresence of toxics, which was identified in the draft EIR as potentially significant, would remain less thansignificant. Recirculation of the draft EIR is not warranted because this new information did not result in anew significant impact, and adoption of the new mitigation measure would ensure that the level of this impactremains less than significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).

FORMAT OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

A final EIR is required to include the draft EIR (which has been incorporated earlier by reference),copies of comments received during public review of the draft EIR, a list of persons or entities commentingon the draft EIR, and responses to comments received on the draft EIR. This final EIR is organized asfollows:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides an introduction and overview describing the intended useof the final EIR.

Chapter 2, “Revised Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” lists theenvironmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, the level ofsignificance of impacts prior to mitigation, the 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures that are recommendedfor the project, the project-specific mitigation measures that are recommended, and the level of significanceof the impacts after mitigation. This summary table includes revisions to reflect changes that resulted fromthe draft EIR review process. All changes to the summary table are also indicated as text changes to thedraft EIR in Chapters 3 and 4 of this final EIR.

Chapter 3, “Text Changes to the Draft EIR,” lists the text revisions to the draft EIR. Changesto the text of the draft EIR are shown by either a line through text that has been deleted (strikeout) ordouble underlining where new text has been inserted.

Chapter 4, “Mitigation Monitoring Program,” contains the mitigation monitoring or reportingprogram, in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, that will ensure that theproject-specific mitigation measures identified in the EIR are implemented. The mitigation monitoringprogram describes the actions that must take place for each mitigation measure, the monitoring andreporting responsibilities, and the monitoring and reporting schedule. The 1994 LRDP EIR mitigationmeasures will be implemented as described in Chapter 5, “Mitigation Monitoring Program”, of the 1994LRDP Final EIR.


Chapter 5, “Comments and Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all agencies andpersons who submitted comments on the draft EIR during the public review period. This chapter alsocontains the comment letters followed by responses to comments. Each letter and each comment withina letter have been given a number. Responses are numbered so that they correspond to the appropriatecomment. Where appropriate, responses are cross-referenced between letters. Changes to the text of thedraft EIR that are made in response to comments are shown by either a line through text that has beendeleted (strikeout) or double underlining where new text has been inserted.

Chapter 6, “Citations,” lists supporting references used in the preparation of the final EIR.

Chapter 7, “List of Preparers,” lists the UC Davis authors, the technical specialists andconsultants, the production team, and other key individuals who assisted in the preparation and review ofthe final EIR.


Chapter 2. Revised Summary of Impacts and MitigationMeasures

This revised summary table (Table 2-1) provides an overview of the environmental impact analysescontained in Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,” of the draft EIR. Thesummary table is arranged in five columns: (1) environmental impacts; (2) level of significance prior tomitigation; (3) 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures; (4) recommended project-specific mitigationmeasures; and (5) level of significance after/with mitigation. Several mitigation measures are shown wheremore than one mitigation measure is required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Thissummary table includes revisions to reflect changes that resulted from the draft EIR review process. Allchanges to the summary table are also indicated as text changes to the draft EIR in Chapters 3 and 4 of thisfinal EIR.

Table 2-1. Updated Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact

Level ofSignificance

prior toMitigation

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures Project-Specific Mitigation Measures


after/withMitigation

4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.1-1 Campus growth accommodatedby the proposed WWTP wouldresult in an increase in theamount of water discharged tothe South Fork of Putah Creek.

Beneficial -- 4.1-1 No mitigation is required. Beneficial

4.1-2 New impervious surfacesassociated with the proposedWWTP would increase surfacerunoff, potentially exceeding thecapacity of drainage facilitiesand resulting in localizedflooding.

Less thanSignificant

4.8-2(a) Prior to approval of final project design, the Campus shall prepare a detaileddrainage study to evaluate each specific development project under the 1994LRDP to determine if project runoff would exceed the capacity of the existingCampus storm drainage system.

4.8-2(b) If it is determined that existing drainage capacity would be exceeded, as part offinal project design the Campus shall design and implement necessary andfeasible improvements to minimize the occurrence of localized flooding. Suchimprovements could include, but would not be limited to the following:

(i) The expansion or modification of the existing stormdrainage system. Site runoff could be controlled byupgrading the existing facilities, such as the expansion,or installation of additional storm drain lines, orpumps.

(ii) Single-project detention or retention basins. Single-project peaksurface runoff flows could be limited in several ways, includingsmall on-site detention basins, rooftop ponding, temporary floodingof parking areas, streets and gutters, landscaping designed totemporarily retain water, and gravel beds designed to collect andretain runoff.

(iii) Multi-project storm water detention or retention basins.

4.1-2 No additional mitigation is required. Less thanSignificant

4.1-3 Increased effluent discharge andrunoff from impervious surfacesat the proposed WWTP couldincrease flood flows in the SouthFork of Putah Creek.


-- 4.1-3 No mitigation is required. Less thanSignificant

4.1-4 Relocation of the WWTP couldresult in minor changes in thelocation of groundwaterrecharge.


4.8-3 The Campus shall incorporate where feasible as part of project design thefollowing measures, or equally effective measures, to maximize percolation andinfiltration of precipitation into the underlying groundwater aquifers:

(a) the use of pervious paving material; or(b) preservation and utilization of natural drainage areas.


4.1-5 Continued discharge of treatedeffluent to the South Fork ofPutah Creek could result inpotential water quality


4.8-6(a) The Campus shall continue to monitor effluent discharge, in compliance withWDR Order No. 92-040, from the wastewater treatment plant to identify anyexceedances of established WDR effluent limits.



Impact


prior toMitigation




degradation because of increaseddischarges of BOD, TSS, andammonia in WWTP effluent.

4.8-6(b) If the effluent limits established in WDR Order No. 92-040 are exceeded, andaction is required by the CVRWQCB, the Campus shall make modifications tothe pretreatment program to ensure compliance with established effluent limits.

4.8-6(c) The Campus shall apply for and comply with any requirements of a NPDESWDR for the proposed new wastewater treatment plant prior to plant operation.

4.1-6 Continued discharge of treatedeffluent into the South Fork ofPutah Creek could result inpotential water qualitydegradation because of thepresence of toxic pollutants inWWTP effluent.

PotentiallySignificant

-- 4.1-6(a) The Campus shall strictly implement thepretreatment program and aggressivelyenforce the local limits to reduce pollutantconcentrations and ensure that NPDESpermit limits would be met. Implementation of the pretreatmentprogram to ensure that local limits aremet will include monitoring, inspection offacilities, education, and enforcement, allas described above in “RegulatorySetting”, in Appendix E, and in the UCDavis WWTP Final Local Limits Report(Krieger and Stewart 1995) or subsequentupdates.


4.1-6(b) The Campus will modify the operationand/or treatment processes at the newWWTP as necessary to comply with allapplicable permit conditions related totoxics that are in the final NPDES permitfor the new WWTP.

4.1-7 Continued discharge of treatedeffluent from the proposedWWTP to the South Fork ofPutah Creek could result inpotential chronic toxicity toaquatic organisms.


-- 4.1-7 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a)and 4.1-6(b).


4.1-8 Discharge of storm water to theSouth Fork of Putah Creekcould result in long-term waterquality degradation duringoperation of the WWTP andassociated facilities. Storm waterdischarges could result inincremental increases in thetransport of pollutants from theproposed WWTP site to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek.

Significant 4.8-5(a) The Campus shall ensure that project design includes a combination of thefollowing Best Management Practice (BMPs), or equally effective measures:

(i) Oil and grease separators shall be used to control roadway and parkinglot contaminants.

(ii) Parking lots shall be cleaned and swept on a regular basis.

(iii) Peak flow reduction and infiltration practices, such as grass swales,infiltration trenches and grass filter strips shall be incorporated.

(iv) Storm drain inlets shall be labeled to educate the public of the adverseimpacts associated with dumping on receiving waters (i.e. "Don’t dump!Drains to creek!").

4.1-8 The Campus shall apply for and complywith any requirements of an NPDESGeneral Industrial Storm Water permitfor the proposed WWTP prior to plantoperation.



Impact


prior toMitigation




(v) Landscape areas, including borders shall use warm season grasses anddrought tolerant vegetation wherever feasible to reduce demand forirrigation and thereby reduce irrigation runoff.

(vi) Efficient irrigation systems shall be installed in landscaped areas tominimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reachthe plant roots. Such irrigation systems include drip irrigation, soilmoisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems.

4.1-9 Continued discharge of treatedeffluent from the proposedWWTP could affectgroundwater quality due torecharge of additional pollutantsinto the aquifer from the SouthFork of Putah Creek.



4.1-10 Construction and operation ofthe proposed solids storagebasins could result in thepotential degradation ofgroundwater quality.


-- 4.1-10 The Campus will install and monitorgroundwater monitoring wells at theproposed WWTP, as may be required bythe CVRWQCB in the future NPDESpermit and monitoring program for thefacility.


4.1-11 Increasing the amount of waterfrom the proposed WWTP to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek, inconjunction with other Campusdischarges, would cumulativelyincrease surface runoff andcould affect the flow regime ofPutah Creek.



4.1-12 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with other permittedwastewater discharges and stormwater discharges from theCampus and future Campusgrowth, could result incumulative water qualitydegradation in Putah Creek.


4.8-5(a) The Campus shall ensure that project design includes a combination of thefollowing Best Management Practice (BMPs), or equally effective measures:

(i) Oil and grease separators shall be used to control roadway and parkinglot contaminants.

(ii) Parking lots shall be cleaned and swept on a regular basis.

(iii) Peak flow reduction and infiltration practices, such as grass swales,infiltration trenches and grass filter strips shall be incorporated.

(iv) Storm drain inlets shall be labeled to educate the public of the adverseimpacts associated with dumping on receiving waters (i.e. "Don't dump!Drains to creek!").

4.1-12(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a)and 4.1-6(b).

4.1-12(b) The Campus shall continue to implementthe source control program to reducepollutants of concern in cooling towerdischarges based on the work plansubmitted by the Campus in February1995 to the CVRWQCB. The work plandescribes a source control program toreduce pollutants of concern, includingtributyltin in cooling discharges.


(v) Landscape areas, including borders shall use warm season grasses anddrought tolerant vegetation wherever feasible to reduce demand for


Impact


prior toMitigation




irrigation and thereby reduce irrigation runoff.

(vi) Efficient irrigation systems shall be installed in landscaped areas tominimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reachthe plant roots. Such irrigation systems include drip irrigation, soilmoisture sensors, and automatic systems.

4.1-13 Cumulative agricultural andurban development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, couldreduce receiving water quality.

Significant andUnavoidable

4.8-8(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-4(a) and (b), 4.8-5(a) and (b), and 4.8-6(a)through (c).

4.8-8(b) When the EPA adopts NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit requirements forsmall municipalities, local jurisdictions in the Putah Creek watershed wouldapply for, obtain, and implement a NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit inaccordance with EPA requirements.

4.8-8(c) Comprehensive storm water pollution prevention plans and monitoring programswould be implemented by all storm water dischargers associated with specifiedindustrial and construction activities, in compliance with the State's generalpermits. Such plans shall include best management practices or equally effectivemeasures.

4.1-13 No additional feasible mitigation has beenidentified.


4.1-14 Cumulative development in theLower Cache-PutahGroundwater Basin, inconjunction with the proposedWWTP, would increase theamount of impervious surfaceand reduce groundwaterrecharge potential.


4.8-9(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-3(a) and (b).

4.8-9(b) Jurisdictions in the Lower-Cache Putah Creek Groundwater Basin shouldencourage development to be accomplished in a manner that would maximizepercolation and infiltration of precipitation into the underlying groundwateraquifers through the use of pervious paving materials, cluster development,retention of natural drainage areas, and identification and retention of floodplains and areas of high recharge potential.



4.2 Air Quality

4.2-1 The proposed WWTP, during itsoperational phase, wouldgenerate 0.40 pound per dayand 145 pounds per year ofROG.


4.5-3(b) The Campus shall acquire permits for stationary and area sources as requiredby the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.


4.2-2 The proposed WWTP, during itsoperational phase, would exposeCampus occupants and Davis-area residents to toxic aircontaminants emitted from theWWTP and other Campusemission sources.



4.2-3 The proposed project wouldrelocate the existing WWTP, aknown odor source, from the




Impact


prior toMitigation




Central Campus (a more denselypopulated area) to the SouthCampus (a less denselypopulated area).

4.2-4 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, wouldresult in increased emissions ofcriteria pollutants.


4.5-3(a) Implement 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-5.

4.3-1(a) The Campus shall continue to actively pursue a program of Transportation SystemManagement (TSM) strategies to reduce reliance on travel to and from Campusby private automobile, particularly single-occupant peak period travel. Asdescribed in the Setting section, the Campus currently has an extensive TSMprogram. TSM strategies include the development of a comprehensive bicyclecirculation network, including a bicycle/pedestrian precinct in core area ofCentral Campus; increased parking fees; transit planning and subsidies;carpool and vanpool matching service, and development and incentive program;campus shuttle systems, including shuttles to UC Davis Medical Center inSacramento and UC Berkeley, public awareness programs, park and ride lotidentification, and telecommuting.



4.3-1(b) In cooperation with other responsible jurisdictions, the Campus shall monitorA.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic operations at critical intersections in theCampus vicinity on a regular basis (at least every three years). To the extentthat TSM measures are successful, some roadway improvements may be avoided. Based upon the existing Campus mode share and trip generation rates assumedin this analysis, the following physical improvements are intended to reduce themagnitude of this impact.

(i) Reconstruct the intersection of Old Davis Road and California Avenue. Ifthe intersection remains at its current location, provide exclusive right turnlanes on each Old Davis Road approach and install a traffic signal. If theintersection is relocated to the south as shown on the LRDP, provideseparate right and left turn lanes on the California Avenue approach, andseparate turn lanes on each Old Davis Road approach and install a trafficsignal.

(ii) n Convert the intersection of SR 113 Southbound Ramps and HutchisonDrive to all-way stop control.

n Convert the intersection SR 113 Northbound Ramps and HutchisonDrive to all-way stop control.

n Convert the intersection of Old Davis Road and I-80 Westbound Rampsto all-way stop control.

n Convert the intersection of Old Davis Road and I-80 Eastbound Rampsto all-way stop control.

n Install a traffic signal at the intersection of D Street and First Street.


Impact


prior toMitigation




n Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Road 98 and CovellBoulevard.

n Reconstruct the southbound Research Park Drive approach to theintersection with Richards Boulevard/Cowell Boulevard to provide acombined through left turn lane and a separate exclusive right turnlane.

n Add the following lanes at the intersection of I-80 Eastbound Rampsand Richards Boulevard to reduce the impact to the level of servicecurrently accepted by the City for the adjacent roadway for link fromOlive Drive to First Street (LOS E):

- An additional turn lane on the ramp approach to the intersection, toprovide a double left turn lane and a single right turn lane; and

- An additional right turn lane along westbound Richards Boulevardto the I-80 eastbound entrance ramp.

- Widening the Richards Boulevard Overcrossing of I-80 to providethree westbound lanes; or

- Providing a new "slip" off-ramp from I-80 to provide threewestbound lanes; or

- Providing a new "loop" on ramp from Richards Boulevard eastboundto I-80 eastbound west of the existing overcrossing.

4.3-5 The Campus shall continue to support public transportation services, and willwork with the City and other agencies to implement increased transit services inresponse to evolving campus needs. Such increased services would includeimproved Unitrans terminal facilities to accommodate increased ridership,developing new Unitrans routes and schedules to more effectively serve travelers,and improved coordination with other transit providers and modes of travel.

4.5-3(b) The Campus shall acquire permits for stationary and area sources as requiredby the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

4.2-5 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, wouldresult in increased emissions ofcriteria pollutants.


4.5-6(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-3(a) and (b).

4.5-6(b) The Sacramento Valley Air Basin includes a large number of jurisdictions,including the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. In the Basin, air quality isregulated by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District,YSAQMD, and a number of other APCDs. Pursuant to rules, regulations, andpolicies of those AQMDs and APCDs, as well as adopted general plansthroughout the Basin, it is within the jurisdiction of each local government ordistrict to take actions to ensure compliance with the federal CAA and theCalifornia CAA.



4.2-6 The proposed WWTP, in Less than -- 4.2-6 No mitigation is required. Less than


Impact


prior toMitigation




conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, will exposeCampus occupants and Davisarea residents to toxic aircontaminants emitted from useson Campus.

Significant Significant

4.2-7 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, maygenerate unacceptablecumulative toxic air contaminanthealth risks. Inadequatemethods exist to assess themagnitude of this impact, and itis therefore considered toospeculative to determine theprecise level of significance.


-- 4.2-7 No feasible mitigation has been identified. Significant andUnavoidable

4.3 Hazardous Waste

4.3-1 Construction activities associatedwith the proposed project couldexpose Campus occupants andconstruction workers tocontaminated soil orgroundwater.


4.6-16(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the 1994LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have the site and adjacent areasinvestigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes by completing a“due diligence checklist”.

If further investigation is warranted, the investigation shall be carried out by aregistered environmental assessor (i.e., a professional environmental scientist orengineer registered in California) or a registered engineer. The investigationsshall be environmental audits, which shall include, at a minimum, siteinspections for hazardous materials, examination of historical records forevidence of hazardous materials use, interviews with Campus personnel, andreview of Campus records for evidence of contamination.


For each site audit, the qualified person shall prepare a report detailing theresults of the inspection and submit it to appropriate and accepting the report,reviewing offices shall submit it to the Planning and Budget Office (the officeresponsible for site selection and environmental review on Campus) with theirrecommendations. The Campus shall ensure that inspection reports arecompleted prior to excavation or construction at the development site.

4.6-16(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemical or radioactivecontamination, waste discharges, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums,or other environmental impairment at locations to be developed or in the projectarea, the Campus shall prepare a site remediation plan that shall (1) specifymeasures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure topotential site hazards and (2) certify that the proposed remediation measureswould clean up the contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public


Impact


prior toMitigation




health in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements. Commencement of work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed untilthe site remediation plan has been completed. Depending on the nature of anycontamination, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., the CVRWQCB forgroundwater contamination and the DTSC for soil contamination [or theappropriate County Environmental Health Department]). Provisions of the siteremediation plan would be adopted by the Campus as part of future projects.

4.6-16(c) A site health and safety plan, in compliance with OSHA requirements, shall bedeveloped by the Campus and in place prior to commencing work on anycontaminated sites.

4.3-2 The demolition or renovation ofstructures at the existing WWTPcould expose Campus occupantsand construction workers tocontaminated buildingmaterials.


4.6-18(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the 1994LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have existing buildings on eachsite investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes bycompleting a “due diligence checklist”.

If further investigation is warranted, the investigation shall be carried out by aRegistered Environmental Assessor (i.e., a professional environmental scientistor engineer registered in California) or a registered engineer. The investi-gations shall be environmental audits, which shall include, at a minimum, siteinspections for hazardous materials, examination of historic records for evidenceof hazardous materials, examination of historic records for evidence ofhazardous materials use, interviews with Campus personnel, and review ofCampus records for evidence of contamination.

4-3-2 No additional mitigation is required. Less thanSignificant

For each site audit, the qualified person shall prepare a report detailing theresults of the inspection and submit it to appropriate Campus offices. Thereport preparer shall either certify that the site is free of hazards, recommendfurther investigations, or recommend preparing a site mitigation plan. Afterreviewing and accepting the report, reviewing offices shall submit it to thePlanning and Budget Office (the office responsible for site selection andenvironmental review on Campus) with their recommendations. The Campusshall ensure that inspection reports are completed prior to excavation orconstruction at the development site.

4.6-18(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemical or radioactivecontamination in buildings at sites to be developed, the Campus shall prepare asite remediation plan that shall (1) specify measures to be taken to protectworkers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and (2) certifythat the proposed remediation measures would clean up the contaminants,dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,state, and local requirements. Commencement of work in the areas of potentialhazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan has been completed. Depending on the nature of any contamination, appropriate governmentalagencies shall be notified. Provisions of the site remediation plan would beadopted by the Campus as part of future projects.

4.6-18(c) A site health and safety plan, in compliance with OSHA requirements, shall bedeveloped by the Campus and in place prior to commencing work on any


Impact


prior toMitigation




contaminated sites.

4.3-3 Disposal of low-level radioactiveliquids in raw wastewater andWWTP effluent could pose apotential risk to public healthand the environment.


4.6-6(a) The Campus shall complete and occupy the proposed Environmental ServicesFacility and close the current Environmental Services Facility.

or

4.6-6(b) The Campus shall manage radioactive waste generated by projects approved underthe 1994 LRDP through a non-Campus facility. These future wastes shall notbe taken to the existing hazardous waste accumulation facility. Instead, afterthe wastes are collected by EH&S, an outside contractor shall pick up thewastes from the loading docks of the buildings where the waste is produced andthe contractor shall handle disposal.

and

4.6-6(c) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a), which would require the Campus to createa Waste Minimization Coordinator position to implement the CampusHazardous Waste Minimization Plan.

and


4.6-6(d) The Campus shall prepare and implement a Campus-wide radioactive wasteminimization plan that shall specify feasible programs to reduce generation oflow-level radioactive wastes and mixed wastes. To ensure the plan shall beimplemented, the Campus shall provide the resources required by the plan.

4.3-4 Upset or failure of the proposedWWTP filtration and/ordisinfection systems could resultin the discharge of biohazardousmaterials in WWTP effluent inconcentrations that could causeillness in individuals ingestingwater from the South Fork ofPutah Creek.



4.3-5 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, wouldresult in construction activitiesthat could expose Campusoccupants and constructionworkers to contaminated soil orgroundwater.


4.6-16(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the 1994LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have the site and adjacent areasinvestigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes by completing a"due diligence checklist."

4.6-16(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemical or radioactivecontamination, waste discharges, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums,or other environmental impairment at locations to be developed or in the projectarea, the Campus shall prepare a site remediation plan that shall (1) specifymeasures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure topotential site hazards and (2) certify that the proposed remediation measureswould clean up the contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect publichealth in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements.



Impact


prior toMitigation




Commencement of work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed untilthe site remediation plan has been completed. Depending on the nature of anycontamination, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., the CVRWQCB forgroundwater contamination and the DTSC for soil contamination [or theappropriate County Environmental Health Department]). Provisions of the siteremediation plan would be adopted by the Campus as part of future projects.


4.3-6 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, wouldresult in the development ofpotentially contaminated sitesthroughout the region, possiblyresulting in cumulative healthand safety threats to site workersand the public.


4.6-17 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-16(a) through (c). 4.3-6 No additional feasible mitigation has beenidentified.


4.3-7 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, couldresult in the exposure ofCampus occupants andconstruction workers tocontaminated buildingmaterials.


4.6-18(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the 1994LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have existing buildings on eachsite investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes bycompleting a “due diligence checklist”. If further investigation is warranted,the investigation shall be carried out by a Registered Environmental Assessor(i.e., a professional environmental scientist or engineer registered in California)or a registered engineer. The investigations shall be environmental audits,which shall include, at a minimum, site inspections for hazardous materials,examination of historic records for evidence of hazardous materials,examination of historic records for evidence of hazardous materials use,interviews with Campus personnel, and review of Campus records for evidenceof contamination.


For each site audit, the qualified person shall prepare a report detailing theresults of the inspection and submit it to appropriate Campus offices. Thereport preparer shall either certify that the site is free of hazards, recommendfurther investigations, or recommend preparing a site mitigation plan. Afterreviewing and accepting the report, reviewing offices shall submit it to thePlanning and Budget Office (the office responsible for site selection andenvironmental review on Campus) with their recommendations. The Campusshall ensure that inspection reports are completed prior to excavation orconstruction at the development site.

4.6-18(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemical or radioactivecontamination in buildings at sites to be developed, the Campus shall prepare asite remediation plan that shall (1) specify measures to be taken to protectworkers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and (2) certifythat the proposed remediation measures would clean up the contaminants,


Impact


prior toMitigation




dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,state, and local requirements. Commencement ofwork in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediationplan has been completed. Depending on the nature of any contamination,appropriate governmental agencies shall be notified. Provisions of the siteremediation plan would be adopted by the Campus as part of future projects.


4.3-8 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, wouldresult in the demolition orrenovation of buildings thatcould pose cumulative healthand safety threats to site workersand the public.



4.4 Biological Resources

4.4-1 Development of the proposedWWTP would result in theconversion of approximately 20acres of agricultural lands(pasture) and approximately 0.3acre of ruderal/annual grasslandto urban uses and could resultin the loss of special-status plantspecies.


4.7-1(a) During the project planning phase, the Campus shall conduct a rare plant surveyif the site was previously undeveloped. Surveys shall be conducted by qualifiedbiologists in accordance with the most current DFG/USFWS guidelines orprotocols and shall be conducted at the time of year when the plants in questionare identifiable. (Identification periods are included in Table 4.7-1 of the 1994LRDP EIR, however, survey timing for the various plant species is dependent inpart on yearly rainfall patterns and is determined on a case-by-case basis.)

4.7-1(b) Based on the results of the survey, prior to design approval, the Campus inconsultation with DFG and/or USFWS, shall determine whether the projectwould result in a significant impact to any special-status plant species. Evaluation of project impacts shall consider the following:


n The status of the species in question (e.g., officially listed by theState or Federal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species, CNPS list).

n The relative density and distribution of the on-site occurrence versustypical occurrences of the species in question.

n The habitat quality of the on-site occurrence relative to historic, current orpotential distribution of the population.

If these surveys reveal no occurrences of any species, or if the Campus inconsultation with DFG or USFWS determines that no significant impacts on anyspecial-status plant species would result from project implementation, then nofurther mitigation would be required.


Impact


prior toMitigation




Should one or more of special-status plant species occur on the project site, anda determination of significant impact be made, the following mitigation measureshall be required.

4.7-1(c) Prior to design approval, the Campus in consultation with the DFG and/or theUSFWS, shall prepare and implement a mitigation plan, in accordance with anyapplicable State and/or Federal statutes or laws, that reduces impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.4-2 Development of the proposedWWTP would result in theconversion of approximately 20acres of agricultural lands(pasture) and approximately 0.3acre of ruderal/annual grasslandto urban uses and would resultin the loss of wildlife habitat forresident and migratory wildlifespecies.



4.4-3 Realignment or rerouting of thedrainage canal east of theRaptor Center could harm theburrowing owls nesting alongthe banks of the canal.


4.7-3(b) The Campus, in consultation with the DFG, shall conduct a pre-constructionbreeding-season survey (approximately February 1 through August 31) ofproposed project sites during the same calendar year that construction isplanned to begin. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist todetermine if any burrowing owls are nesting on or directly adjacent to anyproposed project site.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposedproject, the results of the above survey shall be valid only for theseason when it is conducted.

4.4-3(a) The Campus shall conduct a non-breedingseason survey (approximately August 1through January 30) of the drainage ditchbefore construction. If no burrowingowls are present, the Campus will destroy(i.e., collapse) all potential nestingburrows to prevent owls from returning tothe site. The Campus will monitor thebanks of the ditch biweekly to ensure thatno new burrows are created that could beused by owls before construction begins. New burrows will be destroyed untilconstruction begins.


4.7-3(c) During the construction stage, the Campus, in consultation with the DFG, shallavoid all burrowing owl nest sites potentially disturbed by project constructionduring the breeding season while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. The occupied nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determinewhen the nest is no longer used. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a300-foot to 500-foot diameter non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. Disturbance of any nest sites shall only occur outside of the breeding season andwhen the nests are unoccupied based on monitoring by a DFG approvedbiologist. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporaryconstruction fencing.

Based on approval by DFG, pre-construction and pre-breedingseason exclusion measures may be implemented to precludeburrowing owl occupation of the project site prior to project-relateddisturbance.

4.4-3(b) If the non-breeding season survey revealsthe presence of owls, the Campus willensure that the owls will not be trappedin burrows in the area duringconstruction by displacing them from thearea. One-way exit doors will be placedat the entrances of the occupied andpotential burrows that will be destroyedto ensure that the owls can exit from theburrows but cannot return to them. Theone-way doors shall be installed at least48 hours before the burrows aredestroyed to ensure that the owls haveleft the burrows. The burrows shallthen be dug out by hand to ensure thatno owls remain in them. This measure


Impact


prior toMitigation




shall be completed outside the February1 through August 1 nesting season.

4.4-3(c) To compensate for the loss of nesting sites,the Campus shall construct two artificialnest burrows for each active burroweliminated by the project. The artificialnest would be constructed in the vicinityof the existing ditch. The artificial nestburrows could be placed along the banksof the new channel, or at the newwastewater treatment plant if operation ofthe facility would not affect the owls. Ifplacing the artificial nest burrows inthese areas is not feasible, a suitablelocation will be identified in conjunctionwith DFG.

4.4-3(d) When the mitigation and monitoring iscompleted, the Campus shall prepare andsubmit to DFG a letter describing themethods, results, and conclusions of theburrowing owl mitigation and monitoringefforts.

4.4-4 Development of the proposedWWTP would result in theconversion of approximately 20acres of agricultural lands(pasture) and approximately 0.3acre of ruderal/annual grasslandto urban uses, which couldresult in the loss of nestinghabitat for raptors (birds ofprey).


4.7-4(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction or pre-tree pruning or removalsurvey of trees greater than 30-feet tall (proposed activity) during the raptorbreeding-season (approximately March 1 through August 31). The survey shallbe conducted by a qualified biologist during the same calendar year that theproposed activity is planned to begin to determine if any nesting birds-of-preywould be affected.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed activity, theresults of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted.


4.7-4(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine the locationof nesting Swainson's hawks on the Campus. If nesting Swainson's hawks arefound during the survey at a previously unknown location within one-half mileof a project site and not within 100 yards of a previously documented site, theCampus shall, prior to project construction, contact the California Departmentof Fish and Game to determine the potential for disturbance to nestingSwainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes in the constructionschedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project in response to thespecific circumstances.

If, after five years, a previously recorded nest site remains unoccupied by aSwainson's hawk, it will no longer be considered as a Swainson's hawk nest sitesubject to this mitigation.


Impact


prior toMitigation




4.4-5 Development of the proposedWWTP would result in theconversion of approximately 20acres of agricultural lands(pasture) and approximately 0.3acre of ruderal/annual grasslandto urban uses, which wouldresult in the loss of foraginghabitat for Swainson’s hawk.


4.7-5 As Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland is converted to Campusdevelopment under the 1994 LRDP, the Campus will compensate for the loss ofSwainson's hawk foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio of acres lost to acres preservedthrough the implementation of one or a combination of the following methods.

n Approximately 40 acres of Cropland habitat in the "C"tract adjacent to the Putah Creek Reserve on the WestCampus will remain Campus agricultural research usesbut will be under land use restrictions that will ensurecropland cover types that are suitable as Swainson'shawk foraging habitat. No incompatible uses such asorchards, vineyard, or development will be allowed inthe areas set aside for Swainson's hawk foraginghabitat. However, normal crop rotations mayperiodically result in unsuitable cover types of annualcrops.


n Approximately 20 acres of land within the North ForkCutoff that currently support livestock enclosures will be restored to awoodland and grassland habitat.

n Approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent toPutah Creek at the Russell Ranch will be removed, converted to a covertype suitable for Swainson's hawk foraging, and added to the Putah CreekReserve.

n Approximately 85 acres at the Russell Ranch that havebeen designated as a habitat restoration and research area will includethe establishment of cover types that are suitable Swainson's hawkforaging habitat.

4.4-6 Development of the proposedWWTP could result in thepotential failure of Swainson’shawk nesting efforts.


4.7-6(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction breeding season survey of theproposed project site, and within a one-half-mile radius of the site, to determinethe presence or absence of any nesting Swainson's hawks.

If any Swainson's hawks are nesting within a one-half-mile radius of the projectsite, the Campus shall, in consultation with DFG, determine the potential fordisturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes inthe construction schedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project inresponse to the specific circumstances.

4.7-6(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine the location ofnesting Swainson's hawks on and within ½ mile of the Campus.If nestingSwainson's hawks are found during the survey at a previously unknown locationwithin one-half mile of a project site and not within 100 yards of a previouslydocumented site, the University shall, prior to project construction, contact theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game to determine the potential fordisturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes inthe construction schedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project in

4.4-6 The Campus shall determine whether theSwainson’s hawk nest site 5 located nearOld Davis Road and Interstate 80 is activeduring construction. If it is active, theCampus will either construct the pipelineduring the Swainson’s hawk non-breedingseason (September-February) orimplement other feasible changes to theproject in consultation with DFG to avoidsite disturbance.



Impact


prior toMitigation




response to the specific circumstances.


4.4-7 Construction of the proposedWWTP could result in thedisturbance of potential habitatfor the VELB.


4.7-7 During the project design stage and as a condition of project approval, theCampus shall:

(a) Conduct a project-specific survey for all potential VELB habitat, includinga stem count and an assessment of historic or current VELB use;

(b) Avoid and protect all potential VELB habitat within a natural open spacearea where feasible; and

(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELB mitigationplan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelinesfor unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 orSection 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.

4.4-7 The Campus shall include in theconstruction plans and specifications thefollowing protection measures, which willbe implemented prior to the initiation ofany construction activities.

(a) Temporary construction fencingshall be placed at least 20 feetoutside the dripline of elderberryshrubs 1 through 18 during theVELB breeding season (April-June). After or before the breeding season,the fencing could be moved to 5 feetbeyond the dripline, if needed. Thefencing will remain in place untilconstruction is complete. Allfencing will be done under directsupervision of a qualified biologist.


(b) The fence shall be posted with a signthat reads as follows: “This area ispotential habitat of the valleyelderberry longhorn beetle, athreatened species, and must not bedisturbed. This species is protectedby the federal Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended. Violatorsare subject to prosecution, fines,and imprisonment”.

(c) The buffer zone within the fenceshall remain off-limits toconstruction activities, vehicles,wastes, or construction materials.

(d) The fence shall remain in place untilfinal construction is complete.

(e) Dust-reducing construction measureswill be used to minimize the amountof dust near the shrubs. Thesemeasures include minimizing theamount of time surfaces areexposed, sprinkling exposed areas


Impact


prior toMitigation




and soil piles with waterperiodically, and covering soil pileswith plastic sheets or tarpaulins tolimit disturbance.

4.4-8 The proposed project (possiblereconstruction of the effluentoutfall or relocation of thedrainage ditch) could result inthe loss or adverse modificationof wetlands or other waters ofthe U.S. that fall under thejurisdiction of the Corps and/orDFG.


4.7-8(a) During the project design phase, the Campus shall conduct a wetland delineation ofthe project site. The wetland delineation shall be verified by the Corps.

4.7-8(b) The Campus shall obtain an individual permit, written authorization under anexisting nationwide permit, or a written response stating that no further actionis required, from the Corps prior to the filling or other adverse modification ofany Corps-verified delineated wetland habitats.

4.7-8(c) The Campus shall submit an application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement toDFG at least 30 days prior to any alteration, filling, or modification of thechannel, bed, or bank of Putah Creek, South Fork of Putah Creek, or any othernatural drainage with a distinct channel.


4.4-9 The proposed project wouldresult in an increase in theamount of water discharged tothe South Fork of Putah Creek,which would result in anincrease in stream flows thatcould affect special-statusriverine invertebrates.



4.4-10 Construction of the proposedproject (pipeline along OldDavis Road) could result indamage to mature planted blackwalnuts.


-- 4.4-10 The Campus should place temporaryconstruction fencing at least 5 feet fromthe trunks of the trees (along Old DavisRoad) and construction equipment shouldnot be parked under the tree canopies, iffeasible.


4.4-11 Demolition of the abandonedwater tower at the existingWWTP could disturb roostingbats.



4.4-12 Demolition of the existing sludgedrying ponds would result inthe potential loss of pondwildlife habitat.



4.4-13 The proposed project wouldresult in an increase in theamount of water discharged tothe South Fork of Putah Creekthat would result in an increase

Beneficial -- 4.4-13 No mitigation is required. Beneficial


Impact


prior toMitigation




in fish habitat.

4.4-14 Continued discharge of treatedWWTP effluent to the SouthFork of Putah Creek could resultin acute and chronic exposure offish to elevated levels of toxicpollutants.


-- 4.4-14 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a)and 4.1-6(b).


4.4-15 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (200 acres), wouldincrease the conversion ofagricultural land andruderal/annual grassland toCampus-related development to220 acres and could result in theloss of special-status plantspecies.

Significant 4.7-1(a) During the project planning phase, the Campus shall conduct a rare plant surveyif the site was previously undeveloped. Surveys shall be conducted by qualifiedbiologists in accordance with the most current DFG/USFWS guidelines orprotocols and shall be conducted at the time of year when the plants in questionare identifiable. (Identification periods are included in Table 4.7-1, however,survey timing for the various plant species depends in part on yearly rainfallpatterns and is determined on a case-by-case basis).

4.7-1(b) Based on the results of the survey, prior to design approval, the Campus inconsultation with DFG and/or USFWS, shall determine whether the projectwould result in a significant impact to any special-status plant species. Evaluation of project impacts shall consider the following:


n The status of the species in question (e.g., officially listed by the State orFederal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species, CNPS list).

n The relative density and distribution of the on-site occurrence versus typicaloccurrences of the species in question.

n The habitat quality of the on-site occurrence relative to historic, current, orpotential distribution of the population.

If these surveys reveal no occurrences of any species, or if the Campus inconsultation with DFG or USFWS determines that no significant impacts on anyspecial-status plant species would result from project implementation, then nofurther mitigation would be required.

Should one or more of special-status plant species occur on the project site, anda determination of significant impact be made, the following mitigation measureshall be required.

4.7-1(c) Prior to design approval, the Campus, in consultation with the DFG and/or theUSFWS, shall prepare and implement a mitigation plan, in accordance with anyapplicable State and/or Federal statutes or laws, that reduces impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.4-16 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (200 acres), wouldincrease the conversion ofagricultural land and




Impact


prior toMitigation




ruderal/annual grasslandhabitat to Campus-relateddevelopment and would result inthe loss of 220 acres of generalwildlife habitat for resident andmigratory species.

4.4-17 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (200 acres), wouldincrease the conversion ofagricultural land andruderal/annual grasslandhabitat to Campus-relateddevelopment to 220 acres andcould result in the loss ofburrowing owl nesting habitat.


4.7-3(a) The Campus shall continue to monitor the area around the Medical SciencesComplex for the presence or absence of burrowing owls.

4.7-3(b) The Campus, in consultation with the DFG, shall conduct a pre-constructionbreeding-season survey (approximately February 1 through August 31) ofproposed project sites during the same calendar year that construction isplanned to begin. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist todetermine if any burrowing owls are nesting on or directly adjacent to anyproposed project site.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed project, theresults of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it isconducted.


4.7-3(c) During the construction stage, the Campus in consultation with the DFG, shallavoid all burrowing owl nest sites potentially disturbed by project constructionduring the breeding season while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. The occupied nest site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to determinewhen the nest is no longer used. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a300-foot to 500-foot diameter non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. Disturbance of any nest sites shall only occur outside of the breeding seasonand when the nests are unoccupied based on monitoring by a DFG approvedbiologist. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporaryconstruction fencing.

Based on approval by DFG, pre-construction and pre-breeding season exclusionmeasures may be implemented to preclude burrowing owl occupation of theproject site prior to project-related disturbance.

4.4-18 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (200 acres), wouldincrease the conversion ofagricultural land andruderal/annual grasslandhabitat to Campus-relateddevelopment to 220 acres, whichcould result in the loss ofnesting habitat for raptors(birds of prey).


4.7-4(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction or pre-tree pruning or removalsurvey of trees greater than 30-feet tall (proposed activity) during the raptorbreeding-season (approximately March 1 through August 31). The survey shallbe conducted by a qualified biologist during the same calendar year that theproposed activity is planned to begin to determine if any nesting birds-of-preywould be affected.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed activity, theresults of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it isconducted.


4.7-4(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine the locationof nesting Swainson's hawks on the Campus. If nesting Swainson's hawks are


Impact


prior toMitigation




found during the survey at a previously unknown location within one-half mileof a project site and not within 100 yards of a previously documented site, theCampus shall, prior to project construction, contact the California Departmentof Fish and Game to determine the potential for disturbance to nestingSwainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes in the constructionschedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project in response to thespecific circumstances.


4.4-19 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (200 acres), wouldincrease the conversion ofagricultural land andruderal/annual grasslandhabitat to Campus-relateddevelopment to 220 acres andwould result in the loss offoraging habitat for theSwainson’s hawk.

Significant 4.7-5 As Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland is converted to Campusdevelopment under the 1994 LRDP, the Campus will compensate for the loss ofSwainson's hawk foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio of acres lost to acres preservedthrough the implementation of one or a combination of the following methods.

n Approximately 40 acres of Cropland habitat in the "C" tract adjacent tothe Putah Creek Reserve on the West Campus will remain Campusagricultural research uses but will be under land use restrictions that willensure cropland cover types that are suitable as Swainson's hawk foraginghabitat. No incompatible uses such as orchards, vineyard, or developmentwill be allowed in the areas set aside for Swainson's hawk foraginghabitat. However, normal crop rotations may periodically result inunsuitable cover types of annual crops.

n Approximately 20 acres of land within the North Fork Cutoff that currentlysupport livestock enclosures will be restored to a woodland and grasslandhabitat.


n Approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent to Putah Creek at theRussell Ranch will be removed, converted to a cover type suitable forSwainson's hawk foraging, and added to the Putah Creek Reserve.

n Approximately 85 acres at the Russell Ranch that have been designated asa habitat restoration and research area will include the establishment ofcover types that are suitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat.

4.4-20 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment, could result in thepotential failure of Swainson’shawk nesting efforts.


4.7-6(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction breeding season survey of theproposed project site, and within a one-half-mile radius of the site, to determinethe presence or absence of any nesting Swainson's hawks.

If any Swainson's hawks are nesting within a one-half-mile radius of the projectsite, the Campus shall, in consultation with DFG, determine the potential fordisturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes inthe construction schedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project inresponse to the specific circumstances.


4.7-6(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine the locationof nesting Swainson's hawks on and within ½ mile of the Campus. If nesting


Impact


prior toMitigation




Swainson's hawks are found during the survey at a previously unknown locationwithin one-half mile of a project site and not within 100 yards of a previouslydocumented site, the University shall, prior to project construction, contact theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game to determine the potential fordisturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes inthe construction schedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project inresponse to the specific circumstances.


4.4-21 Development of the proposedWWTP, in conjunction withdevelopment allowed under the1994 LRDP, could result in theloss of potential habitat for theVELB.





(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELB mitigationplan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelinesfor unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 orSection 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.


4.4-22 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP (20 acres) and1994 LRDP development, wouldadd an additional 20 acres to the1,227 acres of agricultural landand ruderal/annual grasslandhabitat loss in the region forresident and migratory wildlifespecies identified in the 1994LRDP EIR.


4.7-9(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-3, 4.7-4, 4.7-5, and 4.7-6.

4.7-9(b) The County of Yolo, when implementing the County-wide habitat managementplan, should impose a 1:1 mitigation ratio of habitat preserved to that convertedon all development projects within their jurisdiction that convert agriculturalland and annual grassland habitat to urban development.



4.4-23 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, wouldcontribute to the loss of potentialhabitat for the VELB.





(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELB mitigationplan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelinesfor unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 or



Impact


prior toMitigation




Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.

4.4-24 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, couldcontribute to the cumulative lossof VELB habitat.


4.7-10 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-7(a), (b), and (c). 4.4-24 No additional feasible mitigation has beenidentified.


4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5-1 Excavation, grading, andconstruction activities coulddamage or destroy buriedcultural resources.


4.10-1(a) Prior to project approval, the Campus shall determine the level ofarchaeological investigation that is appropriate for the project site. The levelsare:

Minimum: in areas of known archaeological sensitivity (i.e., knownsites), excavation less than 18" deep and in a relatively small area(e.g., routine maintenance and operations such repairing brokenfacilities, a short trench for lawn irrigation, tree planting, etc.);in other areas, excavation less than 36" deep and in a relativelysmall area.


Moderate: excavation below 36" and/or over a large area on anysite that has not been characterized and is not suspected to be alikely location for archaeological resources.

Intensive: excavation below 18" and/or over a large area on anysite that is within 800' of the historic alignment of Putah Creek(prior to 1880) or that is adjacent to a recorded archaeologicalsite.

4.10-1(b) For sites requiring minimum investigation, the following steps will be taken.

(i) Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that they arerequired to watch for potential archaeological sites and artifacts and tonotify the Campus if anything is found. In addition, Campus employeeswhose work involves routinely disturbing the soil shall be trained torecognize evidence of potential archaeological sites and artifacts.

(ii) If resources are discovered during activities, all soil disturbing workwithin 100 feet of the find shall cease. The resources shall be evaluatedby a qualified archaeologist who will determine and advise the Campus onthe potential for the activity to affect a significant archaeologicalresource.

(iii) If the activity might affect a significant archaeological resource, consistentwith CEQA and Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines addressingarchaeological impacts, a plan for surveying the remainder of the site andconducting appropriate data recovery and other mitigation shall beprepared and implemented using the services of a qualified archaeologist.


Impact


prior toMitigation




(iv) If human remains are found, the County coroner shall be contacted. Thecoroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, whichshall notify the appropriate descendant. The Campus shall coordinate re-interment of Native American remains with the NAHC and the designateddescendant.

4.10-1(d) For sites requiring intensive investigation, the following steps shall be taken.

(i) A subsurface investigation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist,prior to project approval. The archaeologist shall determine and advisethe Campus on the potential for the project to affect a significantarchaeological resource. If the project might affect a significantarchaeological resource, the Campus shall adopt an appropriatemitigation plan at the time of project approval. If feasible, the Campusshall consider avoidance at significant archaeological sites as thepreferred mitigation. At a minimum, data recovery at significantarchaeological sites will be implemented.

(ii) A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading and excavation,as deemed appropriate.

(iii) Steps (i) through (iv) of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(b) shall beimplemented.

4.5-2 Demolition of the existingWWTP could damage or destroyhistorical structures.


4.10-2(a) Prior to altering a structure at least 45 years of age, the Campus shall develop aprocess for identifying its relative historic value. In addition to CEQA andother state guidelines, the process shall consider the role of structures in thehistory of the University system, the Campus, and the region.

4.10-2(b) If any existing structure on a proposed construction site is over 45 years of age:


(i) The Campus shall use the process developed under Mitigation Measure4.10-2(a) to determine whether the structure is historically significant;

(ii) If historically significant, the building shall be preserved and reused whenfeasible; and

(iii) If historically significant, and preservation and reuse cannot occur on site,the historical building shall be moved to an area set aside by the Campusfor historic buildings of the same era when physically and financiallyfeasible.

(iv) If a historically significant structure is to undergo major renovation, or bemoved and/or destroyed, the Campus shall produce a record of thebuilding similar to National Parks Scenic standards (Historical AmericanBuilding Surveys). A copy of the record shall be deposited with theUniversity Archives, Shields Library Special Collections.

Adequate recordation would include, at a minimum, the following:


Impact


prior toMitigation




n the development of site-specific history and appropriate contextualinformation regarding the particular resource; in addition to archivalresearch and comparative studies, this task could involve limited oralhistory collection;

n accurate mapping of the noted resources, scaled to indicate size andproportion of the structures;

n architectural descriptions of affected structures;

n photodocumentation of the designated resources, both in still and videoformats; and

n recordation of measured architectural drawings, in the case of specificallydesignated buildings of higher architectural merit.

4.10-2(c) Prior to major renovation, moving or destroying a historically significantstructure, the Campus shall insure that historically significant artifacts withinthe building and the surrounding area shall be recorded and deposited with theappropriate museum.

4.5-3 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment, could damage ordestroy buried cultural(prehistoric or historic)resources.


4.10-1(a) Prior to project approval, the Campus shall determine the level ofarchaeological investigation that is appropriate for the project site. The levelsare:

Minimum: in areas of known archaeological sensitivity (i.e., known sites),excavation less than 18" deep and in a relatively small area (e.g.,routine maintenance and operations such repairing brokenfacilities, a short trench for lawn irrigation, tree planting, etc.); inother areas, excavation less than 36" deep and in a relatively smallarea.



Moderate: excavation below 36" and/or over a large area on any site that hasnot been characterized and is not suspected to be a likely locationfor archaeological resources.

Intensive: excavation below 18" and/or over a large area on any site that iswithin 800' of the historic alignment of Putah Creek (prior to1880) or that is adjacent to a recorded archaeological site.

4.10-1(b) For sites requiring minimum investigation, the following steps will be taken.

(i) Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that they arerequired to watch for potential archaeological sites and artifacts and tonotify the Campus if anything is found. In addition, Campus employeeswhose work involves routinely disturbing the soil shall be trained torecognize evidence of potential archaeological sites and artifacts.


Impact


prior toMitigation




(ii) If resources are discovered during activities, all soil disturbing workwithin 100' of the find shall cease. The resources shall be evaluated by aqualified archaeologist who will determine and advise the Campus on thepotential for the activity to affect a significant archaeological resource.

(iii) If the activity might affect a significant archaeological resource, consistentwith CEQA and Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines addressingarchaeological impacts a plan for surveying the remainder of the site andconducting appropriate data recovery and other mitigations shall beprepared and implemented using the services of a qualified archaeologist.

(iv) If human remains are found, the County coroner shall be contacted. Thecoroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, whichshall notify the appropriate descendant. The Campus shall coordinate re-interment of Native American remains with the NAHC and the designateddescendant.

4.10-1(c) For sites requiring moderate level of investigation, the following steps shall betaken.

(i) A surface survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist prior toproject approval.

(ii) If evidence of archeological resources are found, a qualified archaeologistshall prepare and implement a plan for subsurface investigation of thesite. The archaeologist shall determine and advise the Campus on thepotential for the project to affect a significant archaeological resource. Ifthe project might affect a significant archaeological resource, the Campusshall adopt an appropriate mitigation plan at the time of projectapproval. If feasible, the Campus shall consider avoidance at significantarchaeological sites as the preferred mitigation. At a minimum, datarecovery at significant archaeological sites will be implemented.

(iii) If evidence of archaeological resources is not found during the surfacesurvey, a qualified archaeologist shall be present during excavation andgrading, as deemed necessary by the archaeologist.

(iv) Steps (i) through (iv) of item (b) shall be implemented.

4.10-1(d) For sites requiring intensive investigation, the following steps shall be taken.

(i) A subsurface investigation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist,prior to project approval. The archaeologist shall determine and advisethe Campus on the potential for the project to affect a significantarchaeological resource. If the project might affect a significantarchaeological resource, the Campus shall adopt an appropriatemitigation plan at the time of project approval. If feasible, the Campusshall consider avoidance at significant archaeological sites as thepreferred mitigation. At a minimum, data recovery at significantarchaeological sites will be implemented.


Impact


prior toMitigation




(ii) A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading and excavation,as deemed appropriate.

(iii) Steps (i) through (iv) of item (b) shall be implemented.

4.5-4 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment, could damage ordestroy historical structuresduring construction and/orrenovation activities.

Significant 4.10-2(a) Prior to altering a structure at least 45 years of age, the Campus shall develop aprocess for identifying its relative historic value. In addition to CEQA andother State guidelines, the process shall consider the role of structures in thehistory of the University system, the Campus and the region.

4.10-2(b) If any existing structure on a proposed construction site is over 45 years of age:

(i) the Campus shall use the process developed under Mitigation Measure4.10-2(a) to determine whether the structure is historically significant;

(ii) if historically significant, the building shall be preserved and reused whenfeasible; and


(iii) if historically significant, and preservation and reuse cannot occur on site,the historical building shall be moved to an area set aside by the Campusfor historic buildings of the same era when physically and financiallyfeasible.

(iv) If a historically significant structure is to undergo major renovation, or bemoved and/or destroyed the Campus shall produce a record of thebuilding similar to National Parks Scenic standards (Historical AmericanBuilding Surveys). A copy of the record shall be deposited with theUniversity Archives, Shields Library Special Collections.

Adequate recordation would include, at a minimum, the following:

n the development of site-specific history and appropriate contextualinformation regarding the particular resource; in addition to archivalresearch and comparative studies, this task could involve limited oralhistory collection;

n accurate mapping of the noted resources, scaled to indicate size andproportion of the structures;

n architectural descriptions of affected structures;

n photodocumentation of the designated resources, both in still and videoformats; and

n recordation of measured architectural drawings, in the case of specificallydesignated buildings of higher architectural merit.

4.10-2(c) Prior to major renovation, moving or destroying a historically significantstructure, the Campus shall insure that historically significant artifacts within


Impact


prior toMitigation




the building and the surrounding area shall be recorded and deposited with theappropriate museum.

4.5-5 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, wouldcontribute to a cumulative lossof cultural (prehistoric andhistoric) resources in Yolo andSolano counties.


4.10-4(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.10-1(a) through 4.10-1(d), 4.10-2(a) through(c), and 4.10-3(a) through (c).

4.10-4(b) The Yolo and Solano County general plans and the City of Davis general plancontain policies which address the preservation of cultural resources. It iswithin the jurisdiction of these agencies to implement the general plan policieswhich encourage the protection and restoration of cultural resources.



4.6 Land Use and Planning

4.6-1 Development of the proposedWWTP on lands designated asTeaching/Research Fields isinconsistent with the land usedesignations in the 1994 LRDP.

Significant -- 4.6-1 The Regents will amend the 1994 LRDPland use designation for the proposedWWTP site from Teaching/ResearchFields to Support.


4.6-2 Construction of the proposedWWTP would result in thedisplacement of the equinepasture being used by theCCEHP.


-- 4.6-2 The Campus shall acquire a lease orpurchase property immediately east of theCCEHP and develop replacement pasture.


4.6-3 The proposed WWTP couldresult in the development ofland uses consideredincompatible with adjacent useson Campus.



4.6-4 The proposed WWTP couldresult in the permanent loss ofabout 20 acres of primefarmland from CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation'sinventory.



4.6-5 The proposed WWTP (20 acres),in conjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment (160 acres), wouldincrease the permanent loss ofprime farmland from the StateDepartment of Conservation’sinventory to 180 acres.



4.6-6 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994




Impact


prior toMitigation




LRDP development, couldconvert 1,207 acres of primeagricultural lands to urban uses(1,187 acres identified in the1994 LRDP EIR plus 20 acresfor the WWTP).

4.7 Visual Quality/Aesthetics

4.7-1 Structures built at the proposedWWTP could be incompatiblewith the existing ruralagricultural character of theSouth Campus.


4.11-2 The Campus Design Review Board shall review proposed structures on the Southand West Campuses and Russell Ranch to ensure that the design, setbacks,screening and landscaping will achieve compatibility with the surroundingenvironment.


4.7-2 Structures built at the proposedWWTP could create glare,artificial light, heat, and shade,making the immediate areauncomfortable for people.


4.11-4(a) Prior to design approval of the first structure approved following adoption ofthe 1994 LRDP, the Campus shall develop guidelines to minimize discomfortfrom light, heat, and glare.

The guidelines could include, but would not be limited to, building surfaces,landscaping, orientation and exposure, and lighting.

4.11-4(b) Prior to design approval of any building, the Campus Design Review Boardshall assess the building design for compliance with the guidelines developedunder Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(a).


4.7-3 The proposed WWTP, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment, would contributeto an alteration of the ruralagricultural character of theCampus.


4.11-2 The Campus Design Review Board shall review proposed structures on the Southand West Campuses and Russell Ranch to ensure that the design, setbacks,screening and landscaping will achieve compatibility with the surroundingenvironment.


4.7-4 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994LRDP development, wouldcontribute to a cumulativealteration of the rural characterof Solano County.


4.11-2 The Campus Design Review Board shall review proposed structures on the Southand West campuses and Russell Ranch to ensure that the design, setbacks,screening and landscaping will achieve compatibility with the surroundingenvironment.

4.11-5(b) The City of Davis General Plan, Yolo County General Plan, and Solano CountyGeneral Plan contain policies that address the preservation and protection ofagricultural land. It is within the jurisdiction of these agencies to implementthe general plan policies which support the conservation of agricultural landand the prohibition of new development in designated agricultural areas.



4.8 Noise

4.8-1 Occupants in structuresdeveloped under the proposedproject would be exposed tonoise from trains traveling on

Significant 4.4-3(a) Prior to final project approval, the Campus shall evaluate each project proposedunder the 1994 LRDP for potential exposure to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn.

and

4.8-1 The Campus shall retain a qualifiedacoustical consultant to provide designrecommendations that will result in soundlevels within the administration and



Impact


prior toMitigation




the Southern Pacific Railroad.4.4-3(b) If individual projects would be exposed to noise levels between 60 Ldn and 70 Ldn,

the Campus shall undertake and implement the recommendations of a detailedanalysis of noise reduction features necessary to achieve an interior noise levelof 45 Ldn. It is anticipated that conventional construction, but with closedwindows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, would normallyachieve the necessary noise attenuation.

maintenance building from train passagesof 45 dB-Ldn or less.

4.8-2 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994development, would result inincreased traffic and other noisesources which could exposepeople and structures on- andoff-campus to significantcumulative noise levels.


4.4-4(a) The Campus shall evaluate each project proposed under the 1994 LRDP for itspotential to create, or contribute to, noise levels which exceed State ofCalifornia general plan guidelines on Campus, Solano County general planguidelines within Solano County, Yolo County general plan guidelines withinYolo County, City of Davis general plan guidelines within Davis, or Cal OSHAstandards.

4.4-4(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(a) through (c).

4.4-4(c) (i) The Noise Element of the City of Davis general plan includes land use noisecompatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-3 of the 1994 LRDPEIR. It is within the jurisdiction of the City of Davis to implement thepolicies and standards found in the noise element.



(ii) The Noise Element of the Yolo County general plan includes land use noisecompatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-2 of the 1994 LRDPEIR. It is within the jurisdiction of the Yolo County to implement thepolicies and standards found in the noise element.

(iii) The Noise Element of the Solano County general plan includes land usenoise compatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-4 of the 1994LRDP EIR. It is within the jurisdiction of the Solano County toimplement the policies and standards found in the noise element.

4.9 Traffic

4.9-1 Heavy vehicles used inconstruction of the proposedWWTP could affect theroadbed of Old Davis Roadbetween Interstate 80 and theentrance to the proposedWWTP.


-- 4.9-1 The roadbed along Old Davis Road fromInterstate 80 south to the proposedentrance to the new WWTP will beevaluated before the start of constructionand at the completion of construction. Before the start of construction, theUniversity will develop a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) with the SolanoCounty Transportation Department inwhich the University will agree toreimburse the Solano County Departmentof Transportation for expenses incurred tocorrect significant degradation of OldDavis Road that is attributable toconstruction related traffic. TheUniversity’s obligation will not include



Impact


prior toMitigation




(1) repairing or improving existing roadconditions including the structural sectionor (2) damage and wear caused by othertraffic on Old Davis Road during theconstruction period.

4.9-2 Heavy vehicles used duringoperation of the proposedWWTP could affect theroadbed of Old Davis Roadbetween Interstate 80 and theproposed entrance to theproposed WWTP.



7. Effects Related to the LEHR and SCDS

7.1 The construction and location ofthe proposed WWTP wouldresult in no conflicts withexisting and planned uses at theLEHR/SCDS, includingongoing hazardous materialsremediation efforts.


-- 7.1 No mitigation is required. Less thanSignificant

7.2 Construction of the proposedWWTP would result inincreased amounts of impervioussurfaces. These additionalimpervious surfaces wouldincrease storm water runoff inthe South Campus drainagechannel, which is excavatedthrough the upper part of anold landfill at SCDS. Theincreased flow could potentiallyincrease the transport ofcontaminants from the landfillto the groundwater and/or to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek.


-- 7.2(a) Prior to directing storm water runoff fromthe proposed WWTP site to the SouthCampus storm drainage ditch, theCampus shall remediate Landfill DisposalUnit 3 by removal or capping. This willprovide for removal or containment ofcontaminated soil on and around theSouth Campus drainage canal.

or

7.2(b) Prior to directing storm water runoff fromthe proposed WWTP site to the SouthCampus storm drainage ditch, theCampus shall reroute the unlined canal tothe east around the landfill. The portionof the existing ditch that is excavatedthrough the upper part of the old landfillwill be filled or capped to prevent futuredischarges into the South Fork of PutahCreek. A rerouted canal will provide aminimum 35-foot-wide clearance from theestimated edge of the landfill. A reroutedpipeline would be located east of the edgeof the landfill. The realignment could bedesigned to either change the point of



Impact


prior toMitigation




discharge into the South Fork of PutahCreek or leave it at the existing location.

7.3 Construction of the proposedWWTP would result in newimpervious areas and changes ingroundwater pumping thatcould alter local groundwaterrecharge and flow patterns in away that conflicts withLEHR/SCDS groundwaterremediation activities.



7.4 Use of the solids storage basinsat the proposed WWTP couldincrease the potential forgroundwater recharge andconflict with LEHR/SCDSremediation activities.



7.5 Potential acquisition of thereplacement pasture andirrigation well east of theLEHR/SCDS area wouldincrease Campus control overlocal groundwater levels andreduce human exposure tocontaminated groundwater.

Beneficial -- 7.5 No mitigation is required. Beneficial

7.6 Groundwater remediationactivities at the LEHR/SCDSarea could result in possibledamage to the proposed WWTPdue to subsidence.



7.7 Groundwater remediationactivities at the LEHR/SCDSarea could increase flows to theproposed WWTP and generateincreased discharge of treatedeffluent into the South Fork ofPutah Creek which couldadversely affect receiving waterquality.




Chapter 3. Text Changes to the Draft EIR

This chapter lists the text revisions to the draft EIR made in response to comments. The followingchanges correct mistakes and make clarifications to text published in the draft EIR. Revisions are shownby either a line through text that has been deleted or double underlining where new text has been inserted. The changes appear in order of their location in the draft EIR.

CHAPTER 2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

As indicated under “Chapter 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality” below, the following staff-initiatedchanges are hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 in Table 2-1; additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.1-6(b) is hereby added as noted in Chapter 1:

4.1-6(a) The Campus shall strictly implement the pretreatment programand aggressively enforce the local limits to reducepollutant concentrations and ensure that NPDESpermit limits would be met. Implementation of thepretreatment program to ensure that local limits aremet will include monitoring, inspection of facilities,education, and enforcement, all as described abovein “Regulatory Setting” and, in Appendix E, and inthe UC Davis WWTP Final Local Limits Report(Krieger and Stewart 1995) or subsequent updates.

4.1-6(b) The Campus will modify the operation and/or treatmentprocesses at the new WWTP as necessary to complywith all applicable permit conditions related totoxics that are in the final NPDES permit for thenew WWTP.

The following corresponding changes are hereby made to Mitigation Measures 4.1-7, 4.1-12(a),and 4.4-14 in Table 2-1:


4.1-7 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b).

4.1-12(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b).

4.4-14 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b) identifiedin Chapter 4.1.

As indicated under “Chapter 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality” below, the following staff-initiatedchanges are hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.1-12(b) in Table 2-1:

4.1-12(b) The Campus shall continue to implement the source controlprogram to reduce pollutants of concern in coolingtower discharges based on the work plan submittedby the Campus in February 1995 to the CVRWQCB. The work plan describes a source control programto reduce pollutants of concern, including arsenic,hexavalent chromium, copper, and seleniumtributyltin in cooling discharges.

As indicated under “Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources” below, the following staff-initiated changeis hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 in Table 2-1:

4.4-10 The Campus should place temporary construction fencing atleast 5 feet from the trunks of the trees (along OldDavis Road) and construction equipment should notbe parked under the tree canopies, if feasible.

In response to comment 14-2, the following less-than-significant impact and correspondingmitigation measure regarding impacts on Old Davis Road during construction of the proposed WWTP arehereby added to Table 2-1:

4.9-1 Heavy vehicles used in construction of the proposed WWTPcould affect the roadbed of Old Davis Roadbetween Interstate 80 and the entrance to theproposed WWTP.

4.9-1 The roadbed along Old Davis Road from Interstate 80 south tothe proposed entrance to the new WWTP will be


evaluated before the start of construction and at thecompletion of construction. Before the start ofconstruction, the University will develop aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) with theSolano County Transportation Department in whichthe University will agree to reimburse the SolanoCounty Department of Transportation for expensesincurred to correct significant degradation of OldDavis Road that is attributable to constructionrelated traffic. The University’s obligation will notinclude (1) repairing or improving existing roadconditions including the structural section or (2)damage and wear caused by other traffic on OldDavis Road during the construction period.

Additionally, the following less-than-significant impact regarding effects on Old Davis Roadduring operation of the proposed WWTP is hereby added:

4.9-2 Heavy vehicles used during operation of the proposedWWTP could affect the roadbed of Old DavisRoad between Interstate 80 and the proposedentrance to the proposed WWTP.

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The text in Table 3-1 on page 3-10 of the draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

FUTURE EXPANSION n Provide space for expansion of capacity in future within the boundaries

of the proposed site

Table 3-5 on pages 3-16 and 3-17 of the draft EIR is hereby revised to reflect updating withrespect to chronic toxicity testing, chromium testing, and voluntary monitoring. Table 3-5 Revised andTable 3-6 New, shown on the following pages, present the correct monitoring requirements for the WWTPand the sludge drying ponds.


Table 3-5 Revised. Wastewater Monitoring Program

Constituent UnitsSampleType

PermitLimit

RequiredFrequency

ActualFrequency

Effluent Monitoring

20°C BOD mg/L 24-hr composite 10/20 Weekly Weekly

Total suspended solids mg/L 24-hr composite 10/20 Weekly Weekly

Settleable matter ml/L Grab 0.1 Daily Daily

Specific conductivity µmhos/cm Grab Monthly 2 x Monthly

PH pH units Grab 6.5 - 8.5 Daily Daily

Total coliform organisms MPN/100 ml Grab 23 Weekly Weekly

Chlorine residual mg/L Grab 0.1 Daily Daily

Chronic toxicity to effluent andreceiving stream

Grab, 3/week NA Quarterly Quarterly

Flow Mgd Cumulative 4.2 (2.5) Daily Daily

% Removal Calculated 85 Monthly Monthly

Temperature °F Grab NA ---- Daily

Ammonia mg/L NH3 Grab NA ---- Periodically

Total chromium µg/L 24-hr composite NA ---- Periodicallyas requested

Hexavalent chromium µg/L 24-hr compositeNA

---- Periodicallyas requested

Influent Monitoring

20°C BOD mg/L 24-hr composite NA Monthly Weekly

Suspended solids mg/L 24-hr composite NA Monthly Weekly

Settleable matter ml/L Grab NA ---- Daily

Temperature °F Grab NA ---- Daily

Ammonia mg/L NH3 Grab NA ---- 1-3 x weekly

Total chromium µg/L 24-hr composite NA ---- Periodicallyas requested

Hexavalent chromium µg/L 24-hr composite NA ---- Periodicallyas requested

Receiving Water Monitoring R-1

Dissolved oxygen mg/L Grab NA Weekly Weekly

PH pH units Grab NA Weekly Weekly

Turbidity Turbidity units Grab NA Weekly Weekly

Temperature °F (°C) Grab NA Weekly Weekly

Visible oil, grease, scum, floatingor suspended material caused by

Observation NA Weekly Weekly


Table 3-5 Revised. Wastewater Monitoring Program


PermitLimit

RequiredFrequency

ActualFrequency

effluent

Materials deleterious to human,animal, aquatic, plant life causedby effluent


Aesthetically undesirable discoloration caused by effluent


Fungus, slimes, objectionable growths caused by effluent


Bottom deposits caused byeffluent


20°C BOD mg/L Grab NA ---- Weekly

Receiving Water Monitoring R-2

Dissolved oxygen mg/L Grab >5.0 Weekly Weekly

PH pH units Grab < 0.5 unit change Weekly Weekly

Turbidity Turbidity units Grab < 10% increase Weekly Weekly

Temperature °F (°C) Grab < 5° (2.8°) increase Weekly Weekly

Visible oil, grease, scum, floatingor suspended material caused byeffluent


Materials deleterious to human,animal, aquatic, plant life causedby effluent


Aesthetically undesirablediscoloration caused by effluent


Fungus, slimes, objectionablegrowths caused by effluent


Bottom deposits caused byeffluent


20°C BOD mg/L Grab NA ---- Weekly

Notes: Required monitoring includes monitoring as identified in NPDES permit No. CA0077895, as well as Part 503 monitoringfor Class A biosolids.

Voluntary monitoring is shown in italicized type.

NA = not applicable.

Source: Koehler pers. comm.


Table 3-6 New. Biosolids Monitoring Program


PermitLimit

RequiredFrequency

ActualFrequency

Biosolids Drying Bed Monitoring – NPDES

Freeboard Feet Observation min. 2.0 Monthly Monthly

Quantity discharged Tons Measurement Daily Daily

Quantity removed Tons Measurement Daily Daily

18 Title 22 metals, plus Fe mg/kg Composite Annually Annually

Raw Biosolids and Dried Biosolids Pile Monitoring - CFR Part 503

Pathogens Grab Annually

Nitrogen Grab Annually

pH, Cl, Sulfate, Ca, Mg, K, Na, P Grab Annually

% Solids Grab Annually

Biosolids Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater elevation Feet Measurement Quarterly Monthly

Electrical conductivity µmhos/cm Grab Quarterly Quarterly

pH pH units Grab Quarterly Quarterly

COD mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly

Total coliform organisms MPN/100 ml Grab ---- Quarterly

Total suspended solids mg/L Grab ---- Quarterly

Standard minerals (Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg,Mn, K, Na, Zn)

mg/L Grab ---- Quarterly

EPA 601 Grab ---- Annually

EPA 602 Grab ---- Annually

Chloride, sulfate, nitrate as NO3,hardness, alkalinity

mg/L Grab ---- Quarterly

Notes: Required monitoring includes monitoring as identified in NPDES permit No. CA0077895, as well as Part 503 monitoringfor Class A biosolids.

Voluntary monitoring is shown in italicized type.

Source: Koehler pers. comm.


CHAPTER 4.1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

The draft EIR is hereby revised to include the following text after the fourth sentence of the firstparagraph on page 4.1-8:

Predominantly clay strata make up about half the total thickness of HSU-1. These stratatypically are present as layers 5-15 feet thick that are horizontally continuous for hundredsof feet, in most cases, and possibly thousands of feet in some cases.

Table 4.1-2 on page 4.1-11 of the draft EIR is hereby revised to add detection limits for eachparameter, as shown on the following page.

Tables 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 on pages 4.1-16 and 4.1-17 of the draft EIR are hereby revised. Thesetables present a summary of permit limits and conditions, which primarily include numeric discharge limitsand selected narrative provisions. Tables 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 do not list all permit limitations. The titles ofthese tables have been changed accordingly, and a footnote directing the reader to new appendices in thisfinal EIR has been added to each table.


Table 4.1-2 Revised. Background Water Quality in Putah Creek Upstream of Campus Boundary

Sample DateParameter (units)

11/21/95 11/30/95 12/7/95

AnalyticalDetection

LimitsTemperature (°C ) 14.0 11.5 14.0Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 9.4 10.4 9.4Arsenic (µg/L) 2.2 3.3 1.0 1.0Beryllium (µg/L) - - - - 1.1 1.0Chromium, total (µg/L) 6.5 8.0 6.5 0.3Chromium, hexavalent (µg/L) - - - - - - 10.0Copper (µg/L) - - 1.2 1.4 1.0Metals (Sb, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Th, Zn) - - - - - -

Sb - - - - - - 2.0Cd - - - - - - 0.1Pb - - - - - - 1.0Hg - - - - - - 0.01Ni - - - - - - 5.0Se - - - - - - 1.0Ag - - - - - - 0.1Th - - - - - - 1.0Zn - - - - - - 5.0

EPA 601: Purgeable Halocarbons - - - - - - 0.5-1.0EPA 602: Purgeable Aromatics - - - - - - 0.50EPA 603: Acrolein, Acrylonitrile - - - - - - 30.0; 5.0EPA 604: Phenols - - - - - - 2-29.0EPA 608: Organochlorine Pesticides/PCB’s - - - - - - 0.006-0.5EPA 612: Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - - - - - - 0.4-10.0EPA 625: Semi Volatile Organic Compounds - - - - - - 5-25EPA 605: Benzidines - - - - - - 5.0EPA 611: Haloethers - - - - - - 2.0-5.0Tributyltin (µg/L) - - 0.009 - - 0.002

Notes: -- = not detectedmg/L = milligrams per literµg/L = micrograms per liter

Sb = antimonyCd = cadmiumPb = leadHg = mercuryNi = nickelSe = selenium

Ag = silverTh = thalliumZn = zinc

Source: Data reports from ANLAB Analytical Laboratory, November-December 1995.


Table 4.1-5 Revised. Summary of Selected NPDES Permit Limitsfor the Putah Creek Research Facility and Aquatic Center

Effluent Discharge Limitations

Constituents Units MonthlyAverage

WeeklyAverage

DailyMaximum

BOD, 5-day mg/Llbs/day

10240

15360

25600

Total suspended solids mg/Llbs/day

25600

40960

651,562

Settleable solids ml/L - - 0.1

Chlorine residual mg/L - - 0.02

pH (standard units): maintained between 6.5 and 8.5

Average dry weather flow (May through October): < 2.88 mgd

Whole effluent 96-hour bioassay: - > 70% minimum survival for any one test - > 90% median survival for any 3 or more consecutive tests

Dissolved oxygen: not < 1.0 mg/L for 16 hours in any 24-hour period in irrigation canals and ponds

Notes: ml/L = milliliters per literBOD = Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day at 20° Clbs/d = pounds per daymgd = million gallons per daySee Appendix B for the complete NPDES permit limit and conditions.

Source: CVRWQCB; NPDES Permit No. CA0083348


Table 4.1-6 Revised. Summary of Selected NPDES Permit Limitsfor the USDA Aquatic Weed Control Laboratory

Effluent Discharge Limitations

Constituents UnitsMonthlyAverage

WeeklyAverage

MonthlyMedian

DailyMaximum

Total suspended solids mg/L 30 45 - 90

Copper µg/L - A - B

Fluoridone µg/L - - 0.1 0.2

Bensulfuron methyl µg/L - - 0.5 1.0

2,4-D µg/L - - 0.2 0.4

Glyphosate µg/L - - 2.0 4.0

Diquat µg/L - - 1.0 2.0

Trichlopyr µg/L - - 0.5 1.0

pH (standard units): maintained between 6.5 and 9.0

Average dry weather flow (May through October): < 0.05 mgd

Peak wet weather flow: < 0.075 mgd

Whole effluent 96-hour bioassay: - > 70% minimum survival for any one test - > 90% median survival for any 3 or more consecutive tests

Notes: A = e 0.8545H - 1.465, where H = ln {hardness (mg/L CaCO3)B = e 0.9422H - 1.464

See Appendix C for the complete NPDES permit limits and conditions.

Source: CVRWQCB; NPDES Permit No. CA0083364.


The beginning of the first full paragraph on page 4.1-19 of the draft EIR is hereby revised as shownbelow.

Permit Conditions . The NPDES permit for the Campus WWTP effluent waterquality limits (Permit No. CA0077895, CVRWQCB Order No. 92-040) was revised in1992. The permit limits the concentrations of BOD and TSS in the effluent, which generallyguides the are important parameters for the operation and management actions of theWWTP for permit compliance. Toxicity is also an important parameter in guiding operationand management of the WWTP, and a narrative toxicity objective is included in the permit. The permit limits are shown in Table 4.1-8 . . . .

The beginning of the last paragraph on page 4.1-54 of the draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

Water quality degradation could occur as a result of the potential exceedance ofone or more criteria either specific criteria or narrative limitations and standards that wouldlikely be included as future NPDES permit limits for the proposed WWTP.

The following staff-initiated changes are hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.1-6, shown on page4.1-55 of the draft EIR. It should be noted that the Final Local Limits Report referred to in these changesincludes an implementation plan in Section VII that identifies implementation and enforcement actions to betaken by the Campus. Also, these actions are independent and in addition to the legal enforcement actionsavailable to regulatory agencies such as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board(CVRWQCB):

4.1-6(a) The Campus shall strictly implement the pretreatment program andaggressively enforce the local limits to reduce pollutant concentrationsand ensure that NPDES permit limits would be met. Implementation ofthe pretreatment program to ensure that local limits are met will includemonitoring, inspection of facilities, education, and enforcement, all asdescribed above in “Regulatory Setting” and, in Appendix E, and in theUC Davis WWTP Final Local Limits Report (Krieger and Stewart 1995)or subsequent updates.

4.1-6(b) The Campus will modify the operation and/or treatment processes at thenew WWTP as necessary to comply with all applicable permit conditionsrelated to toxics that are in the final NPDES permit for the new WWTP.

In response to comment 15-28, a footnote has been added to Table 4.1-15 on page 4.1-56. Table 4.1-15 is hereby revised, as shown on the following page.


Table 4.1-15 Potential Future Water Quality Criteria and WWTP Effluent Data (µg/L)

Water Quality Criteria Existing WWTP ConcentrationsPollutant

Maximum Average Maximum Average

Arsenic 50.00 7.90 5.07Cadmium 4.11 1.11 0.95 0.28Chromium, total 50.00 9.70 5.21Chromium, hexavalent 15.00 10.00 ND NDCopper 18.62 12.31 * 26.00 * 22.00Lead 71.63 2.79 1.40 1.02Mercury 2.10 0.012 ND NDSelenium 20.00 5.00 1.70 0.83Silver 4.06 1.60 0.90Zinc 124.07 113.30 78.00 41.00Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.80 * 150.00 * 44.42Bromodichloromethane (a) 100.00 18.00 12.67Carbon tetrachloride 0.50 * 1.60 * 0.78Chloroform (a) 100.00 46.00 30.58Dibromochloromethane (a) 100.00 8.60 5.55Methylene chloride 5.00 4.00 2.15Toluene 100.00 4.10 0.89Tributyltin 0.026 * 0.140 * 0.056

Notes: (a) Criterion applies to the total combined concentration of these compounds.

* = exceedance of water quality criteria.

ND = not detected.

Hardness of 110 mg/L was used to calculate the cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, silver, and zincwater quality criteria.

Selenium and bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate water quality criteria are National Toxics Rule Standards.

Arsenic, total chromium, bromodichloromethane, chloroform, methylene chloride, dibromochloromethane,carbon tetrachloride, and toluene water quality criteria are EPA drinking water standards.

All other pollutant water quality criteria are EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria.


The following change is hereby made to the end of the second paragraph under the heading “4.1-7 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-6” on page 4.1-58 of the draft EIR:

. . . A TRE is a systematic process developed to identify pollutants that are the cause ofthe toxicity, evaluate source control options to correct the problem, and then perform teststo confirm the reduction in effluent toxicity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19881989). If specific threshold criteria were consistently exceeded in the future, theCVRWQCB could require the Campus to perform a TRE investigation.

The third paragraph under Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 on page 4.1-58 of the draft EIR is herebyrevised as follows:

Although not required by the current NPDES permit, additional special testingcould also be required by the CVRWQCB to further assess the potential for toxicity inareas not directly related to the scope of the TRE necessarily within the scope of a TRE. Additional testing could include sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation monitoring todetermine if pollutants have accumulated in sediment and fish tissues and could also becontributing to toxicity. Additional testing could include sediment toxicity monitoring todetermine whether pollutants have accumulated in sediment and could be causing toxicity,and bioaccumulation monitoring to determine whether pollutants have accumulated in fishtissues and could be of concern for humans and other organisms who use fish as food. The limitations of these additional tests are: (1) that the results would reflect potentialeffects from historical discharges in the entire upstream watershed rather than just theproposed WWTP discharge, and it would therefore be difficult to attribute any findings ofthe studies to one particular source; and (2) that there are currently no accepted regulatorystandards with which to evaluate biotoxicity associated with pollutant levels in sediment.

The need for additional testing would be dependent on the results of the TRE. Thetests would only be required if the pollutant identified by the TRE had the potential tobioaccumulate or persist in the environment at toxic levels. If the results indicated that thepollutant identified by the TRE was either ammonia or a volatile organic compound withlittle or no potential to cause toxicity and bioaccumulate or persist in the aquaticenvironment, these tests would not be required (McHenry pers. comm.). The limitationsof these additional tests are that the results would reflect potential effects from historicdischarges in the entire watershed rather than just the proposed WWTP discharge, andthat there are currently no regulatory standards with which to compare the results.

The second paragraph under Impact 4.1-9 on page 4.1-60 of the draft EIR is hereby deleted:

The proposed WWTP would have a negligible impact on nitrate concentrationsin groundwater because the potential for recharge occurs primarily during the winter whenthe water table is higher. During this period, nitrates in WWTP effluent would be highlydiluted in the South Fork of Putah Creek and would further decrease as a result of mixing


with ambient groundwater after reaching the water table and adsorption to clay andorganic matter above and below the water table.

The following text is added:

Water quality monitoring data collected during 1992-1994 confirmed that nitratein Putah Creek derived from the WWTP is not a significant source of groundwatercontamination. The average concentration in 12 samples collected quarterly at the “PutahCreek downstream” site below Old Davis Road was 2.3 mg/L (as nitrogen), comparedwith 1.6 mg/L at the “Putah Creek upstream” site above the WWTP outfall. Concentrations were highly variable at both sites, and on two occasions the concentrationwas greater at the upstream site. The highest concentration measured at either site (6.0mg/L) was also at the upstream site. These data indicate that the nitrate concentration inPutah Creek water remains consistently well below the drinking water standard (10 mg/Las nitrogen) and that Putah Creek water could not be the source of high concentrationsfound in groundwater at the LEHR site and in the City of Davis.

Groundwater monitoring data for the LEHR site (Pacific Northwest Laboratory1995) have revealed nitrate concentrations up to 100 mg/L (as nitrogen), which is far inexcess of concentrations in the creek. Furthermore, the highest concentrations are in thecentral and northern parts of the LEHR site, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis thatthe creek might be the source.

The following staff-initiated change is hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.1-12(b), shown onpages 4.1-65 and 4.1-66 of the draft EIR:

4.1-12(b) The Campus shall continue to implement the source control programto reduce pollutants of concern in cooling tower discharges based onthe work plan submitted by the Campus in February 1995 to theCVRWQCB. The work plan describes a source control program toreduce pollutants of concern, including arsenic, hexavalentchromium, copper, and selenium tributyltin in cooling discharges.

CHAPTER 4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND PUBLIC SAFETY

The text of the draft EIR in the table on the bottom of page 4.3-8 is hereby revised as follows:

a Time in minutes hours to reduce numbers or infectivity by 90 percent.

CHAPTER 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


The following staff-initiated change is hereby made to Mitigation Measure 4.4-10, shown on page4.4-34 of the draft EIR:

4.4-10 The Campus should place temporary construction fencing at least 5feet from the trunks of the trees (along Old Davis Road) andconstruction equipment should not be parked under the treecanopies, if feasible.

CHAPTER 6. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The following staff-initiated change is hereby made to the discussion of Alternative 2 on page 6-11of the draft EIR:

Relationship to Project Objectives. As shown in Table 6-1, this alternativewould achieve the project objectives of protecting water quality and aquatic life in theSouth Fork of Putah Creek and accommodating growth anticipated in the 1994 LRDPEIR; however, it would not meet any of the other objectives.

CHAPTER 7. EFFECTS RELATED TO THE LABORATORY FOR ENERGY-RELATEDHEALTH RESEARCH

AND THE SOUTH CAMPUS DISPOSAL SITE

In order to clarify the magnitude and extent of chloroform impacts in groundwater, the last sentenceof the third paragraph on page 7-36 of the draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

Chloroform was also has been detected in this irrigation well and low at concentrations ofup to 38 µg/L. Chloroform concentrations of chloroform of 1 to 7 µg/L have beendetected in shallow groundwater Hydropunch samples approximately 2,000 1,400 feeteast of the Campus boundary.


CHAPTER 8. CITATIONS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1988 citation under “Chapter 4.1. Hydrology and WaterQuality” in the draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. 1989. Toxicity reduction evaluation protocol formunicipal wastewater treatment plants. April. (EPA/600/2-88-062.) Office of Water. Washington,DC. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.

APPENDIX E. REQUIREMENTS AND STATUS OF THEUC DAVIS PRETREATMENT PROGRAM

Table E-3 on pages E-18 and E-19 of the draft EIR is hereby revised, as shown on the followingpages, to correct the footnote for the symbol “XNS”.


InfluentTreatmentProcesses

EffluentTreatedSludge

Sample Collection Date(s): 3/95-4/95 3/93 8/90-5/94 2/90-8/94

Pollutant

1WMainPlant

Headworks

Influent(Main PlantHeadworks)

RawSludge

MainPlant

Effluent

Main PlantEffluent(LEHR

Samples)

DriedSludge

GeneralCyanide

X X XS

MetalsAntimony

XS X

Arsenic X X X X XBeryllium XNS XS XCadmium X X X X XChromium VI (hexavalent) XSChromium, total X X X XS XCopper X X XS XS XIron X XS XLead X X X XS XManganese XSMercury XP XNS XS XMolybdenum XNS XNickel X X XS XSelenium X XNS X XS XSilver XP X XS XS XThallium XS X

Purgeable HalocarbonsCarbon tetrachloride

XP

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-DCB) X XIN X1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) X X X XS1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) XLL XLL XNS XS XS

Purgeable aromaticsBenzene

X

Phenols2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol

BenzidinesBenzidine

XP XNS

3,3' DichlorobenzidineChlorinated Pesticides and PCBs

alpha-ChlordaneXS

DDT and metabolites DDD and DDE XSDieldrin XSEndrin aldehydeHeptachlor XS

Chlorinated Hydrocarbons XS


InfluentTreatmentProcesses

EffluentTreatedSludge

Sample Collection Date(s): 3/95-4/95 3/93 8/90-5/94 2/90-8/94

Pollutant

1WMainPlant

Headworks

Influent(Main PlantHeadworks)

RawSludge

MainPlant

Effluent

Main PlantEffluent(LEHR

Samples)

DriedSludge

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachloroethane XNS XSSemivolatile Organics

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateXP XNS XS

Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsDiesel fuel

XP XNS

Gasoline XNS

Notes:

X: Indicates that the pollutant was determined to be present through an analysis. Unless “X” is followed by “IN”, “LL”,“P”, or “S”, the pollutant was not found at a level that equals or exceeds a proposed local limit or prohibition, wastewatertreatment process inhibition level, or current state or federal standard.

XIN: Pollutant present at a level that exceeds known treatment process inhibition level (treatment process samples only).XLL: Pollutant present at a level that equals or exceeds a proposed numeric local limit with waste load allocation (contributory

source and influent samples only).XP: Pollutant present at a level that violates proposed prohibition against discharging any amount of that pollutant

(contributory source and influent samples only).XS: Pollutant present at a level that exceeds a current state or federal standard (effluent and treated sludge samples only).XNS: Pollutant present, but no adopted state or federal water quality relevant standards or limits or known inhibition

thresholds currently exist for evaluating pollutant concentrations.Blank areas indicate that, based on the results of at least one analysis, the pollutant was determined not to be present.Shaded areas indicate that no analyses are available to determine whether the pollutant was present.

Source: Krieger & Stewart 1995.


Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program

CEQA requires that a lead agency establish a program for reporting and monitoring mitigationmeasures adopted as part of the environmental review process. This mitigation monitoring program isdesigned to ensure that, if the proposed WWTP replacement project is approved, the mitigation measuresidentified in the draft and final EIRs will be implemented. Because the draft and final EIRs make extensivereference to the 1994 LRDP EIR, this program assumes that the applicable mitigation measures from the1994 LRDP EIR will also be implemented pursuant to the 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Monitoring Programadopted by The Regents on September 19, 1994. For the convenience of the reviewer, the 1994 LRDPEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program is included here following the project-specific mitigation monitoringprogram.

Table 4-1 is a listing of the project-specific mitigation measures that were identified in the draft EIR. This table has been revised to reflect the changes that resulted from the draft EIR review process. Thesechanges, however, are not indicated by strikeouts and underlining in the table. The table identifies themonitoring and reporting procedure, mitigation timing, and monitoring and reporting responsibility. VariousCampus entities have been assigned monitoring responsibilities under this program. Under this program,all monitoring actions, once completed, will be reported in writing to the UC Davis Planning and BudgetOffice, which will maintain mitigation monitoring records for the proposed project.

The components of the table are identified below.

n Project-specific mitigation measure: quotes the mitigation measure verbatim from the draftor final EIR.

n Monitoring and reporting procedure : identifies the action(s) that must be completed foreach mitigation measure to be considered implemented.

n Mitigation timing: identifies the schedule for implementing each mitigation measure. Thefollowing project development phases are used to identify timing:

- Site selection;

- Design: detailed project planning or project design prior to issuance of plans andspecifications;


- Construction;

- Occupancy; and

- Operation.

n Monitoring responsibility: identifies the UC Davis office responsible for undertaking therequired action and monitoring the mitigation measure. When more than one office hasresponsibility, the first office listed is the office with major responsibility, and the second officelisted is the one with less responsibility.

Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring Program for the UC Davis WWTP Replacement Project

Project-Specific Mitigation MeasuresMonitoring and

Reporting Procedure Mitigation TimingMonitoring

Responsibility

4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.1-6(a) The Campus shall strictly implement the pretreatment program and aggressivelyenforce the local limits to reduce pollutant concentrations and ensure that NPDESpermit limits would be met. Implementation of the pretreatment program to ensurethat local limits are met will include monitoring, inspection of facilities, education, andenforcement, all as described above in “Regulatory Setting,” in Appendix E, and in theUC Davis WWTP Final Local Limits Report (Krieger and Stewart 1995) orsubsequent updates.

Monitor influent and effluent. Document monitoring andcompliance record. If locallimits are exceeded, implementpretreatment programenforcement activities toensure compliance.

Operation - on acontinual basis

Facilities Services -Mechanical Services

EnvironmentalHealth & Safety

4.1-6(b) The Campus will modify the operation and/or treatment processes at the newWWTP as necessary to comply with all applicable permit conditions related to toxicsthat are in the final NPDES permit for the new WWTP.

Review project design toensure that the new WWTPwill comply with allapplicable permit conditions. If necessary, modify thedesign and/or operation toensure compliance. Ifmonitoring detectsnoncompliance, modifyoperation of the WWTP.

Following receipt offinal NPDES permit forthe new WWTP


Architects & Engineers

Planning and Budget

4.1-7 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b). See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b)

4.1-8 The Campus shall apply for and comply with any requirements of an NPDESGeneral Industrial Storm Water permit for the proposed WWTP prior to plantoperation.

Apply for permit. Satisfy allpermit conditions.

Occupancy - prior toplant operation



4.1-10 The Campus will install and monitor groundwater monitoring wells at the proposedWWTP, as may be required by the CVRWQCB in the future NPDES permit andmonitoring program for the facility.

Install wells, if required. Document monitoring andcompliance record. Ifmonitoring detects leaks,modify operation of theWWTP to ensure compliance.

Construction - prior tostart of construction(for installation)

and



Planning and Budget

and





Responsibility

(for monitoring)EnvironmentalHealth & Safety

4.1-12(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b). See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b)

4.1-12(b) The Campus shall continue to implement the source control program to reducepollutants of concern in cooling tower discharges based on the work plan submittedby the Campus in February 1995 to the CVRWQCB. The work plan describes asource control program to reduce pollutants of concern, including tributyltin incooling discharges.

Monitor influent and effluent. Document monitoring andcompliance record. If locallimits are exceeded, implementpretreatment programenforcement activities toensure compliance.




4.4 Biological Resources

4.4-3(a) The Campus shall conduct a non-breeding season survey (approximately August 1through January 30) of the drainage ditch before construction. If no burrowing owlsare present, the Campus will destroy (i.e., collapse) all potential nesting burrows toprevent owls from returning to the site. The Campus will monitor the banks of theditch biweekly to ensure that no new burrows are created that could be used by owlsbefore construction begins. New burrows will be destroyed until construction begins.

Conduct a survey for thepresence or absence ofburrowing owls. Documentresults of survey.

Construction - prior tostart of construction

Planning and Budget

4.4-3(b) If the non-breeding season survey reveals the presence of owls, the Campus willensure that the owls will not be trapped in burrows in the area during construction bydisplacing them from the area. One-way exit doors will be placed at the entrances ofthe occupied and potential burrows that will be destroyed to ensure that the owls canexit from the burrows but cannot return to them. The one-way doors shall beinstalled at least 48 hours before the burrows are destroyed to ensure that the owlshave left the burrows. The burrows shall then be dug out by hand to ensure that noowls remain in them. This measure shall be completed outside the February 1through August 1 nesting season.

Develop plan to ensure thatowls will not be trapped inburrows. Monitor burrowsduring construction. Verifythat the plan is implemented.

Construction - prior tostart of construction. Monitor burrows week-ly during construction

Planning and Budget


4.4-3(c) To compensate for the loss of nesting sites, the Campus shall construct two artificialnest burrows for each active burrow eliminated by the project. The artificial nestwould be constructed in the vicinity of the existing ditch. The artificial nest burrowscould be placed along the banks of the new channel, or at the new wastewater

Verify that burrows are beingconstructed. If necessary,contact DFG and implementproject changes or adjust, as

Operation - annually Planning and Budget




Responsibility

treatment plant if operation of the facility would not affect the owls. If placing theartificial nest burrows in these areas is not feasible, a suitable location will beidentified in conjunction with DFG.

necessary. Verify that themeasures have beenimplemented.

4.4-3(d) When the mitigation and monitoring is completed, the Campus shall prepare andsubmit to DFG a letter describing the methods, results, and conclusions of theburrowing owl mitigation and monitoring efforts.

Submit letter to DFG. Operation - afterburrowing owl mitiga-tion and monitoring iscomplete

Planning and Budget

4.4-6 The Campus shall determine whether the Swainson’s hawk nest site 5 located nearOld Davis Road and Interstate 80 is active during construction. If it is active, theCampus will either construct the pipeline during the Swainson’s hawk non-breedingseason (September-February) or implement other feasible changes to the project inconsultation with DFG to avoid site disturbance.

Conduct survey anddocument findings. Ifnecessary, contact DFG andimplement project changes oradjustments, as necessary. Verify that measures havebeen implemented.


Planning and Budget

4.4-7 The Campus shall include in the construction plans and specifications the followingprotection measures, which will be implemented prior to the initiation of anyconstruction activities.

(a) Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at least 20 feet outside thedripline of elderberry shrubs 1 through 18 during the VELB breeding season(April-June). After or before the breeding season, the fencing could be moved to5 feet beyond the dripline, if needed. The fencing will remain in place untilconstruction is complete. All fencing will be done under direct supervision of aqualified biologist.

Avoid and protect habitat byinstalling fencing. Monitorweekly during construction.


Planning and Budget

(b) The fence shall be posted with a sign that reads as follows: “This area is potentialhabitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and mustnot be disturbed. This species is protected by the federal Endangered Species Actof 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, andimprisonment”.

(c) The buffer zone within the fence shall remain off-limits to construction activities,vehicles, wastes, or construction materials.




Responsibility

(d) The fence shall remain in place until final construction is complete.

(e) Dust-reducing construction measures will be used to minimize the amount of dustnear the shrubs. These measures include minimizing the amount of time surfacesare exposed, sprinkling exposed areas and soil piles with water periodically, andcovering soil piles with plastic sheets or tarpaulins to limit disturbance.

4.4-10 The Campus should place temporary construction fencing at least 5 feet from thetrunks of the trees (along Old Davis Road) and construction equipment should not beparked under the tree canopies, if feasible.

Avoid and protect habitat byinstalling fencing. Monitorweekly during construction.


Planning and Budget

4.4-14 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b). See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b) See 4.1-6(a) and (b)

4.6 Land Use and Planning

4.6-1 The Regents will amend the 1994 LRDP land use designation for the proposedWWTP site from Teaching/Research Fields to Support.

Verify that the Regentsamended the 1994 LRDP.

Site selection and priorto approval of finalproject design


Planning and Budget

4.6-2 The Campus shall acquire a lease or purchase property immediately east of theCCEHP and develop replacement pasture.

Contact landowner(s) andverify that the land can beleased or purchased.


Planning and Budget


4.8 Noise

4.8-1 The Campus shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to provide designrecommendations that will result in sound levels within the administration andmaintenance building from train passages of 45 dB-Ldn or less.

Hire a qualified acousticalconsultant to review projectdesign. Document findings ofreview.


Planning and Budget


4.9 Traffic

4.9-1 The roadbed along Old Davis Road from Interstate 80 south to the proposed entranceto the new WWTP will be evaluated before the start of construction and at thecompletion of construction. Before the start of construction, the University willdevelop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Solano CountyTransportation Department in which the University will agree to reimburse theSolano County Department of Transportation for expenses incurred to correct

Verify that the MOU is inplace before construction isstarted and that SolanoCounty TransportationDepartment receivescompensation for expenses



Government andCommunity Relations




Responsibility

significant degradation of Old Davis Road that is attributable to construction relatedtraffic. The University’s obligation will not include (1) repairing or improvingexisting road conditions including the structural section or (2) damage and wear causedby other traffic on Old Davis Road during the construction period.

incurred to correct roaddamage attributable to projectconstruction.

7. Effects Related to the LEHR and SCDS

7.2(a) Prior to directing storm water runoff from the proposed WWTP site to the SouthCampus storm drainage ditch, the Campus shall remediate Landfill Disposal Unit 3by removal or capping. This will provide for removal or containment ofcontaminated soil on and around the South Campus drainage canal.

OR

7.2(b) Prior to directing storm water runoff from the proposed WWTP site to the SouthCampus storm drainage ditch, the Campus shall reroute the unlined canal to the eastaround the landfill. The portion of the existing ditch that is excavated through theupper part of the old landfill will be filled or capped to prevent future discharges intothe South Fork of Putah Creek. A rerouted canal will provide a minimum 35-foot-wide clearance from the estimated edge of the landfill. A rerouted pipeline would belocated east of the edge of the landfill. The realignment could be designed to eitherchange the point of discharge into the South Fork of Putah Creek or leave it at theexisting location.

Review project design toensure that measures areincorporated into the projectdesign and verify thatcontaminated soil is removedor contained.

Verify that measures wereimplemented.



Planning and Budget

Documents

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER … · FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT PROJECT University of California, Davis State Clearinghouse