CALIFORNIA REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UC DAVIS

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, UC DAVIS FINAL TIERED FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH. NO Prepared for Office of Resource Management and Planning 376 Mrak Hall University of California One Shields Avenue Davis, California December 2001 URS Corporation th Street, Suite 200 Oakland, California

2 Introduction... Summary Mitigation Comments References List TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 ONE Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report Format of the Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 TWO of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section 3 THREE Monitoring and Reporting Program Section 4 FOUR and Responses to Comments Section 5 FIVE Section 6 SIX of Preparers Lead Agency Final Environmental Impact Report Authors Tables 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures In the Draft EIR 3-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK i

3 1. Section 1 ONE Introduction SECTIONONE Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the University of California (UC) Procedures for Implementing CEQA, The University of California at Davis (UC Davis or campus) is required, after completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies that have legal jurisdiction with respect to the proposed projects, and to provide the general public with opportunities to comment on the Draft EIR. UC Davis is also required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to agency and public comments received on the Draft EIR for the California Regional Primate Research Center Improvement Projects (CRPRC), UC Davis. The Draft EIR was issued for public review on August 31, The public review period lasted from August 31, 2001 through October 15, UC Davis held a public hearing on September 26, 2001, to receive comments on the Draft EIR. A court reporter prepared a transcript of the meeting. This document and the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR. The Draft EIR is hereby incorporated by reference. Copies of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR are available during normal operating hours at the UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning, 376 Mrak Hall on the UC Davis campus; at Reserves in Shields Library on the UC Davis campus; at the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E. 14th Street, Davis; at the Vacaville Public Library, 1020 Ulatis Drive, Vacaville; and online at The Draft and Final EIRs include extensive references to the 1994 UC Davis Long Range Development Plan (1994 LRDP) and the 1994 LRDP EIR. The 1994 LRDP was designed to accommodate projected campus population growth and facilities development through , and the 1994 LRDP EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of that growth and development. As allowed under Section of the CEQA Guidelines and as stated in the Draft EIR, UC Davis is incorporating by reference portions of the 1994 LRDP EIR (State Clearinghouse Number ). Copies of the 1994 LRDP, 1994 LRDP EIR, and all documents that revise and amend these documents are available at the locations listed above. As a public agency principally responsible for approving or carrying out the proposed project, the University of California is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of this environmental document and approving the proposed project. Approval for this project has been delegated to the campus by The Regents and will be considered by the Facilities and Enterprise Policy Committee. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT A Final EIR is required to include the Draft EIR (which has been incorporated into this document by reference), copies of comments received during public review of the Draft EIR, a list of persons or entities commenting on the Draft EIR, and responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the Final EIR. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 1-1

4 SECTIONONE Introduction Section 2, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, lists the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed projects, the level of significance of impacts prior to mitigation, project-specific mitigation measures that are recommended for the projects, and the level of significance of the impacts after mitigation. Section 3, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, presents the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed projects. Section 4, Comments and Responses to Comments, contains a list of all agencies and persons who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. This section also contains the comment letters followed by responses to comments. Each comment letter has been given an identifying letter, and each comment within a letter has been given a number. Responses are numbered to correspond to the appropriate comment. Where appropriate, responses are cross-referenced between letters. This section also includes the transcript from the public hearing and responses to comments received at that hearing. Section 5, References, lists supporting and reference sources used in the preparation of the Final EIR. Section 6, List of Preparers, presents the UC Davis authors, the technical specialists and consultants, the production team, and other key individuals who assisted in the preparation and review of the Final EIR. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 1-2

5 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2. Section 2 TWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 provides an overview of the environmental impact analyses contained in Section 3 of the Focused Tiered Draft EIR. The summary table presents (1) environmental impacts, (2) their level of significance prior to mitigation, (3) project-specific mitigation measures, and (4) the level of significance with mitigation. There was a reporting error in Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR, in the Focused Tiered Draft EIR. Table ES-1 reported No mitigation required for Impact This was inconsistent with the text of Section 3 of the Draft EIR. Page 3-30 of the Draft EIR notes that although Impact would be less than significant, Mitigation Measure would be implemented to further reduce this less-than-significant impact. Table 2-1 includes Mitigation Measure for Impact 3.1-3, and renumbers the mitigation measure for Impact These corrections make Table ES-1 consistent with the environmental impact analyses contained in Section 3 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the text of Mitigation Measures and has been revised to clarify the measures and strengthen enforcement and monitoring of these mitigation measures. In all places, the word would has been replaced with shall or will. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-1

6 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact 3.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed projects would increase the number of laboratory animals at UC Davis, thereby increasing the risk of animal bites, escapes, and disease transmission to CRPRC staff and employees as well as to university community and the public. With the continued implementation of control measures currently in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant Stormwater runoff from the field corrals could potentially affect groundwater resources in the project area, and thereby affect public health. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS No mitigation required. LS Stormwater runoff from the field corrals could potentially affect surface water resources in the area and thereby affect public health and wildlife. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant. LS No mitigation required. To further reduce the impact, the Campus will test the water in the field corral stormwater retention basin to assure that no macaque-specific viral agents are detectable by culture. If viruses are detected, appropriate measures will be taken to exclude exposure to wildlife and disinfect the water to eliminate other pathways. LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-2

7 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact The construction of the stormwater detention basin could result in outbreaks of avian botulism. This impact is considered potentially significant The proposed projects would indirectly lead to an increase in the volume and load of hazardous and biohazardous materials that are discharged to the wastewater treatment plant and thus lead to an increase in exposure for waste management personnel and the public. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant Implementation of the proposed projects could indirectly lead to an increase in biohazardous materials use at UC Davis that could expose campus occupants and the public to potential health or safety risks. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures PS The Campus will implement a number of management practices at the stormwater detention basin including but not limited to, the following: The Campus will monitor the water levels and drain down the water before the advent of warm weather as necessary. The Campus will clean up the edge areas of the basin of decaying vegetation and carcasses as necessary. It will also control flies. Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-3

8 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact The proposed projects could indirectly lead to an increase in the generation of biohazardous waste at UC Davis that could expose campus occupants to potential health or safety risks. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered less than significant The proposed projects could lead to an increase in radioactive material use at UC Davis which could expose campus occupants to potential health or safety risks. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS No additional mitigation required. LS Due to prior implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, this impact is considered to be less than significant Implementation of the proposed projects would lead to an increase in the generation of radioactive waste at UC Davis that could expose campus occupants to potential health or safety risks. LS No additional mitigation required. LS Due to prior implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, this impact is considered to be less than significant. 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-4

9 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact Implementation of the proposed projects could indirectly lead to an increase in hazardous chemical use at UC Davis that could expose campus occupants and the public to potential health or safety risks. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant Implementation of the proposed projects could indirectly lead to an increase in the generation of hazardous chemical waste at UC Davis that could expose campus occupants to potential health or safety risks. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant Hazardous materials used at the CRPRC may be inadvertently released to the sewer or disposed of with non-hazardous solid waste. With the continued implementation of control programs in place, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS No additional mitigation required. LS LS No additional mitigation required. LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-5

10 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation Increased use of biohazardous materials and research animals related to cumulative development in the region would increase the number of people exposed to health hazards associated with such use. The proposed projects would contribute to, but would not exceed, the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. SU 2 No additional mitigation required for the proposed project. No additional mitigation available for the regional cumulative impact. SU 2 This impact is considered significant and unavoidable because the University cannot guarantee that additional biohazardous materials and research animals used in the Davis area by entities other than the University would be managed safely Implementation of the proposed projects, in conjunction with the development included in the 1994 LRDP and other development in the region that generates biohazardous waste, would place an additional load on available biohazardous waste management facilities. This impact is considered to be less than significant. LS No mitigation required. LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-6

11 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation Increased use of radioactive materials related to the proposed projects, the development included in the 1994 LRDP, and other development in the region would increase the number of people exposed to health hazards associated with the use of radioisotopes. The projects would contribute to, but would not exceed, the significant and unavoidable impact previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. SU 2 No additional mitigation required for the proposed project. No additional mitigation available for the regional cumulative impact. SU Implementation of the proposed projects, in conjunction with the development included in the 1994 LRDP, and other development in the region that generates radioactive waste, would place an additional load on radioactive waste management facilities. The proposed projects would contribute to, but would not exceed, the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. SU 2 No additional mitigation required for the proposed project. No additional mitigation available for the regional cumulative impact. SU Increased use of hazardous chemical materials related to the proposed projects, the development included in the 1994 LRDP, and development in the region would increase the number of people exposed to health hazards associated with such use. The proposed projects would contribute to, but would not exceed, the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. SU 2 No additional mitigation required for the proposed project. No additional mitigation available for the regional cumulative impact. SU 2 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-7

12 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, including the proposed projects and other developments in the region that generate hazardous chemical waste, could place an additional load on hazardous waste management facilities. The proposed projects would contribute to, but would not exceed, the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. SU 2 No additional mitigation required for the proposed projects. No additional mitigation available for the regional cumulative impact. SU 2 Because the University cannot guarantee that other government entities would take steps to mitigate this impact within other jurisdictions, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 3.2 Land Use Compatibility The proposed projects would result in construction and operational air emissions, which could affect adjacent land uses. This impact is considered less than significant. LS No mitigation required. LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-8

13 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact Project implementation could result in vehicular traffic that could potentially affect pedestrian safety. This impact is considered potentially significant Construction of the proposed improvements could result in elevated noise levels at off-site locations. This impact is considered potentially significant. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures PS Trucks that haul dirt from the stormwater detention basin shall not use CR 98 in front of GVCC and will have limited use of the County Road 98 and Russell Boulevard intersection. A truck access road parallel to CR 98 will be constructed from the basin site to the CRPRC entrance on the interior of the CRPRC fence line. From the CRPRC entrance, trucks will be required to turn right (south on CR 98) toward I-80 for destinations south of the CRPRC. Trucks must use Hutchison Drive to Highway 113 for destinations east and north of the CRPRC. For destinations west of the CRPRC, trucks will utilize the north gate and turn west on Russell Boulevard. For destinations north of the CRPRC and near County Road 98, between Davis and Woodland, trucks will turn east onto Russell Boulevard and then north on County Road 98. Trucks will use the same routes when returning to the CRPRC for additional loads. PS 3.2-2(a) Construction activities associated with the field corral retention basin and the stormwater detention basin will be conducted between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. No excavation or grading will be conducted on the weekends (b) The construction contractor will be directed to complete high noise generating activities as quickly as possible. Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-9

14 SECTIONTWO Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE DRAFT EIR Impact The proposed projects would add new facilities to the project site which could change visual conditions. This impact is considered to be less than significant. 3.3 Energy Implementation of the proposed projects would increase demand for electricity and related service systems. Electrical facilities would be in place to serve the proposed projects. This is considered a less-thansignificant impact Cumulative development in the Davis area, including development of the proposed projects in conjunction with development included in 1994 LRDP EIR as amended, would result in increased demand for use of electricity and related service systems. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 1 Mitigation Measures Level of Significance Following Mitigation 1 LS No mitigation required. LS LS No mitigation required. LS LS No mitigation required. LS 1 LS = Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant, Unavoidable 2 Impacts are significant on a cumulative level only; project level impacts will be less than significant X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 2-10

15 3. Section 3 THREE Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTIONTHREE Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires that a lead agency establish a program for monitoring and reporting on mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), set forth in Table 3-1, is designed to ensure that, if the proposed projects are approved, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft and Final EIRs will be implemented. Along with this project-specific MMRP, these Projects incorporate relevant 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, including 1997 WWTP EIR mitigation measures, previously adopted by The Regents. The relevant mitigation measures are presented in the Draft EIR and the April 2000 Initial Study included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Compliance with the 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures during the implementation of the CRPRC improvement projects will be monitored pursuant to the 1994 LRDP EIR monitoring program previously adopted by The Regents. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 3-1

16 SECTIONTHREE Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Table 3-1 California Regional Primate Research Center Improvement Projects, UC Davis Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring and Reporting Mitigation Measure Procedure Mitigation Timing Mitigation Responsibility The Campus will test the water in the field corral stormwater retention basin to assure that no macaquespecific viral agent are detectable by culture. If viruses are detected, appropriate measures will be taken to exclude exposure to wildlife and disinfect the water to eliminate other pathways The Campus will implement a number of management practices at the stormwater detention basin including, but not limited to, the following: The Campus will monitor the water levels and drain down the water before the advent of warm weather as necessary. The Campus will clean up the edge areas of the basin of decaying vegetation and carcasses as necessary. It will also control flies. CRPRC Staff will create a schedule, protocol, and reporting database for the CRPRC maintenance staff for testing water in the field corral stormwater retention basin. The Campus Grounds Division and ORMP will design and implement a management plan for the stormwater detention basin. Prior to completion of construction of the stormwater retention basin Prior to completion of construction of the stormwater detention basin CRPRC and Office of Resource Management and Planning (ORMP) Campus Grounds Division and ORMP X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 3-2

17 SECTIONTHREE Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 3-1 (continued) California Regional Primate Research Center Improvement Projects, UC Davis Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Trucks that haul dirt from the stormwater detention basin shall not use CR 98 in front of GVCC and will have limited use of the County Road 98 and Russell Boulevard intersection. A truck access road parallel to CR 98 will be constructed from the basin site to the CRPRC entrance on the interior of the CRPRC fence line. From the CRPRC entrance, trucks will be required to turn right (south on CR 98) toward I-80 for destinations south of the CRPRC. Trucks must use Hutchison Drive to Highway 113 for destinations east and north of the CRPRC. For destinations west of the CRPRC, trucks will utilize the north gate and turn west on Russell Boulevard. For destinations north of the CRPRC and near County Road 98, between Davis and Woodland, trucks will turn east onto Russell Boulevard and then north on County Road 98. Trucks will be required to use the same routes when returning to the CRPRC for additional loads (a) Construction activities associated with the field corral retention basin and the stormwater detention basin will be conducted between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. No excavation or grading will be conducted on the weekends. (b) The construction contractor will be directed to complete high noise generating activities as quickly as possible Monitoring and Reporting Procedure Mitigation Timing Mitigation Responsibility The construction contract will include requirements for the construction contractor to design and construct the truck access road that will be parallel to CR 98. The contract will also require the contractor to prepare a construction traffic management plan and to educate truck drivers about appropriate routes to drive. Copies of the relevant portions of the construction contract will be sent to ORMP. The construction contract will include requirements for the construction contractor to comply with the construction schedule set forth in the mitigation measure. Field inspections will be conducted during construction. Copies of the relevant portions of the construction contract will be sent to ORMP. The truck access road parallel to CR 98 will be constructed prior to excavation of the stormwater detention basin. The identified truck routes will be used throughout excavation of the stormwater detention basin. During construction contract finalization. The schedule, created prior to the start of construction, will be used during construction. ORMP, Architects and Engineers and the construction contractor. ORMP, Architects and Engineers, and the construction contractor. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 3-3

18 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments 4. Section 4 FOUR Comments and Responses to Comments Seven written comment letters were received during the public and agency comment period on the Draft EIR. These letters and the public hearing transcript are included in this section. All agencies and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR are listed below. List of Agencies and Individuals Commenting on the Draft EIR Letter Date Agency/Individual A October 16, 2001 Governor s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse B September 12, 2001 Department of Toxic Substances Control Guenther W. Moskat C October 18, 2001 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Christine Palisoc D October 15, 2001 Animal Protection Institute/ Law Office of J. William Yeates Keith G. Wagner E October 12, 2001 In Defense of Animals Elliot M. Katz F October 4, 2001 Animal Protection Institute/ Law Office of J. William Yeates Keith G. Wagner G October 10, 2001 Wesley R. Wooden Public Hearing on September 26, 2001 No comments were received at the Public Hearing. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-1

19 Comment Letter-A 1

20 Comment Letter-A (cont d)

21 Comment Letter-A (cont d)

22 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter A Response to Comment A-1. This letter indicates that UC Davis has met the requirements with respect to the review of the Draft EIR for the California Regional Primate Research Center Improvement Projects, UC Davis. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-3

23 Comment Letter-B 1

24 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter B-California Department of Toxic Substances Control Response to Comment B-1. Comment noted. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-5

25 Comment Letter-C 1

26 Comment Letter-C (cont d) 1 2

27 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter C-California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Response to Comment C-1. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would be covered under the General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction for the entire Davis campus. In compliance with the permit, and as correctly noted by the commenter, a New Construction Project Information Form would be submitted for the proposed project before construction begins. In addition, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that includes site-specific Best Management Practices would be prepared and implemented. Response to Comment C-2. Comment noted. Dewatering activities are not anticipated to occur as part of the proposed project. In addition, it is campus policy to discharge water used in pipeline testing/flushing to the campus sewer system, rather than to the storm drainage system. X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-7

28 Comment Letter-D

29 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

30 Comment Letter-D (cont d) 1 2

31 Comment Letter-D (cont d) 3

32 Comment Letter-D (cont d) 4 5

33 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

34 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

35 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

36 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

37 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

38 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

39 Comment Letter-D (cont d) 19

40 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

41 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

42 Comment Letter-D (cont d)

43 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments Response to Comment Letter D-Animal Protection Institute/Law Office of J. William Yeates Response to Comment D-1. The Draft EIR does not utilize the 1994 LRDP to analyze project level impacts nor does it utilize the findings of the 1994 LRDP EIR to find a project-level impact less than significant. Project-level impacts with respect to hazardous materials are analyzed and discussed on pages 3-23 to 3-49, and mitigation measures are included in the Draft EIR where necessary. Project-level land use compatibility impacts and impacts on energy resources are analyzed on pages 3-55 through 3-62 of the Draft EIR. Impacts relative to all other resources are analyzed in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR). For impacts that were found to be potentially significant, the Initial Study notes that previously adopted mitigation measures developed in the 1994 LRDP EIR would apply to the project and would mitigate those impacts. The Draft EIR uses the analysis and conclusions in the 1994 LRDP EIR only with respect to impacts of the projects in combination with 1994 LRDP development and development in the region. That use of the 1994 LRDP EIR and its findings is appropriate under CEQA because the 1994 LRDP EIR is a program EIR that addresses the impacts from the growth of the campus through (UC Davis 1994). To the extent that a project falls within the parameters of the growth envisioned and analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, its impacts in conjunction with those from the other growth envisioned for the campus, are considered to be adequately addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The consistency of the proposed projects at the CRPRC with the 1994 LRDP EIR is analyzed and demonstrated on pages 1-6 through 1-11 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to response to Comment D-2 below. Response to Comment D-2. The Draft EIR s approach to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that were previously analyzed in the certified 1994 LRDP EIR is as follows, and is consistent with the tiering provisions of CEQA. The 1994 LRDP EIR fully analyzed the impacts of the 1994 LRDP (project impacts), as well as the impacts of the 1994 LRDP in combination with regional growth (cumulative impacts), and identified feasible mitigation measures. For most cumulative impacts that were determined to be significant and unavoidable in the 1994 LRDP EIR, the contributing project impacts of the 1994 LRDP were mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adoption of mitigation measures. See, e.g., 1994 LRDP Impact at pp to (1994 LRDP development could expose occupants to significant noise levels; mitigated to less-than-significant level) and Impact at pp to (1994 LRDP plus regional development could expose occupants to significant noise levels; same mitigation measures adopted by University, but University cannot guarantee implementation in areas outside its responsibility and jurisdiction). Thus, for most of the cumulative regional impacts, while the contribution of the 1994 LRDP could be and was mitigated to a less-thansignificant level through the adoption of mitigation measures, the cumulative regional impact remained significant and unavoidable because the regional aspect of the impact is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency to mitigate, and the University cannot guarantee that the regional impact would be mitigated. This is not to say that the 1994 LRDP did not have significant and unavoidable impacts of its own. However, these impacts (loss of prime farmland, air quality impacts due to 1994 LRDP construction and operation, impacts on cultural resources, and water demand from the deep aquifer) were identified and fully analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and there is no evidence that X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-9

44 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments mitigation measures other than those identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR would mitigate any of these impacts to a less-than-significant level. With regard to whether the impacts of the CRPRC projects are within the envelope of impacts previously analyzed for the 1994 LRDP, the scope of the 1994 LRDP impacts is tied to quantified growth parameters such as number of students, number of faculty and staff, building square footage, and to physically observed conditions such as acres of prime farmland to be developed, plant and animal surveys, etc. See, e.g., Draft EIR, App. A (Initial Study) at pp (summarizing how CRPRC project fits within population growth and building square footage projected under the 1994 LRDP) and p. 40 (CRPRC projects would occupy an additional 3.54 acres of prime farmland, which was included within the 180 acres of prime farmland anticipated to be converted to urban uses under the 1994 LRDP). Inasmuch as the proposed CRPRC projects are on land that is within the boundaries of the existing CRPRC, and the proposed activities do not exceed the quantified parameters and conditions set forth above, most of the project s impacts were previously accounted for and analyzed as part of the 1994 LRDP development. For certain potentially significant project-specific impacts that were not identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, such as impacts on neighboring land uses, the potential for avian botulism in the stormwater detention basin, construction noise, and construction vehicle traffic on local roads, further analysis is provided in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment D-3. It is unclear what the commenter means by the statement that CEQA does not allow a prior, programmatic-level Statement of Overriding Considerations to be adopted as a later, project-level finding of no significant impact. That approach was not taken in the CRPRC EIR, which is a tiered and focused EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section and CEQA Guidelines sections and For significant and unavoidable cumulative regional impacts, as described in response to Comment B-2, above, because the CRPRC projects fit within the envelope of development planned under the 1994 LRDP, the significance conclusions remained the same. Hence, except for impacts on prime farmland, air quality, cultural resources and water demand from the deep aquifer, as explained in response to Comment D-2, above, the impacts of the 1994 LRDP were determined to be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level. For those cumulative regional impacts that were fully analyzed and found in the 1994 LRDP EIR to be significant and unavoidable because they are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable for the CRPRC projects, not less-than-significant as the commenter believes. However, because these significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of public agencies, there are no further mitigation measures within the power of UC Davis to adopt. Therefore, it is appropriate to rely on the analysis in the previously certified 1994 LRDP EIR for those cumulative regional impacts. The reasoning in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with the approval of the 1994 LRDP EIR still applies to those impacts as well. Response to Comment D-4. The current regional environmental setting of the project is presented on pages 3-1 through 3-23 of the Draft EIR with respect to hazards and hazardous materials, on pages 3-54 through 3-55 with respect to land use, and on pages 3-59 and 3-60 with respect to energy. For all other resources, please see Appendix A. As explained in response to comments D-1, D-2, and D-3 above, the Draft EIR does not utilize the 1994 LRDP EIR or its X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-10

45 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments findings to present project-level impacts, but uses the analysis from the 1994 LRDP EIR to present cumulative impacts. The statement with respect to no changes in circumstances, new information, or new mitigation measures in the Draft EIR refers to the fact that these conditions have not changed requiring a reanalysis of the cumulative impacts analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. That statement is not made with regard to project-level impacts. Please see response to Comment D-3 above regarding the identification and treatment in the CRPRC EIR of significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that were identified and analyzed in the certified 1994 LRDP EIR. As explained in response to Comment D-2, with regard to significant and unavoidable cumulative regional impacts, however, measures to mitigate the regional contribution to the impact would be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of public agencies other than UC Davis to adopt and enforce. With respect to the adopted 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, there is substantial evidence that these measures have and will continue to mitigate the impacts of 1994 LRDP development to a less-than-significant level, as the 1994 LRDP EIR concluded. See, e.g., Draft EIR, Appendix A (Initial Study) at pp (previously adopted 1994 LRDP EIR hazardous materials mitigation measures that are incorporated into the project). Since 1994, several of the 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures pertaining to hazardous materials have been implemented (see pages 3-35 through 3-42 of the Draft EIR) including implementation of a hazardous waste minimization program. The data show (Table 1) that despite increases in research activities on the campus, the volume of hazardous waste requiring disposal has been declining. Table 1 Hazardous Waste Generation Type of Waste Volume (1996) Volume (1999) Chemical Hazardous Waste (in kilograms) Radiological Waste (cubic feet/dry weight) 141,762 79,206 1,711 1,413 Radiological Waste (liquid in liters) 12,645 10,794 Radiological Waste (mixed in liters) 1, Source: Majewski, The commenter asks that UC Davis examine the ability of hazardous waste management facilities to handle the increased hazardous (including radiological and biohazardous) wastes that would be generated with the expansion of the CRPRC breeding facilities. The majority of the hazardous waste that is generated on campus is landbanned (cannot be disposed in a landfill) and is incinerated in out-of-state incinerators. Only some of the waste is such that it can be neutralized or rendered nonhazardous before disposal in a landfill. UC Davis disposes its hazardous waste in two ways: (1) by treating some of the waste to render it nonhazardous and then disposing it in the campus landfill, and (2) by contracting with two vendors for disposal off site. As described in the Draft EIR (page 3-36), biohazardous waste consists of laboratory tissues, cultures, fluids, infectious animal wastes and carcasses, cage washing solutions, worker s disposable protective clothing, and sharps. Some of the biohazardous waste (worker s protective clothing and sharps-) that would be generated by the research facilitated by the projects would be X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-11

46 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments taken to the UC Davis Medical Center where it would be rendered nonhazardous by autoclaving. The waste would then be shredded and disposed of at the campus landfill. The campus landfill has adequate capacity to handle this increase in waste. The rest of the biohazardous wastes (animal carcasses, tissue and all other chemical and radiological wastes) would be removed by outside vendors. Because most of the hazardous waste hauled off site by the vendors cannot be disposed in a landfill, and only a small amount of waste can be neutralized and landfilled, the increase in waste generated by the proposed projects would not affect the capacity of regional landfills (Majewski, 2001). Techniques for reducing exposure to radioactive isotopes have not changed since the 1994 LRDP EIR was adopted. However, UC Davis remains well informed about changes in research techniques with hazardous materials. It should be noted that the use of radioisotopes at UC Davis has not increased since 1994, even though the campus research facilities have increased. Within the academic research community, laboratory techniques using fluorescent compounds have been replacing some of the laboratory techniques that at one time used radioactive isotopes. As a policy, UC Davis encourages its laboratories to, whenever possible, follow laboratory techniques using fluorescent compounds over laboratory techniques using radioisotopes (Westcott, 2001). The CRPRC has also begun to phase out the use of radiological materials in research where feasible because of the high cost of disposal and potential for health risk. The CRPRC continues to examine ways to minimize use of these materials, and as noted earlier the volume of radiological wastes generated by the campus has been declining. Additional mitigation is not considered necessary. Response to Comment D-5. The commenter is correct in noting that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are responsible agencies for the state s wildlife and agricultural resources. These agencies were not specifically mentioned in the EIR because no permits or approvals are needed from these agencies for the proposed projects. These agencies were provided copies of the Draft EIR for review by the State Clearinghouse (see Document Details Report, State Clearinghouse Database provided on page 4-37). In addition, this information can be viewed on the State Clearinghouse website, UC Davis also directly mailed a copy of the Draft EIR to the CDFG and the USFWS. No Comments were received from any of the agencies. Response to Comment D-6. The commenter requests a demonstration of compliance with California Fish & Game Code Section 2150(e), and requests that CDFG and CDFA be given the opportunity to review the Project and the Draft EIR's proposed mitigation measures. As noted above in response to Comment D-5, both CDFG and CDFA were provided copies of the Draft EIR by the State Clearinghouse and by the campus directly as part of the CEQA process. These agencies did not provide any comments on the Project or on the proposed mitigation measures. Wild animals, including primates, may not be possessed in California without a permit, unless some exemption applies. Fish and Game Code section 2118 states that: "It is unlawful to import, transport, possess, or release live into this state, except under a revocable nontransferable permit as provided in this chapter and the regulations pertaining thereto, any wild animal of the following species:... (b) Class Mammalia (mammals), Order Primates, All species except those in family Homonidae." [emphasis added] X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-12

47 SECTIONFOUR Comments and Responses to Comments "Wild animals" are divided into two categories: (1) "detrimental" species (those that pose a potential threat to agriculture, native wildlife or public health); and (2) "welfare" species (those whose possession is prohibited in order to prevent the depletion of wild populations and to provide for the welfare of captive animals (14 Cal. Code Reg. Section 671). All primates are specifically identified as a "welfare" species, that is, they are not considered by CDFG to pose any potential threat to the State and they are regulated for their own protection. [See "Importation, Transportation and Possession of Wild Animals" Dept. of Fish & Game Manual No. 671]. The statute cited by the commentor, Fish and Game Code section 2150(e), grants a permit exemption to universities and other listed entities that engage in scientific or public health research, so long as the wild animals are not considered detrimental: "[a]ny university, college, governmental research agency, or other bona fide scientific institution, as determined by the department, engaging in scientific or public health research is exempt from any permit requirement pursuant to this chapter except for animals whose importation, transportation, or possession is determined by the department, in cooperation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, to be detrimental or cause damage to agriculture, native wildlife, or the public health and safety." As stated above, primates are not considered detrimental by CDFG; therefore, the University has no further obligations under this statute. Response to Comment D-7. As stated above, USFWS and CDFG were provided copies of the Draft EIR by the University for review and comment. No comments were received from these agencies. Response to Comment D-8. The commenter suggests that instead of the current practice of live trapping, new measures to exclude wildlife from the area of the field corrals be developed as mitigation measures for the proposed project. It should be noted that no mitigation measures are required in this matter because the project will not change the need for trapping animals at the field corrals. The entire CRPRC is enclosed by a field fence, and the area of the field corrals (including the expansion area) is enclosed by a second field corral perimeter fence. The perimeter fence is constructed to extend 1 foot below grade in order to discourage burrowing animals from entering the corrals. The fence itself is 6 feet high with three strands of barbed wire on top. The corral area are in themselves fenced areas and are canopied. No new fences would be necessary and no changes to the current practice of live trapping would be necessary because the affected area would remain unchanged with the projects. Consultation with Yolo County Animal Services reveals that with the exception of skunks, and wild cats and squirrels that show signs that they could be a threat to others, all wildlife turned over to Animal Services are released. (Andrade, 2001). Response to Comment D-9. The commenter indicates that the DEIR failed to investigate the feasible mitigation measure of retiring primates that have been used in invasive testing. The implication is that this would reduce or avoid impacts associated with disposal of animals that have been used for experiments. The commenter indicates that API has accepted various retired primates from other facilities around the country. The animals that are addressed in the DEIR, as a projected waste stream, are animals that have been used in studies where examination of post mortem tissue is part of the experimental design. For animals that are involved in non-invasive X:\X_ENV\_PERMIT\GEOFF\UC DAVIS\PRIMATE RESEARCH CENTER\FEIR\FINAL EIR REVISED3.DOC\5-DEC-01\\OAK 4-13