DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ... - UC Davis: HomeDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT PROJECT University of California, Davis State Clearinghouse

DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL 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

October 1996

i

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1-1PURPOSE OF THE EIR................................................................................................... 1-1RELATIONSHIP TO THE 1994 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EIR ............ 1-2TYPE OF EIR................................................................................................................... 1-3LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE......................................................................................... 1-4SCOPE OF THE EIR........................................................................................................ 1-5ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS...................................................................... 1-6MITIGATION MONITORING........................................................................................ 1-7ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR......................................................................... 1-7

Chapter 2. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 2-1PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................... 2-1ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 2-2KNOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY........................................................................ 2-2ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED............................................................................................ 2-3SUMMARY TABLE......................................................................................................... 2-4

Chapter 3. Project Description.................................................................................................. 3-1PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................... 3-1

UC Davis............................................................................................................... 3-1Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses................................................................. 3-1

PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................ 3-4PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 3-7SITE SELECTION ........................................................................................................... 3-8PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 3-9

Site Design............................................................................................................. 3-9Projected Flow Requirements................................................................................. 3-9Projected Wastewater Characteristics and Effluent Quality Requirements .............. 3-12

PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS...................................................................... 3-14Decommissioning and Demolition of Existing WWTP ............................................ 3-14Decommissioning and Demolition of the Existing Sludge Drying Ponds................... 3-14Construction of the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................... 3-14

ii

PROJECT SCHEDULE.................................................................................................. 3-22APPROVAL PROCESS................................................................................................. 3-23

Chapter 4. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures................................ 4-1

Chapter 4.1 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................ 4.1-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.1-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.1-1

Surface Water Hydrology.................................................................................... 4.1-1Groundwater Resources...................................................................................... 4.1-7Surface Water Quality......................................................................................... 4.1-9Groundwater Quality......................................................................................... 4.1-33

REGULATORY SETTING.......................................................................................... 4.1-37Water Quality Regulations ................................................................................. 4.1-37Biosolids Regulations......................................................................................... 4.1-44WWTP Mechanical Reliability and Performance................................................ 4.1-45

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................ 4.1-48Standards of Significance................................................................................... 4.1-48Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.1-48Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................... 4.1-62

Chapter 4.2 Air Quality........................................................................................................... 4.2-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.2-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.2-1

General Background and Overview..................................................................... 4.2-1Climate and Meteorology.................................................................................... 4.2-1Criteria Pollutants................................................................................................ 4.2-2Toxic Air Contaminants....................................................................................... 4.2-9Odors............................................................................................................... 4.2-10Sensitive Receptors........................................................................................... 4.2-12

REGULATORY SETTING.......................................................................................... 4.2-12Federal Regulations........................................................................................... 4.2-12State Regulations............................................................................................... 4.2-13Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Regulations ................................. 4.2-14


Chapter 4.3 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety ............................................................ 4.3-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.3-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.3-1

Hazardous Waste................................................................................................ 4.3-1

iii

Radioactive Materials.......................................................................................... 4.3-2Biohazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 4.3-4

REGULATORY SETTING.......................................................................................... 4.3-11Hazardous Waste.............................................................................................. 4.3-11Radioactive Materials........................................................................................ 4.3-11Biohazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 4.3-13


Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................... 4.4-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.4-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.4-1

Habitat Types ..................................................................................................... 4.4-1Fish Resources.................................................................................................... 4.4-4Special-Status Species ........................................................................................ 4.4-5

REGULATORY SETTING.......................................................................................... 4.4-22Federal Regulations........................................................................................... 4.4-22State Regulations............................................................................................... 4.4-23


Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 4.5-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.5-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.5-1

Prehistoric Resources.......................................................................................... 4.5-2Historic Resources.............................................................................................. 4.5-3

REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................ 4.5-6IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................. 4.5-7

Standards of Significance..................................................................................... 4.5-7Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.5-7Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................... 4.5-11

Chapter 4.6 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 4.6-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.6-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.6-1

Land Use Context ............................................................................................... 4.6-1Agricultural Land Use.......................................................................................... 4.6-21994 LRDP Objectives....................................................................................... 4.6-2

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................. 4.6-3

iv

Standards of Significance..................................................................................... 4.6-3Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.6-4Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................... 4.6-7

Chapter 4.7 Visual Quality/Aesthetics ................................................................................... 4.7-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.7-1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................................... 4.7-1

Visual Context .................................................................................................... 4.7-1IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................. 4.7-2

Standards of Significance..................................................................................... 4.7-2Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.7-2Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................... 4.7-5

Chapter 4.8 Noise ................................................................................................................... 4.8-1INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 4.8-1ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SETTING................................................ 4.8-1

General Background and Overview..................................................................... 4.8-1Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors in the Project Vicinity.................................... 4.8-1Existing Noise Conditions.................................................................................... 4.8-3

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................. 4.8-3Standards of Significance..................................................................................... 4.8-3Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.8-4Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................... 4.8-7

Chapter 5. CEQA-Required Sections ....................................................................................... 5-1GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.................................................................................. 5-1CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 5-5SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ...................................................... 5-11SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ............................. 5-14

Chapter 6. Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................................. 6-1CEQA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................ 6-1ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE EIR................................................................... 6-3

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives Considered and Rejected ............ 6-3Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives Considered and Evaluated........... 6-5

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 6-7Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives.................................................... 6-7Summary Comparison of General Impacts Relating to the Wastewater Treatment and

Disposal Alternatives................................................................................ 6-33Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................................... 6-33

Chapter 7. Effects Related to the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Researchand the South Campus Disposal Site ............................................................................. 7-1

v

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 7-1HISTORICAL AND EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE LEHR/SCDS AREA.............. 7-2

Location and Facilities............................................................................................ 7-2History................................................................................................................... 7-4

SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION .................................................... 7-7Background ........................................................................................................... 7-7Site Characterization.............................................................................................. 7-9Site Remediation.................................................................................................. 7-26Environmental Documentation and Public Disclosure............................................. 7-29

CURRENT AND FUTURE USES AT THE LEHR/SCDS AREA................................... 7-30Institute of Toxicology and Environmental Health................................................... 7-30UC Davis Raptor Center...................................................................................... 7-34Animal Resources Service.................................................................................... 7-35

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELATED TO THE LEHR/SCDS AREA .................. 7-36Land Use............................................................................................................. 7-37Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................... 7-38

Chapter 8. Citations ................................................................................................................... 8-1

Chapter 9. List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 9-1

vi

TECHNICAL APPENDICES(Please visit UC Davis, 376 Mrak Hall to view the appendices)

Appendix A. Second Notice of Preparation and Revised Initial Study ................................. A-1

Appendix B. Written Comments and Responses to Comments on the Second Notice ofPreparation..........................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. NPDES Permit.................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D. Water Quality Technical Appendix ................................................................... D-1

Appendix E. Requirements and Status of the UC Davis Pretreatment Program..................E-1

Appendix F. Air Quality Technical Report .............................................................................F-1

Appendix G. Updated Health Risk Assessment of Air EmissionsGenerated at UC Davis ..................................................................................... G-1

Appendix H. Biological Resources ......................................................................................... H-1

Appendix I. Background Information on Acoustics ................................................................I-1

Appendix J. Proposed Amendment to the 1994 LRDP and Revisions to the1994 LRDP EIR ...................................................................................................J-1

vii

List of Tables

Table Page

2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................................ 2-5

3-1 Site Planning and Facility Layout Criteria .......................................................................... 3-10

3-2 Design Wastewater Flow Rates (Year 2005).................................................................... 3-11

3-3 Summary of Major Effluent Limitations Contained in the Current NPDES Permit ............... 3-13

3-4 Anticipated Effluent Quality Requirements for Design ........................................................ 3-15

3-5 UC Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Program............................................. 3-16

4.1-1 Monthly Flows in the South Fork of Putah Creek near Davis (1971-1985)and Required Minimum Flows......................................................................................... 4.1-4

4.1-2 Background Water Quality in Putah Creek Upstream of Campus Boundary................... 4.1-11

4.1-3 Chemical and Nutrient Concentrations Used in the Classification ofHypereutrophic Lakes and a Comparison to Values from theArboretum Waterway................................................................................................... 4.1-12

4.1-4 Summary of Analytical Data and Pollutant Concentrations for Permittedand Storm Water Discharges......................................................................................... 4.1-13

4.1-5 NPDES Permit Limits for the Putah Creek Research Facility and Aquatic Center ........... 4.1-16

4.1-6 NPDES Permit Limits for the USDA Aquatic Weed Control Laboratory........................ 4.1-17

4.1-7 NPDES Permit Limits for the Landfill Groundwater Cleanup System.............................. 4.1-18

4.1-8 NPDES Permit Limits for WWTP Effluent..................................................................... 4.1-20

viii

4.1-9 South Fork of Putah Creek Downstream of the WWTP Outfall:Summary of Monthly Monitoring Results for Conventional Parameters,January 1992 - June 1996............................................................................................. 4.1-22

4.1-10 Campus WWTP Effluent: Summary of Monthly Monitoring Results forConventional Parameters, January 1992 - June 1996..................................................... 4.1-23

4.1-11 WWTP Effluent: Summary of Analytical Data and Pollutant Concentrations ................... 4.1-28

4.1-12 Regulatory Criteria (EPA Part 503) for Trace Metal Content of Biosolids and Test Results forExisting WWTP Biosolids for 1993 - 1996.................................................................... 4.1-30

4.1-13 Summary of Inorganic Constituents in Groundwater of the UC DavisCampus Area................................................................................................................ 4.1-35

4.1-14 Probable Effluent Quality Requirements for Design......................................................... 4.1-54

4.1-15 Potential Future Water Quality Criteria and WWTP Effluent Data (µg/L)........................ 4.1-56

4.2-1 Health Effects Summary of Criteria Air Pollutants of Regulatory Concernin the SVAB ................................................................................................................... 4.2-5

4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in California.................................................... 4.2-7

4.2-3 Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Summary, 1988-1994 ................................................... 4.2-8

4.2-4 Sources of City Resident Cancer Cases (From EPA Five-City Cancer Study) ................ 4.2-11

4.3-1 Summary of Radiological Waste Sanitary Sewer Disposal Data: 1991-1995..................... 4.3-3

4.3-2 Major Waterborne Human Infectious Agents................................................................... 4.3-6

4.3-3 Estimated Dose of Pathogens Consumed per Swimming Event ....................................... 4.3-12

4.3-4 Summary of the Minimal Infective Dose for Selected Organisms..................................... 4.3-12

4.3-5 Expected Estimated Concentration and Removal of Pathogensin Treated Wastewater .................................................................................................. 4.3-20

4.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the UCDProposed WWTP Project Area ...................................................................................... 4.4-8

4.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Vicinity

ix

of the UC Davis Proposed WWTP Project Area........................................................... 4.4-10

4.4-3 Elderberry Shrub and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Data ...................................... 4.4-20

5-1 Projected Population.......................................................................................................... 5-3

5-2 Design Wastewater Flow Rates (Year 2005)...................................................................... 5-4

6-1 Summary Comparison of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives......................... 6-8

6-2 Alternative 2: No Project/Upgrade and Expand Onsite..................................................... 6-12

6-3 Alternative 3: Pump to City of Davis WPCP.................................................................... 6-15

6-4 Alternative 4: Construct a New WWTP at the West Campus Landfill Site ........................ 6-19

6-5 Alternative 5: Construct a New Wetlands Treatment Facility............................................ 6-21

6-6 Alternative 6: No Surface Discharge during Summer Months/Containment Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 6-25

6-7 Alternative 7: Upgrade and Expand Existing WWTP and Dischargeto Willow Slough Bypass.................................................................................................. 6-27

6-8 Alternative 8: Construct a New WWTP on the West Campus Site .................................... 6-31

6-9 Comparative Impact Analysis of Wastewater Treatment and DisposalAlternatives...................................................................................................................... 6-35

7-1 Existing DOE LEHR Facility Buildings ................................................................................ 7-5

7-2 Regulatory Significance of Parameters That Exceeded Background ................................... 7-16

7-3 Number of Detections, Positive Results and Maximum Values in SurfaceWater, 1995; 1995 Annual Water Monitoring Report; LEHREnvironmental Restoration, Davis, California ..................................................................... 7-23

x

List of Figures

Figure Page

3-1 Regional Location.............................................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Location of Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant................................................................ 3-3

3-3 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 3-5

3-4 Project Features..................................................................................................... follows 3-6

3-5 Preliminary Conceptual Site Plan.......................................................................... follows 3-10

4.1-1 Location Map of Putah Creek ......................................................................................... 4.1-2

4.1-2 Surface Water Discharge Locations..................................................................... follows 4.1-6

4.2-1 Windrose Depicting Average Wind Speed and Directional Frequencyat Davis, California.......................................................................................................... 4.2-3

4.4-1 Habitat Types and Special-Status Species Locations............................................ follows 4.4-2

4.4-2 Elderberry Shrub Locations along the Railroad Tracks................................................... 4.4-19

4.8-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments............................................ 4.8-2

4.8-2 Projected 2010 Exposure of Project Site to Train and Traffic Noise................................. 4.8-6

6-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites Considered and Rejected................................... follows 6-4

6-2 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives Consideredand Evaluated ........................................................................................................ follows 6-8

7-1 LEHR/SCDS Area ............................................................................................................ 7-3

xi

7-2 Groundwater Elevations for HSU-1: February 17, 1995 ................................................... 7-12

7-3 Groundwater Elevations for HSU-1: May 25, 1995.......................................................... 7-13

7-4 Groundwater Elevations for HSU-1: August 31, 1995....................................................... 7-14

7-5 Groundwater Elevations for HSU-1: November 27, 1995................................................. 7-15

7-6 Concentration Contour Plot (mg/L) - Nitrate in HSU-1: 1995........................................... 7-17

7-7 Concentration Contour Plot (mg/L) - Hexavalent Chromium in HSU-1: 1995.................... 7-18

7-8 Concentration Contour Plot (mg/L) - Tritium in HSU-1: 1995........................................... 7-19

7-9 Concentration Contour Plot (mg/L) - Chloroform in HSU-1: 1995.................................... 7-20

7-10 Location Map - Water Monitoring Points ......................................................................... 7-24

xii

List of Acronyms

AB Assembly Billaf/yr acre-feet per yearAPCD air pollution control districtAQAP air quality attainment planAQMD air quality management districtasf assignable square feetbgs below ground surfaceBMP best management practicesBOD biochemical oxygen demandBOD5 five-day BODCAA Clean Air ActCAAA Clean Air Act AmendmentsCal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationCal-EPA California Environmental Protection AgencyCaltrans California Department of TransportationCARB California Air Resources BoardCCEHP California Center for Equine Health and PerformanceCCR California Code of RegulationsCEQA California Environmental Quality ActCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of

1980CFR Code of Federal Regulationscfs cubic feet per secondCIWMB California Integrated Waste Management BoardCNEL community noise equivalent levelCNPS California Native Plant SocietyCO carbon monoxideCOD chemical oxygen demandCorps U.S. Army Corps of EngineersCRHR California Register of Historical ResourcesCRPRC California Regional Primate Research CenterCVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control BoardCWA Clean Water ActdB decibels

xiii

dBA A-weighted decibel scaleDFG California Department of Fish and GameDHS California Department of Health ServicesDO dissolved oxygenDOE U.S. Department of EnergyDTSC California Department of Toxic Substances ControlEA environmental assessmentEH&S Campus Office of Environmental Health and SafetyEIR environmental impact reportEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyERDA Energy Research and Development AdministrationESA Endangered Species ActETS environmental tobacco smokeFEPC UC Davis Facilities and Enterprise Policy CommitteeFHWA Federal Highway AdministrationFR Federal RegisterHIV human immunodeficiency virusHQ hazard quotientHRA health risk assessmentHSU hydrostratigraphic unitI-80 Interstate 80IRIS Integrated Risk Information SystemISCST3 Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3ISWP Inland Surface Waters PlanIWMB Integrated Waste Management BoardITEH Institute for Toxicology and Environmental HealthLAWR UC Davis Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesLdn average sound levelLEHR Laboratory for Energy-Related Health ResearchLeq equivalent sound levelsLRDP UC Davis Long Range Development PlanLTRAS Long-Term Research in Sustainable AgricultureLx percentile-exceeded sound levelMCC motor control centersmCi millicurieMCL maximum contaminant levelsMEI maximally exposed individualmg/L milligrams per litermgd million gallons per dayMID minimal infective dosemm millimetersMPN/100 ml most probable number per 100 millilitersmrem millirems

xiv

NAHC Native American Heritage CommissionNDDB Natural Diversity Data BaseNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantsNHPA National Historic Preservation Actnm nanometerNOP Notice of PreparationNOx nitrogen oxidesNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNRHP National Register of Historic PlacesNTR National Toxics RuleNTU nephelometric turbidity unitsNWRI National Water Research InstituteO3 ozonePCB polychlorinated biphenylpfu/L particle forming units per literPM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameterPOTW publicly owned treatment worksppb parts per billionppd pounds per dayppy pounds per yearPRG preliminary remediation goalPSI Pollution Standard IndexRa-226 radium-226RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StudyROG reactive organic gasesRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control BoardSCDS South Campus Disposal SiteSIV simian immunodeficiency virusSO2 sulfur dioxideSOx oxides of sulfurSPRR Southern Pacific RailroadSr-90 strontium-90SSB solids storage basinSTC Sound Transmission ClassSVAB Sacramento Valley Air BasinSWAT Solid Waste Assessment TestSWFP solid waste facility permitSWPPP storm water pollution prevention planSWRCB State Water Resources Control BoardTAC toxic air contaminantTDS total dissolved solids

xv

TRE toxicity reduction evaluationTSM Transportation System ManagementTSS total suspended solidsUC Davis University of California, DavisUSC U.S. Government CodeUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUV ultravioletVELB valley elderberry longhorn beetleVOC volatile organic compoundWAS waste activated sludgeWHC Wildlife Health CenterWHR Wildlife Habitat RelationshipWPCP water pollution control plantWWTP wastewater treatment plantYSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Districtµg/L micrograms per literµm micrometer

WWTP Replacement Project Draft EIRUniversity of California, Davis October 19961-1

Chapter 1. Introduction

This environmental impact report (EIR) assesses the potential environmental effects of the proposedwastewater treatment plant (WWTP) replacement project of the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). As required by Section 15161 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended,this EIR examines the expected individual and cumulative impacts of all phases of the proposed project. This EIR also identifies means of minimizing potential adverse impacts (mitigation measures) and evaluatesreasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including the required no-project alternative. The Regentsof the University of California (The Regents) is the “lead agency” for the project evaluated in this EIR andas such has the principal responsibility for approving the project.

PURPOSE OF THE EIR

UC Davis has commissioned this EIR on the proposed WWTP replacement project for thefollowing purposes:

n to satisfy the requirements of CEQA;

n to inform the general public, the local community, responsible and interested public agencies,and the Campus of the nature of the project, its possible environmental impacts, possiblemitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts, and alternatives to the project; and

n to enable The Regents to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether toapprove the project.

As described in the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid orminimize environmental damage where feasible. In discharging this duty, the public agency has an obligationto balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social objectives (Section15021 of the CEQA Guidelines).

The EIR is a public information document, the purpose of which is to identify the potential significanteffects of the proposed project on the environment and to indicate the manner in which those significanteffects can be avoided or mitigated, to identify any unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated,


and to identify reasonable and feasible alternatives to the project that would eliminate any significant adverseenvironmental effects or reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The EIR also discloses growth-inducing impacts; effects found not to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present,and reasonably anticipated future projects.

The public agency (The Regents) is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with anyother relevant information, in making its decision on whether to implement the project (Section 15121 ofthe CEQA Guidelines). Although the EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that will be maderegarding implementation of the project, The Regents must consider the information in the EIR and respondto each significant effect identified in the EIR.

For the proposed WWTP replacement project, CEQA requires that the Campus prepare a draftEIR that reflects the independent judgment of the Campus regarding the impacts, level of significance of theimpacts both before and after mitigation, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts. Thedraft EIR is then circulated to responsible agencies, trustee agencies with resources affected by the project,and interested agencies and individuals. The purposes of public and agency review of the EIR includesharing expertise, disclosing agency analyses, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering publicconcerns, and soliciting counterproposals. In reviewing draft EIRs, reviewers should focus on thesufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and waysin which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpfulwhen they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways toavoid or mitigate significant environmental effects.

The Campus will evaluate comments received on the draft EIR, will prepare written responses tocomments on significant environmental issues, and will prepare a final EIR before referring the EIR and theproject to The Regents for review. This final EIR will be circulated to all agencies commenting on the EIRbefore a decision is made on the project.

The draft and final EIR will be used by the Campus to determine whether approval of the proposedproject will result in significant environmental impacts. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance thebenefits of a proposed project against any unavoidable environmental risks. If environmental impacts areidentified as significant and unavoidable, The Regents may still approve the project if it believes that social,economic, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The Regents would then be required to statein writing the specific reasons for approving the project based on information in the EIR and otherinformation in the record. As indicated in Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, this reasoning is calleda “statement of overriding considerations”.


RELATIONSHIP TO THE 1994LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EIR

As provided for in the CEQA Guidelines, the environmental analysis for the WWTP replacementproject (proposed project) incorporates by reference information contained in the UC Davis 1994 LongRange Development Plan (LRDP) and 1994 LRDP EIR. The LRDP was designed to accommodateprojected Campus population growth and facilities development through 2005-06. The LRDP identifiesphysical planning principles to guide Campus development and includes a land use plan that identifies zoneson Campus that could be used as future building sites for academic and administrative uses, teaching andresearch fields, support functions, housing, recreational uses, open space, parking, and commercial andpotential enterprise opportunities. The plan projected a Campus increase in available academic,administrative, and support building space of 1,750,000 assignable square feet (asf) (an increase from about4,745,740 asf to about 6,495,740 asf). There is likely to be less actual development than projectedbecause of a decline in funding available for capital investment in recent years.

The WWTP project is part of the 1994 LRDP buildout. The 1994 LRDP anticipated the need toreplace the existing WWTP and designated a site north of the Campus landfill expansion on the west sideof County Road 98 and south of the California Regional Primate Research Center (CRPRC) as a potentialfuture site. Following extensive review of potential sites for a replacement WWTP, UC Davis selected thecurrently proposed site, which is different from the site designated in the 1994 LRDP. The site selected forthe proposed WWTP was designated Teaching/Research Fields in the 1994 LRDP. Development of aWWTP at the proposed site would not be consistent with the land use designated in the 1994 LRDP andwould require an amendment to the 1994 LRDP to change the land use designation to Support.

The 1994 LRDP EIR is a program EIR, pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The1994 LRDP EIR analyzed the overall effects of Campus growth and facility development through 2005-06and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project impacts and cumulative impacts associatedwith that growth.

As allowed under Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, UC Davis is incorporating by referenceportions of the 1994 LRDP EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 94022005). CEQA and the CEQAGuidelines encourage the use of incorporation by reference to reduce the size of EIRs. Copies of the 1994LRDP EIR are available for inspection and review during normal business hours at the UC Davis Planningand Budget Office at 376 Mrak Hall, University of California, Davis; the Reserve Reading Room, ShieldsLibrary, UC Davis; the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E. 14th Street, Davis; and the Fairfield SuisunCommunity Library at 1150 Kentucky Street, Fairfield. The 1994 LRDP EIR consists of a public reviewdraft EIR (April 1994); technical appendices (April 1994); and final EIR, Volumes 1 and 2 (September1994).


TYPE OF EIR

Article 11 of the CEQA Guidelines discusses types of EIRs as the documents are tailored todifferent situations and intended uses. Pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is aproject EIR that examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIRfocuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the specific project. The EIRexamines all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation. In addition, this EIRupdates the following analyses in the 1994 LRDP EIR, upon which this EIR in part relies:

n hydrology and water quality (project and cumulative),n air quality (project and cumulative),n hazardous materials and public safety (project and cumulative),n biological resources (project and cumulative),n cultural resources (project and cumulative),n land use and planning (project and cumulative),n visual quality/aesthetics (project and cumulative), andn noise (project and cumulative).

As appropriate, individual future projects under the 1994 LRDP that are proposed for approvalmay rely on environmental analysis contained in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as updated by this EIR.

LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

This EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the level of significance of adverse impacts identifiedduring the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this EIR:

n Significant and unavoidable impact. An impact that exceeds the defined standards ofsignificance and that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through theimplementation of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.

n Significant impact. An impact that exceeds the defined standards of significance and that canbe eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasiblemitigation measures or alternatives.

n Potentially significant impact. A significant impact that may ultimately be determined to beless-than-significant. Potentially significant impacts also may be impacts for which there is notenough information to make a finding of less-than-significant impact; however, for the purposeof this EIR, they are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to significant impactsand require the identification of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.


n Less-than-significant impact. An impact that is adverse but that does not exceed thedefined standards of significance. In satisfaction of the requirement set forth in Section 15128of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR analyzes less-than-significant impacts in each impactsubsection of Chapter 4.

The EIR also identifies mitigation measures. Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines definesmitigation as:

(a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

(b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and itsimplementation;

(c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment;

(d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenanceoperations during the life of the action; and

(e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources orenvironments.

SCOPE OF THE EIR

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the Campus published a Notice of Preparation (NOP)and an Initial Study that were circulated to various individuals and agencies for review and comment. A firstNotice of Preparation and Tiered Initial Study were published in December 1995 when the project wasproposed to be located on the West Campus. Following a public scoping meeting after the Campusdecided to relocate the project to the South Campus, a second Notice of Preparation and a Revised InitialStudy were published in June 1996. (It should be noted that the Revised Initial Study was not tiered.) TheRevised Initial Study identified the following issues to be addressed in the draft EIR:

n land use and planning,n water,n air quality,n biological resources,n hazards,n aesthetics,n cultural resources, andn noise.


The Revised Initial Study also stated that cumulative impacts relating to the following issues wouldbe addressed in the draft EIR:

n land use,n air quality,n hazardous materials and public safety,n biological resources,n hydrology and water quality,n cultural resources, andn visual quality/aesthetics.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

The Campus has held the following public meetings to discuss the proposed project and potentialenvironmental impacts.

1. Site selection public workshop #1 - November 17, 19942. Site selection public workshop #2 - March 21, 19953. First NOP - Public Scoping Meeting - January 16, 19964. Second NOP - Second Public Scoping Meeting - July 9, 1996

The Campus prepared a second Notice of Preparation and a Revised Initial Study in June 1996. The second Notice of Preparation was circulated for agency and public review in June, July, and August1996. A copy of the second Notice of Preparation and Revised Initial Study is included in Appendix A. Comments received on the second Notice of Preparation and responses to comments are included inAppendix B.

This draft EIR is being circulated for a minimum 45-day public review from Tuesday, October 29,1996, to Thursday, December 12, 1996. The public review period concludes at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,December 12, 1996. Comments relating to the draft EIR also may be presented orally during a publichearing scheduled for:

Tuesday, December 3, 19977:00 p.m.Alpha Gamma Rho Hall, Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center, UC Davis


All comments or questions about the EIR should be addressed to:

Richard J. Meisinger, Jr.Associate Vice ChancellorPlanning and Budget OfficeUniversity of California, DavisDavis, CA 95616

Following the public hearing on this document and after the close of the written public commentperiod, responses to written and oral comments on the environmental effects of the project will be preparedand published in a supplement to this document. The final EIR (consisting of this draft EIR and thepublished supplement containing comments received on this draft EIR, responses to comments, anyrevisions to this draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan) will then be considered by The Regents ina public meeting and will be certified if it is determined to be in compliance with CEQA. Followingcertification of the EIR, the project will be considered for approval by The Regents.

MITIGATION MONITORING

CEQA requires that when a public agency makes findings based on an EIR, the public agency mustadopt a reporting or monitoring program for those measures that it has adopted or made a condition of theproject approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section21081.6). The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during projectimplementation.

The mitigation monitoring program for the project will be prepared and included with the final EIR. The mitigation monitoring program will be considered by The Regents in conjunction with review of theproposed project.

ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR

The draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:

n Chapter 1, “Introduction”. Provides an introduction and overview describing the intendeduse of the EIR and the review and certification process.

n Chapter 2, “Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures”. Summarizes environmentalimpacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, describes proposedmitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts both before and aftermitigation.


n Chapter 3, “Project Description”. Provides a detailed description of the project, includingits location, background information, major objectives, projected flow requirements, projectedwastewater characteristics and effluent quality requirements, and proposed projectcomponents.

n Chapter 4, “Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures”. Containsthe analyses of project-specific and cumulative impacts for each resource topic area identifiedfor further analysis in the Revised Initial Study (Appendix A). Each resource topic areacontains an introduction and descriptions of environmental setting and regulatory setting,standards of significance, methodology used to evaluate impacts, and recommended mitigationmeasures.

All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are recommended to The Regents as conditionsof project approval. It should be remembered, however, that these measures arerecommended and The Regents may not accept all the recommended mitigation measures.

n Chapter 5, “CEQA-Required Sections”. Provides discussions required by CEQAregarding impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, includingpotential growth-inducing impacts and a summary of cumulative impacts, significant andunavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes.

n Chapter 6, “Alternatives Analysis”. Describes the alternatives to the proposed project andtheir associated environmental impacts.

n Chapter 7, “Effects Related to the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Researchand South Campus Disposal Site”. Discloses environmental effects related to implementingthe proposed WWTP on the South Campus.

n Chapter 8, “Citations”. Lists supporting references used in the preparation of the EIR.

n Chapter 9, “List of Preparers”. Lists the UC Davis EIR authors, the technical specialistsand production team, and other key individuals who assisted in the preparation and review ofthe EIR.

Technical appendices are included at the end of this report.


Chapter 2. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

PROJECT UNDER REVIEW

This draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation ofthe UC Davis wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) replacement project. The proposed WWTP wouldbe located on approximately 20 acres on the South Campus south of Interstate 80 in Solano County. Thesite is located on the east side of Old Davis Road just past the Southern Pacific railroad tracks crossing ofOld Davis Road. The site is bordered by railroad tracks and pasture land to the north and east, theCalifornia Center for Equine Health and Performance (CCEHP) Main Compound to the east, and CCEHPpaddocks to the south. The proposed WWTP site is currently irrigated pasture used by the CCEHP.

The basic objectives of the project are as follows:

n to replace the existing outdated WWTP with a new treatment plant that is more efficient andreliable to operate,

n to replace the existing WWTP with a new design that is sufficiently flexible to meet futurestringent discharge permit requirements,

n to protect water quality and aquatic life in Putah Creek,

n to construct the plant near Central Campus but with minimal conflicts with existing and futureland uses,

n to locate the plant in an area that allows future expansion, and

n to expand wastewater treatment capacity in a cost-effective manner to accommodate growthanticipated in the 1994 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and to allow for currentlyunforeseen growth and changes through the 30-year life of the facility.

These objectives are consistent with the overall goal of the 1994 LRDP to expand and upgradeCampus environmental and physical support systems to ensure environmental health and enable Campusgrowth.


The proposed project includes decommissioning and possibly partial or complete demolition of theexisting WWTP, decommissioning and demolition of the existing sludge drying ponds, construction of theproposed WWTP, and continued discharge of all future effluent to the South Fork of Putah Creek. Chapter 3, “Project Description”, contains a detailed discussion of the proposed project.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR. Chapter 6, “Alternatives Analysis”, containsa detailed description of the alternatives analysis:

n Alternative 1. No Project/No Expansion Alternative

n Alternative 2. No Project/Upgrade and Expand Onsite Alternative

n Alternative 3. Pump to the City of Davis Water Pollution Control Plant Alternative

n Alternative 4. Construct a New WWTP at the West Campus Landfill Site Alternative

n Alternative 5. Construct a New Wetlands Treatment Facility Alternative

n Alternative 6. No Surface Discharge during Summer Months/Containment WetlandsAlternative

n Alternative 7. Upgrade and Expand Existing WWTP and Discharge to Willow Slough BypassAlternative

n Alternative 8. Construct a new WWTP at the West Campus site

KNOWN AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a summary of an EIR shall identify areas ofcontroversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public.

The project is considered controversial. Issues raised by the public during the predesign andscoping phases of the project include the following:

n continued discharge of treated effluent to the South Fork of Putah Creek,


n location of the project site in relation to the South Campus Disposal Site (SCDS)/Laboratoryfor Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) area,

n inadequate waste treatment and exposure of the public to biohazardous materials and wastes,n safety of the water in Putah Creek, and

n cumulative impacts of all the Campus discharges on the water quality of Putah Creek.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a summary of an EIR shall identify issues tobe resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.

The issues to be resolved are listed below.

n Biosolids Handling. The Campus is considering three alternatives for biosolids handling: drying beds with composting, seasonal direct land application by subsurface injection (by theCampus or a private contractor), or drying beds and landfull disposal. These alternatives arediscussed in Chapter 3.

n Influent/Effluent Line Design. The Campus is considering three alternatives for theinfluent/effluent line design: use the existing 18-inch-diameter pipe, use the existing pipe witha new lining, or replace portions or all of the pipe with a new parallel pipe.

n Effluent Outfall. The Campus is considering either using the existing outfall that dischargesto the South Fork of Putah Creek or replacing the existing outfall with a new outfall.

n Demolition of the Existing WWTP. The Campus is considering partial or completedemolition of the existing WWTP, depending on the cost of demolition and the demand for thespace.

n Final Site Configuration and Landscaping. The design of the site is considered preliminaryand conceptual. Locations and sizes of the WWTP facilities will be reviewed prior to finaldesign. The location and costs associated with landscaping the site will be reviewed as partof the final site design.

n Storm Water Discharge to Putah Creek. The Campus is evaluating several possibilities forrouting storm drainage from the site to the South Fork of Putah Creek because the SouthCampus storm drainage channel is excavated in Landfill Disposal Unit #3 and discharge ofwater through the landfill is of concern to the Campus. The options being evaluated arecapping the landfill with an impervious layer to prevent any possible contamination, lining the


channel to prevent contamination, installing a pipe to the east of the landfill area to preventcontamination, or rerouting the channel to avoid the landfill area. Rerouting the channel mayresult in the need for a new outfall into the South Fork of Putah Creek or the Campus may beable to design the new channel to connect to the existing channel.

SUMMARY TABLE

Information in the following table, Table 2-1, “Summary of Project Impacts and MitigationMeasures”, has been organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter 4. Thesummary table is arranged in five columns: (1) environmental impacts; (2) level of significance prior tomitigation; (3)1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures; (4) recommended mitigation measures and (5) levelof significance after/with mitigation. Several mitigation measures are shown where more than one mitigationmeasure is required to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Table 2-1. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 36

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 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” and in Appendix E.


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 Measure 4.1-6. Less thanSignificant

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.

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.


(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!").

(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.


Impact


prior toMitigation




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.

4.1-12(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-6.

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


(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!").

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

program to reduce pollutants of concern,including arsenic, hexavalent chromium,copper, and selenium in coolingdischarges.

(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.


Impact


prior toMitigation




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




Impact


prior toMitigation




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.

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 turn


Impact


prior toMitigation




lane.

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, inconjunction with 1994 LRDPdevelopment accommodated bythe proposed project, will exposeCampus occupants and Davisarea residents to toxic aircontaminants emitted from uses




Impact


prior toMitigation




on Campus.

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 publichealth 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 site


Impact


prior toMitigation




remediation 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.


4.3-3 Disposal of low-level radioactiveliquids in raw wastewater andWWTP effluent could pose apotential risk to public health


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

or



Impact


prior toMitigation




and the environment.4.6-6(b) The Campus shall manage radioactive waste generated by projects approved under

the 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. 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.



Impact


prior toMitigation





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,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.


Impact


prior toMitigation





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.

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.


Impact


prior toMitigation




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


Impact


prior toMitigation




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.

4.4-5 Development of the proposedWWTP would result in theconversion of approximately 20


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 preserved



Impact


prior toMitigation




acres 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.

through 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 inresponse to the specific 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 site

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




subject to this mitigation.

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


Impact


prior toMitigation




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 trunk of the trees and constructionequipment should not be parked under thetree canopies, if feasible.


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 increasein fish habitat.

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

4.4-14 Continued discharge of treatedWWTP effluent to the SouthFork of Putah Creek could result


-- 4.4-14 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-6identified in Chapter 4.1.



Impact


prior toMitigation




in acute and chronic exposure offish to elevated levels of toxicpollutants.

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 andruderal/annual grasslandhabitat to Campus-relateddevelopment and would result inthe loss of 220 acres of generalwildlife habitat for resident and




Impact


prior toMitigation




migratory 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 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 construction


Impact


prior toMitigation




schedule 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 to thePutah Creek Reserve on the West Campus will remain Campus agriculturalresearch uses but will be under land use restrictions that will ensurecropland cover types that are suitable as Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. No incompatible uses such as orchards, vineyard, or development will beallowed in the areas set aside for Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. However, normal crop rotations may periodically result in unsuitable covertypes 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 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 in


Impact


prior toMitigation




the 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.







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.







4.4-24 Cumulative development in theregion, in conjunction with theproposed WWTP and 1994


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



Impact


prior toMitigation




LRDP development, couldcontribute to the cumulative lossof VELB habitat.

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.

(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 designated


Impact


prior toMitigation




descendant.

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:

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;


Impact


prior toMitigation




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.

(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, consistent


Impact


prior toMitigation




with 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.

(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.


Impact


prior toMitigation




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 withinthe 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 1994


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).




Impact


prior toMitigation




LRDP development, wouldcontribute to a cumulative lossof cultural (prehistoric andhistoric) resources in Yolo andSolano counties.

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 1994LRDP development, couldconvert 1,207 acres of primeagricultural lands to urban uses(1,187 acres identified in the1994 LRDP EIR plus 20 acres




Impact


prior toMitigation




for 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 onthe Southern Pacific Railroad.

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

4.4-3(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 closed

4.8-1 The Campus shall retain a qualifiedacoustical consultant to provide designrecommendations that will result in soundlevels within the administration andmaintenance building from train passagesof 45 dB-Ldn or less.



Impact


prior toMitigation




windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, would normallyachieve the necessary noise attenuation.

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.

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 landfill


-- 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 South



Impact


prior toMitigation




to the groundwater and/or to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek.

Campus 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

edge of the landfill. The realignmentcould be designed to either change thepoint of discharge into the South Fork ofPutah Creek or leave it at the existinglocation.

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.




Impact


prior toMitigation




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. Project Description

PROJECT LOCATION

UC Davis

The 5,150-acre Campus is located in Yolo and Solano Counties, approximately 72 miles northeastof San Francisco, 15 miles west of the City of Sacramento, and adjacent to the City of Davis (Figure 3-1). The Campus, in general, is composed of four Campus units: the Central Campus, the South Campus, theWest Campus, and Russell Ranch (please see Figure 3-2, “Regional and Local Setting”, on page 3-5 ofthe 1994 LRDP DEIR). The “Main Campus” refers to the Central, South, and West Campus units,excluding Russell Ranch. Most of the academic and extracurricular activities occur within the CentralCampus. The Central Campus is bounded approximately by Russell Boulevard to the north, Highway 113to the west, Interstate 80 (I-80) and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the south, and 1st or A Streetto the east. The South Campus is located south of I-80 and north of the South Fork of Putah Creek. TheWest Campus is located west of Highway 113 and is bordered by Putah Creek to the south, RussellBoulevard to the north, and private property approximately 0.5 mile west of County Road 98. The Southand West Campus units are contiguous with the Central Campus and are used primarily for field teachingand research. The 1,590-acre Russell Ranch portion of the Campus lies to the west, separated from theWest Campus by approximately 1.5 miles of privately owned agricultural land. Russell Ranch was acquiredby the Campus in 1990 and is intended for use in large-scale agricultural and environmental research andthe study of sustainable agricultural practices. Russell Ranch is bordered roughly by County Road 96 onthe east, Putah Creek on the south, Covell Boulevard on the north, and Russell Boulevard on the west andnorthwest.

Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

The existing WWTP is located in the Central Campus area south and west of the intersection of LaRue Road and Bioletti Way. The existing WWTP site is surrounded by university buildings that make onsiteexpansion difficult. The existing WWTP site is bordered by La Rue Road to the north with the southernboundary running along Putah Creek Lodge Road on the banks of the Arboretum Waterway (Figure 3-2). The existing Environmental Services Facility, an old electrical substation, the mail room, and the FleetServices garage lie to the west. Putah Creek Lodge Drive, the Cole Facility, and the horse arena lie to theeast.


Four existing sludge drying ponds are associated with the existing WWTP. These ponds arelocated west of County Road 98, south of the main California Regional Primate Research Center (CRPRC)buildings, and immediately south of the former CRPRC wastewater treatment facility and holding ponds(Figure 3-3). The CRPRC package treatment plant and several associated holding ponds are in the processof being removed because the CRPRC was connected to the existing WWTP in August 1995. Some ofthe CRPRC wastewater treatment facility holding ponds are being cleaned and modified to serve as stormwater retention ponds for the new parking lot and Center for Comparative Medicine at the CRPRC.

The proposed WWTP site is located on the South Campus in Solano County. The proposed siteis located on the east side of Old Davis Road just south of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks crossing ofOld Davis Road (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). The approximately 20-acre site is used as pasture by the CaliforniaCenter for Equine Health and Performance (CCEHP) and is bordered by railroad tracks and pasture landto the north and west, the CCEHP Main Compound to the east, and CCEHP paddocks to the south. TheCCEHP is located just north of the 26-acre SCDS/LEHR that consists of property that is underinvestigation for potential historic contamination. The Putah Creek Levee Road and the South Fork ofPutah Creek lie to the south of the SCDS/LEHR.

Access to the proposed WWTP site would be from Old Davis Road using a new entry road thatwould serve the WWTP and CCEHP (Figure 3-4).

The proposed WWTP site is designated Teaching/Research Fields in the 1994 LRDP. Theproposed project includes an amendment to the 1994 LRDP to change the land use category to Support. The project also includes a mitigation measure to purchase or otherwise arrange for the long-term use ofprivately owned land east of the Campus to use as replacement pasture for the CCEHP (Figure 3-3). Thisland is currently planted in row crops, and if the land is acquired, an amendment to the 1994 LRDP wouldbe required to add the land to the Campus and designate the land use as Teaching/Research Fields in theLRDP. The LRDP amendment is included as Appendix J to this draft EIR.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The existing WWTP consists of two parallel treatment processes. A trickling filter process wasconstructed in 1949 with a design capacity of 2.16 million gallons per day (mgd), and a 2.0-mgd activatedsludge treatment process was built in 1970. The wastewater from the two processes is combined beforeit is disinfected at an effluent chlorination/dechlorination facility that was completed in 1988. The twotreatment processes have a combined hydraulic capacity of 4.16 mgd; however, because of their limitedability to treat biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), regulationsimplemented since their construction effectively reduce their combined capacity without modification ofcurrent treatment methods.


In 1995, the average annual flow was 1.56 mgd. From January 1996 to July 1996, the averagemonthly flow was approximately 1.70 mgd; the higher flows in 1996 reflect new discharges from theCampus landfill treatment system and 32 new cooling towers. With modification of current operationalpractices (e.g., polymer addition and/or filtration), the existing WWTP has the capacity to treat up to 2.0-2.5 mgd on an average monthly basis, although reliability of performance in this range would be a concern.

During the predesign phase of this project, the Campus conducted an analysis of the conditions andexisting flow and loading capacity of the WWTP. The following discussion summarizes the study aspresented in the Project Planning Guide for Campus Wastewater Treatment Plant (A/C 936053),revised September 18, 1995.

The operation of and discharges from wastewater treatment plants are regulated by various federal,state, and regional agencies. Since the 1970 expansion of the existing plant, state and federal water qualityrequirements for plant discharges have become more stringent. These requirements have resulted in a seriesof incremental changes in the treatment procedures required at the existing WWTP to properly treatwastewater.

The existing WWTP discharges secondary treated wastewater (effluent) to the South Fork of PutahCreek. Discharge requirements are very stringent, particularly in summer months, requiring effluent to meetBOD limitations of 10 mg/L (milligrams per liter) and suspended solids limitations of 10 mg/L on a monthlyaverage. The existing facilities have routinely, though not always, met these strict discharge requirementsat past and current influent loadings; however, it is likely that the plant loadings will increase over the nextfive years due to completion of current projects and connection of facilities in the West Campus area to thesewer system. These flow increases will result in the probability that the existing treatment plant, if notmodified, will be out of compliance with discharge requirements. The primary constituent of concern dueto increased loadings is suspended solids in the plant effluent. Moreover, the existing facility does not havethe capability of treating wastewater to remove ammonia. Ammonia is potentially toxic to aquatic life anda new plant would be designed to remove ammonia to less than 1 mg/L.

The existing WWTP has several site constraints that limit future flexibility and expansion. At times,odor from the plant can be detected on Campus, though complaints have been minimal. Also, the existingsite is not in an appropriate location for a wastewater treatment facility when considering the long-rangedevelopment of the Campus. Perhaps of greatest importance, however, is the condition of the existingplant. The trickling filter process was constructed in 1949, and the activated sludge process wasconstructed in 1970. Some of the equipment is reaching the end of its useful life, and extensivemodifications to the equipment would be required to continue to meet current treatment standards. Inparticular, it would be expensive to modernize equipment to provide nitrification needed to meet currentrequirements for ammonia reduction. Given the age of the existing facility and the site constraints, it wouldbe difficult to introduce new processes and expand capacity without creating an overly complicated andinefficient operation and without significant service interruptions during construction.

In a new facility, the technology and layout can be designed in an optimal configuration to providethe most efficient operation. A new facility would also provide increased flexibility for future modifications


necessary to respond to the continuing evolution of water quality standards and Campus needs. Thisincludes integration of a nitrification process to reduce ammonia, thereby reducing potential aquatic toxicity.

The Campus considered a number of project alternatives during the predesign and design phasesof the proposed project. These alternatives are described in detail in the following reports: CampusWastewater Study for University of California, Davis (HDR Engineering and West Yost & Associates1992); Predesign Report for New Wastewater Treatment Facilities, University of California, Davis(HDR Engineering in association with West Yost & Associates 1993); New Wastewater Treatment PlantSite Evaluation (West Yost & Associates 1994); the Draft and Final Reports - Reevaluation ofWastewater Treatment/Disposal Alternatives (West Yost & Associates 1995a and 1995b), andEvaluation of Biosolids Handling Alternatives for New Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Nolte andAssociates 1995a). These reports are available for review during normal office hours at the UC DavisOffice of Architects & Engineers and are incorporated by this reference.

The Campus also considered three locations on Campus and one offsite location for treatment anddisposal. The report New Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Evaluation (West Yost & Associates1994) evaluated three sites for a new plant: north of the North Fork Cutoff, north of the Campus landfill,and a different site from the project site on the South Campus north of Putah Creek and west of theSouthern Pacific Railroad tracks. The analysis compared capital cost estimates, operating cost differentials,potential odor impacts, visual impacts, and land use impacts. The Campus also considered transportingwastewater to the City of Davis for treatment and disposal.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The basic objectives of the project are as follows:

n to replace the existing outdated WWTP with a new treatment plant that is more efficient andreliable to operate,

n to replace the existing WWTP with a new design that is sufficiently flexible to meet futurestringent discharge permit requirements,

n to protect water quality and aquatic life in Putah Creek,

n to construct the plant near Central Campus yet with minimal conflicts with existing and futureuses,

n to locate the plant in an area that allows future expansion, and

n to expand wastewater treatment capacity in a cost-effective manner to accommodate growthanticipated in the 1994 LRDP and to allow for currently unforeseen growth and changesthrough the 30-year life of the facility.


SITE SELECTION

The Campus held a workshop on November 14, 1994, to discuss site alternatives for the proposedWWTP. Issues identified at the workshop included:

n alternative sites in the vicinity of the North Fork Cutoff;

n control of viruses and diseases in the wastewater effluent and sludge, including possiblewindborne contamination;

n alternatives to expanding the existing WWTP or connecting to the City of Davis WWTP; and

n odor control.

In December 1994, the Campus published an analysis of alternative WWTP sites titled NewWastewater Treatment Plant Site Evaluation (prepared by West Yost & Associates). Three potentialareas were evaluated: near the landfill (as proposed in the 1994 LRDP), near the North Fork Cutoff, andon the South Campus adjacent to the South Fork of Putah Creek. The evaluation was based on thefollowing criteria: (1) location within the 100-year floodplain, (2) proximity to the Campus edge, (3) numberof residential areas within 1,000 feet, (4) distance between new point of discharge from existing point ofdischarge, (5) off-Campus jurisdiction, (6) interference with underground irrigation facilities, (7) potentialfor water reclamation, (8) agricultural research cycle, (9) soil constraints, (10) disaster potential, and (11)visibility. Other factors evaluated included construction and operation costs and potential for odor nuisance. The site evaluation concluded that a North Fork site was both geographically and economically superiorto the landfill site while geographically superior and economically similar to the South Campus site.

In February 1995, the UC Davis Facilities and Enterprise Policy Committee (FEPC) evaluated themerits of the three North Fork sites and recommended that the Campus build the new WWTP at the sitenear Garrod Drive and Campbell Road because it had the best site access, had the least conflict withexisting adjacent Campus uses, and was the farthest from the Campus edge.

In December 1995, UC Davis published an NOP and Tiered Initial Study that evaluated theimpacts of constructing the replacement WWTP at a site on the West Campus at the intersection of GarrodDrive and Campbell Road. On January 16, 1996, the Campus held a scoping meeting on the project andreceived comments that construction and operation of a WWTP at the site would conflict with present andplanned research being conducted by the UC Davis Department of Land, Air and Water Resources(LAWR) on adjacent Campus lands. The LAWR field facility is dedicated to weather and climatemeasurements and atmospheric chemistry. The facility includes two buildings, a weather station, an airquality monitoring station, and a wet and dry atmospheric deposition station. The types of research anddata collected at the facility are greatly influenced by wind patterns, atmospheric chemical composition, andrelative humidity of the air mass near the land surface. The proposed WWTP would release ammonia,


water vapor, and other gases that would make the data from the weather station and atmosphericdeposition station unusable. The WWTP would also change the temperature and humidity of the air overthe LAWR field facility and thereby change the weather record that is used for various evaluations of long-term trends. While not necessarily perceptible, many of these changes in ambient atmospheric conditionswould be measurable at the “micrometeorological” levels at which the department conducts research. Following a review of this potential conflict and a second review of the geographic and economic factors,the proposed project site was moved to the South Campus.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site Design

Access to the proposed WWTP site would be from Old Davis Road using a new entry road thatwould serve the WWTP and CCEHP. The entire perimeter of the site would be fenced with chain-linkfencing topped with barbed wire for security. The criteria established to guide the layout of the facilities arepresented in Table 3-1. The preliminary conceptual site plan for the proposed WWTP is shown in Figure3-5. The final configuration and boundaries of structures built on the site could change from those illustratedin Figure 3-5. For example, the arrangement or number of structures could change if advanced engineeringanalysis identifies a more efficient configuration. Construction of the composting area and drying beds couldbe deferred to a future date depending on the biosolids handling option selected. However, the size of thearea illustrated in Figure 3-5 (approximately 20 acres) is the largest currently contemplated.

Projected Flow Requirements

The projected wastewater flow rates for the proposed WWTP were determined based on flowsmeasured at the existing WWTP from 1979-1990. The projected average annual daily flow for the designyear 2005 was derived by multiplying the unit flow rates by the projected Campus and resident populations. To this value, 0.1 mgd of flow was added to account for future West Campus contributions from suchsources as, but not limited to, new facilities in the airport enterprise zone or connections to facilities currentlyon septic systems. An additional 0.2 mgd was added to account for future growth and changed conditions. The projected average annual flow was 2.5 mgd (Table 3-2).

Table 3-1


Table 3-1. Site Planning and Facility Layout Criteria

OVERALL CONCEPTn Buildings clustered consistent with rural agricultural arean Administration Building located to allow operators to view plant siten Logical flow pattern - hydraulically efficient, flow not reversedn Locate high power demand processes (oxidation ditch, UV disinfection) closest to

power sourcen Align liquid stream processes linearlyn Solids handling located on rectangular portion of site

SITE CONSTRAINTSn Road and landscaped berms along southern boundary of site for California Center for

Equine Health & Performancen 50 ft (assumed until confirmed) power easement parallel to railroad tracksn Influent force main/effluent pipeline will be aligned in Old Davis Roadn Site elevation varies from about 47.5 to 44.5. The southwest quadrant of site has

highest elevationn 100-year flood elevation within levees of the South Fork of Putah Creek is

approximately 54 feet.n Electrical power service will be from campus overhead power lines east of site

ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATIONn Access is from a new road intersecting Old Davis Roadn Main plant entrance should lead directly to Administration Buildingn Sufficient looped roads to promote good circulationn Road widths and curve radii to accommodate large trucks and fire/emergency vehiclesn Minimum of two plant entrances

FUTURE EXPANSIONn Provide space for expansion of capacity in future

AESTHETICSn Landscape screening along south and east boundariesn Landscape main plant entrancen Security fencing

Source: Mingee pers. comm.


Table 3-2. Design Wastewater Flow Rates (Year 2005)

Flow Rate Value (mgd)

Average annual daily flow 2.5a

30-day average dry weather flow 2.7

Maximum month flow 2.8

Maximum day flow 3.8

Peak hour wet weather flow 6.25

Minimum month flow 1.88

Minimum day flow 1.25

a Based on total Campus population of 38,630 at 42 gallons/capita/day plus resident population of7,047 at 80 gallons/capita/day plus 0.1 mgd for West Campus and 0.2 mgd to accommodate futuregrowth and changed conditions.

Flow Definitions

n Average annual daily flow: This value is calculated by summing the daily flows for theentire year and dividing the total by the number of days in the year.

n 30-day average dry weather flow: This is the definition used in the current permit. Thisvalue is calculated by summing the daily flows for a "dry-season" month (i.e., May, June,July, August, September, or October) and dividing the total by the number of days in themonth.

Source: Nolte and Associates 1995b.


Projected Wastewater Characteristics and Effluent Quality Requirements

The projected wastewater loadings to the proposed WWTP include BOD, TSS, nitrogen, otherconstituents, and loading from unsewered areas. Other constituents of concern with respect to the designand operation of the plant and compliance with discharge requirements include alkalinity, pH, temperature,heavy metals, and organics. Recent connections to the WWTP include the CRPRC (August 1995), GrapeImportation and Clean Stock Facility (August 1995), groundwater from the UC Davis landfill groundwaterremediation project (October 1995), and discharges from approximately 30 Campus cooling towers(February 1996).

Discharge of treated effluent from the proposed WWTP would continue to be to the existinglocation at the South Fork of Putah Creek. This would require renewal or amendment of the existingNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A copy of the current NPDES permitis included in Appendix C. The effluent limits contained in the current permit are summarized in Table 3-3.

The permit for the new plant would be substantially the same as the current permit, and thefollowing requirements would likely be added.

n Ammonia concentration (in stream) would be limited to preclude acute or chronic toxicity toaquatic organisms. As a result, full nitrification on a year-round basis would be necessary.

n A requirement for filtration and total coliform 7-day median of 2.2 MPN/100 ml (mostprobable number per 100 milliliters) is likely to be added as a year-round requirement due tothe use of Putah Creek for body contact recreation and swimming.

n A discharge limit of 10 mg/L for oil and grease would be added.

n Compliance with numerical limits for pollutants included in the National Toxics Rule forCalifornia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national ambient water qualitycriteria, or federal and state drinking water standards could be required. When the revisedInland Surface Waters Plan (ISWP) is issued in approximately three years, compliance withthose limits would be required.

The anticipated effluent quality requirements to be used for design of the new plant are presented in Table3-4. The existing WWTP monitoring program is presented in Table 3-5.


Table 3-3. Summary of Major Effluent Limitations Contained in the Current NPDES Permit

The discharge of an effluent in excess of the following limits is prohibited from 1 May through 31 October:

Constituent Units30-Day

Average7-Day

Average30-DayMedian

DailyMaximum

BOD1 mg/Llbs/day2

10347

15520

----

25868

Total suspended matter mg/Llbs/day2

10347

15520

----

25868

Settleable matter ml/L -- -- -- 0.1

Total coliform organisms MPN/100 ml -- 23 500

Chlorine residual mg/L -- -- -- 0.1

The discharge of an effluent in excess of the following limits is prohibited from 1 November through 30 April:

Constituent Units30-Day

Average7-Day

Average30-DayMedian

DailyMaximum

BOD1 mg/Llbs/day2

20694

301041

----

501736

Total suspended matter mg/Llbs/day2

20694

301041

----

501736

Settleable matter ml/L -- -- -- 0.1

Total coliform organisms MPN/100 ml -- -- 23 500

Chlorine residual mg/L -- -- -- 0.1

Notes: 1 5-day, 20 degree C, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).2 Based upon a design treatment capacity of 4.2 mgd.

Additional limitations: n The discharge shall not have a pH less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5. n The 30-day average daily dry weather discharge flow shall not exceed 4.2 million gallons. n The Discharger shall use the best practicable cost-effective control technique currently available to limit

mineralization to no more than a reasonable increment. n By-pass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste is prohibited. n The discharge shall not cause the following conditions in Putah Creek: dissolved oxygen concentrations

to fall below 5.0 mg/L; visible oil, grease, scum, foam, floating or suspended matter; concentrations of anymaterials that are deleterious to human, animal, aquatic, or plant life; aesthetically undesirablediscoloration; fungus, slimes, or other objectionable growths; bottom deposits; an increase in turbidity bymore than 10% over background levels, alteration of the normal ambient pH by more than 0.5 unit, or anincrease the normal ambient temperature by more than 5 degrees F.

Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Order No. 92-040, NPDES No.CA0077895, adopted on 28 February 1992.


PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS

Decommissioning and Demolition of Existing WWTP

Upon construction of the proposed WWTP and after successful operation of the new facilities, theexisting WWTP would be decommissioned and demolished if project funding is sufficient. If the existingWWTP is not demolished, potential environmental and safety hazards would be removed and the plantwould be fenced and locked. Usable buildings on the site might be reused. For example, employeesassociated with the UC Davis solid waste program currently with offices in a trailer on the site might reusethe office building currently used by WWTP staff. After decommissioning, the site would be tested andevaluated to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials and to identify appropriate handlingand disposal methods. All or a portion of the existing buildings and structures may be demolished, and thedebris removed from the site. In any case, the existing influent pump station would remain. Due to thedepth of the facilities (up to 25 feet deep), some foundations and subsurface structures deeper than 6 feetmay be abandoned in place. Underground utilities also would be disconnected and abandoned in place.

Decommissioning and Demolition of the Existing Sludge Drying Ponds

The existing sludge drying ponds located south of the CRPRC are proposed to be decommissionedand demolished. The ponds would be allowed to dry, and the dried sludge would be tested to determinesuitability for reuse, in accordance with the applicable regulations. Depending on the test results, the driedsludge would be sent to the Campus landfill or transported to a permitted landfill for disposal. After thesludge is removed, the ponds would be backfilled, planted with grasses, and left fallow.

Construction of the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant

This section includes information provided by Nolte and Associates, the consultant for design ofthe proposed WWTP. Additional information about the design can be found in the University ofCalifornia, Davis Campus Wastewater Treatment Plant Concept Design Report prepared by Nolteand Associates (1995b). This report is incorporated by reference, and copies of the report are on file atthe Office of Architects and Engineers, University of California, Davis.

The proposed WWTP would be designed for an average annual flow of 2.5 mgd and a peak-hourwet weather flow of 6.25 mgd. Wastewater would be treated to an advanced secondary level at the newplant. Treatment processes were selected to meet anticipated requirements for discharge to the South Forkof Putah Creek. The basic design elements in the wastewater treatment process, in sequence, include thefollowing (these are further described in the following sections):

n influent sewage line from the existing pump station to the headworks,n preliminary treatment at the headworks,n secondary treatment using oxidation ditch technology,n advanced treatment by sand filtration,n disinfection by an ultraviolet (UV) light process,n effluent line to the South Fork of Putah Creek,


Table 3-4. Anticipated Effluent Quality Requirements for Design

Constituent Unit30-DayAverage

7-DayAverage

30-DayMedian

DailyMaximum

Flow, ADWF mgd 2.7

BOD5 mg/L 10 15 25

TSS mg/L 10 15 25

Ammonia mg/L < 1

Oil and grease mg/L 10

Settleable matter ml/L 0.1

Total coliform MPN/100 ml < 2.2 23

Chlorine residual mg/L 0.1

Notes:

ADWF = average dry weather flow.BOD5 = five-day biochemical oxygen demand.MPN = most probable number.

Source: Nolte and Associates 1995b.

WWTP Replacement Project Draft EIRUniversity of California, Davis October 1996

Table 3-5. UC Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Program

Constituent Sample Type Required Frequency Actual Frequency

Effluent Monitoring

20°C BOD5 24 hr composite Weekly Weekly

Total Suspended Solids 24 hr composite Weekly Weekly

Settleable Matter Grab Daily Daily

Temperature Grab Daily

Ammonia Grab 1-3 per week

Specific Conductivity Grab Monthly 2 per month

pH Grab Daily Daily

Total Coliform Organisms Grab Weekly Weekly

Chlorine Residual Grab Daily Daily

Total Chromium 24 hr composite Weekly Weekly

Hexavalent Chromium 24 hr composite Weekly

Flow Measurement Daily Daily

Influent Monitoring

20°C BOD5 24 hr composite Monthly Weekly

Total Suspended Solids 24 hr composite Monthly Weekly

Settleable Matter Grab Daily

Temperature Grab Daily

Ammonia Grab 1-3 per week

Total Chromium 24 hr composite Weekly

Hexavalent Chromium 24 hr composite Weekly

Receiving Water Monitoring R1 & R2

Dissolved oxygen Grab Weekly Weekly

pH Grab Weekly Weekly

Turbidity Grab Weekly Weekly

Temperature Grab Weekly Weekly

20°C BOD5 Grab Weekly

Visible oil, grease, scum, floating orsuspended material

Observation Weekly Weekly

Materials deleterious to human, animal,aquatic, or plant life

Observation Weekly Weekly

WWTP Replacement Project Draft EIRUniversity of California, Davis October 1996

Table 3-5. UC Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring Program

Constituent Sample Type Required Frequency Actual FrequencyAesthetically undesirable discoloration Observation Weekly Weekly

Fungus, slimes, objectionable growths Observation Weekly Weekly

Bottom Deposits Observation Weekly Weekly

Sludge Drying Beds and Sludge Monitoring

Freeboard Observation Monthly Monthly

Quantity Discharged Measurement Daily Daily

Quantity Removed Measurement Daily Daily

Title 22 Metals, plus Fe Composite Annually Annually

Pathogens Grab Annually

Nitrogen Grab Annually

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

% Solids Grab Annually

Sludge Beds Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater Elevation Measurement Quarterly Monthly

Electrical Conductivity Grab Quarterly Quarterly

pH Grab Quarterly Quarterly

Chemical oxygen demand Grab Quarterly Quarterly

Total Coliform Organisms Grab Quarterly

Total Suspended Solids Grab Quarterly

Standard Minerals Grab Quarterly

EPA 601 Constituents Grab Annually

EPA 602 Constituents Grab Annually

Chloride, Sulfate, Nitrate as NO3, Hardness,Alkalinity

Grab Quarterly


n biosolids handling, andn support facilities.

Influent Sewage Line from the Existing Pump Station to the Headworks

Wastewater generated on the Campus would continue to flow to the existing influent pump stationlocated on the north side of the existing plant site. The pump station would be upgraded with new pumpsand ventilation equipment. The influent would be pumped south to the proposed site using either the existing18-inch-diameter underground pipe or a new pipe constructed parallel to the existing pipe. Temporaryconstruction activities could include constructing a new pipeline over the Arboretum Waterway within theexisting road crossing south of the old WWTP and trenching and excavating along the existing easementon the west side of Old Davis Road. Just north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks the pipe would headeast, be installed in the existing utility culvert under the railroad tracks, and connect to the proposedheadworks. The Campus is considering three alternatives for the influent/effluent line design: use the existing18-inch-diameter pipe, use the existing pipe with a new lining, or replace portions or all of the pipe with anew parallel pipe.

Preliminary Treatment at the Headworks

Wastewater entering WWTPs contains materials such as large solids, rags, plastics, abrasive grit,and offensive smelling constituents. The primary function of the headworks is to provide preliminarytreatment consisting of odor control and solids grinding to prepare the wastewater for further treatment. Additional functions provided in the headworks area include influent flow metering, septage receivingstation, and plant wastewater pump station. To deal with potential hydrogen sulfide odors in thewastewater, a sodium hypochlorite feed system would be provided to chlorinate the incoming wastewaterat the proposed WWTP headworks.

Secondary Treatment Using Oxidation Ditch Technology

After treatment at the headworks, the wastewater would flow to the oxidation ditch. The oxidationditch treatment process has the following features:

n treatment flexibility for variable organic loadings, obtained by the use of aerators to meet morerestrictive discharge requirements; and

n modular design that would facilitate future expansion, if required.

The oxidation ditch treatment process uses an aeration basin to reduce the BOD and providenitrification (oxidation of ammonia to nitrate), and, if necessary, denitrification (reduction of nitrate tonitrogen gas). Aeration basins are designed to hold and treat wastewater for approximately 24 hours whilemechanical aerators mix, aerate, and circulate the water. After this treatment, the water is sent to theclarifiers to separate microorganisms from treated water.


Advanced Treatment by Sand Filtration

After aeration and clarification, the water would be passed through sand filters to removesuspended solids prior to disinfection and disposal. Chemicals such as aluminum sulfate and polymers canbe added to coagulate solids and condition the water prior to filtration. The filters will be designed toprocess the peak-hour wet weather flow of 6.25 mgd while producing an effluent of suitable quality toachieve the level of disinfection required.

Disinfection by an Ultraviolet Light Process

Disinfection at the proposed WWTP would be provided by a UV light reactor disinfection system. The proposed UV disinfection facility will provide disinfection for the peak-hour wet weather flow of 6.25mgd. Preliminary design criteria were developed for the proposed UV disinfection facility based on theCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 22 standards for UV disinfection for coliform organisms at waterreclamation facilities. Similar standards are anticipated as discharge limits in the future NPDES permit forthis project, which require a 7-day median of 2.2 MPN/100 ml and a maximum of 23 MPN/100 ml fortotal coliform organisms.

The design of the UV disinfection facility is based on the National Water Research Institute(NWRI) guidelines for wastewater reclamation. These guidelines require that the wastewater beingdisinfected has received secondary treatment, has been coagulated and filtered, and will meet the anticipateddischarge standards for total coliform organisms. The NWRI guidelines also require the UV dose to beachieved with a minimum of three UV light banks in series. These guidelines will be incorporated into thedesign criteria for the disinfection system.

Effluent Line to the South Fork of Putah Creek

The Campus is currently discharging treated effluent from the existing WWTP to the South Forkof Putah Creek just upstream of Old Davis Road. Discharge of effluent from the proposed WWTP wouldcontinue to be at this location; however, the Campus is considering either using the existing line and outfallthat discharges to the South Fork of Putah Creek or replacing the existing line and/or outfall. Thewastewater will be treated at the proposed WWTP and a line will be installed to cross Old Davis Road andconnect to the existing effluent line west of Old Davis Road.


Biosolids Handling

Biosolids are a primary organic solid product produced by wastewater treatment processes thatcan be either disposed of in an appropriate landfill or beneficially recycled, depending on the design of thetreatment process (see Attachment B to Appendix A). The Campus is currently evaluating variousalternatives for handling the biosolids that would be produced at the proposed WWTP. The alternativesbeing considered include either landfill disposal or producing Class A or Class B biosolids (per EPA 40Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 503 regulations). Class A biosolids undergo extended treatment,such as composting or heat treatment, to kill pathogens to allow for recycling without restrictions. ClassB biosolids undergo treatment to reduce, but not totally eliminate, pathogens to allow for recycling withcertain restrictions.

The three alternatives the Campus is considering for biosolids handling all begin with one- to two-year storage of biosolids in solids storage basins (SSBs) followed by either:

n Option A - drying beds with composting (Class A biosolids),

n Option B - seasonal direct land application by subsurface injection (Class B biosolids), or

n Option C - drying beds and landfill disposal (Class B biosolids would be produced but wouldnot be required).

Based on an average design flow of 2.5 mgd and a BOD5 (five-day BOD) loading of 3,810 poundsper day (lbs/day), the estimated average waste activated sludge (WAS) production rate from the oxidationditch is 2,858 lbs/day on a dry solids basis. WAS from the oxidation ditch would be pumped to the SSBswhere the sludge would be stored, thickened, and stabilized. Aerators on the surface of the basins wouldbe provided to keep the upper liquid layer aerobic, minimizing the release of odors. Biosolids would beremoved with a pontoon mounted dredge which allows removal of the thickened layer of solids at the SSBbottom.

To prevent seepage to the surrounding soil, the SSBs would be lined with a fabric-reinforced,synthetic membrane with a thickness of 36 millimeters (known by the trade name Hypalon). This linerwould prevent seepage and provide interior-slope protection against erosion. Hypalon is a tough fabricdesigned specifically for such impoundments. Factory seams are made under strict quality-control measuresand are field-tested prior to acceptance for use. The liner would be warranteed from the manufacturer fora design life of 20 years (Mingee pers. comm.). Asphalt concrete would be placed over the membrane onthe bottom and about one-third of the way up the side slopes to protect the membrane during dredgingoperations. Two SSBs would be provided so that one could be emptied and inspected when emptied forliner integrity while the other remains in operation. Additional protection of groundwater quality would beprovided by the fact that the SSBs would be no more than approximately 15 feet below the surface andwell above the seasonal groundwater levels of 30 to 70 feet below the surface.


For Option A (composting), solids from the SSBs would be dried at the drying beds to about 15to 20% solids content and transported to a 1.2-acre compost pad for composting. The composting facilitywould be located at the treatment plant site. This treatment method produces a Class A biosolids productwhich can be applied to land without restrictions (see Attachment B to Appendix A). Runoff from thecompost pad would be collected and returned to the treatment plant at a slow rate for treatment. Alternatively, an outside contractor may be retained and would do composting offsite.

For Option B (seasonal direct land application by subsurface injection), solids dredged from thebottom of the SSBs would be transported to a site either on or off-Campus. Drying beds and thecomposting pad would not be required under this alternative. These semi-liquid biosolids would meet ClassB and could be used with certain restrictions (see Attachment B to Appendix A). They would be appliedto agricultural land using special equipment that injects the liquid below the ground surface. An animalfodder crop, such as hay or alfalfa, would be grown on the land after application of the biosolids to makeuse of the fertilizer content of the biosolids. The mature crop would later be harvested. Sufficient landwould be provided to allow for rotation of the application, growing and harvesting steps of the process, anddisposal of the annual production of biosolids from the plant. Two suboptions exist for the implementationof this biosolids handling alternative:

1. Campus owned and operated. Biosolids would be applied to Campus property. The Campuswould obtain the permit and operate and control the application, growing, and harvestingprocesses.

2. Contractor owned and operated. The Campus would contract with a specialty biosolidsdisposal firm with applicable regulatory permits to remove the biosolids from the treatment plantfor a fee.

For Option C (landfilling), solids would be dried at the drying beds and transported to a permittedlandfill for disposal. Although the biosolids would meet Class B, it is not required under this option. Disposal of biosolids in landfills is subject to the regulations of the California Integrated Waste ManagementBoard (CIWMB) and the regional water quality control boards. Limits for individual constituents vary ona case-by-case basis depending on the individual landfill site characteristics. Biosolids must be tested withan extraction test to simulate conditions in a landfill. The Campus landfill currently cannot accept theWWTP biosolids because of limits on manganese; however, two nearby landfills (B&J landfill nearVacaville and the Yolo County landfill) can accept biosolids subject to acceptable characterization testresults.

Support Facilities

Support facilities include buildings, local extension of utilities, water systems, and chlorinationequipment. The staff at the existing WWTP, employees associated with UC Davis’ solid waste program,and up to five additional employees would be housed at the new facility. To house related administrative,laboratory, and maintenance functions, an administrative/maintenance building of approximately 6,000


square feet would be constructed. If the employees affiliated with the solid waste program remain at theexisting WWTP, the new building may be smaller.

Three water systems would be provided at the proposed WWTP site:

n Potable water for use in the administration building and for emergency eyewash and showerstations; for fire sprinklers and hydrants; and for other locations, as required.

n Non-potable water for washdown water inside buildings and similar uses.

n Treated effluent for structure and outside equipment washdown and for irrigation. Treatedeffluent would have chlorine added to it to maintain a residual in the distribution system.

Chlorine solution would be provided in the form of liquid sodium hypochlorite for various uses atthe plant, including pre-chlorination of influent (needed at the influent pumping station at the existing WWTPand the headworks at the proposed WWTP), chlorination of return activated sludge (needed to killundesirable organisms), chlorination of filter influent (needed to control bacterial growth inside the filter),and chlorination of non-potable water.

The project includes local extension of adjacent utilities, such as communications and water. Theexisting overhead electrical conductors may need to be upgraded; however, the overall electrical capacityof the Campus needs no improvement because of this project. Onsite parking, roads, and screen plantingswould be provided.

Storm drainage for the site is still being analyzed and designed. It is anticipated that storm drainagethat does not come into contact with water or solids treatment facilities will ultimately be discharged to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek. The Campus is evaluating several possibilities for routing storm drainage fromthe site to the South Fork of Putah Creek because the South Campus storm drainage channel is excavatedin Landfill Disposal Unit #3 and discharge of water through the landfill is of concern to the Campus. Theoptions being evaluated are capping the landfill with an impervious layer to prevent any possiblecontamination, lining the channel to prevent contamination, installing a pipe through the landfill area toprevent contamination, or rerouting the channel to avoid the landfill area. Rerouting the channel may resultin the need for a new outfall into the South Fork of Putah Creek or the Campus may be able to design thenew channel to connect to the existing channel.


PROJECT SCHEDULE

Preliminary design of the proposed WWTP began in 1994. Construction is anticipated to beginin 1997 or 1998 with completion in 1999.

APPROVAL PROCESS

The proposed project will be reviewed by various federal, state, and local agencies that will use theenvironmental document to issue permits and evaluate compliance of the project with statutory andregulatory requirements. It is anticipated that the following agencies and actions may be involved in projectapproval and implementation.

n The Regents of the University of California would need to approve design plans and fundingfor the project. Final approval would include amending the 1994 LRDP to reflect a change inland use designation at the proposed WWTP site from Teaching and Research Fields toSupport and designating the land to be acquired as Teaching and Research Fields and OpenSpace Teaching and Research (Putah Creek). Authority to approve subsequent modificationsto the project, the CEQA review, or proposed mitigation measures will be delegated to theCampus.

n The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) would need to issuea waste discharge requirements/NPDES permit for the proposed WWTP.

n The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (AQMD) would need to review the projectfor conformity with its Air Quality Management Plan and would need to issue an authority toconstruct and permit to operate for the proposed WWTP.

n The University contractor will be required to obtain all applicable construction permits. Examples may include an encroachment permit from the California Department ofTransportation (Caltrans) if any work is carried out within Caltrans’ right-of-way (Caltrans mayalso require traffic control at Old Davis Road during construction), or an encroachment permitfrom the Solano County Transportation Department to install the pipeline under Old DavisRoad.

n If composting of biosolids is included as part of the final project design, the Solano CountyDepartment of Environmental Management (acting as the solid waste local enforcement agency)may need to issue a solid waste facility permit (SWFP).

n If a SWFP is required for the composting component of the final project design, theCIWMB would become a responsible agency for the EIR.


n The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) would need to review the proposedproject to determine any impact on fish and wildlife habitat; a streambed alteration agreementpursuant to Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code may be required for the project.

n The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) may need to review the proposed project ifthere are any impacts on waters of the United States.

Documents

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ... - UC Davis: HomeDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPLACEMENT PROJECT University of California, Davis State Clearinghouse