B01_RFP_Attachment_J02.2_-_EA.pdf

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

YOUTH REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER

SACRED OAKS HEALING CENTER

CALIFORNIA AREA INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NOVEMBER 2015

PREPARED BY:

406 North Church Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701

Attachment J02.2 Solicitation Number HHSI02-19-R-0011 http://www.ihs.gov/index.asp

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

YOUTH REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTER

SACRED OAKS HEALING CENTER

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

CALIFORNIA AREA OFFICE

Contact:

Shane Deckert, PE Lieutenant, USPHS

Health Facilities Engineer Division of Health Facilities Engineering

California Area Indian Health Service 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 7-100

Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone (916) 930-3981 x 341 e-mail: Shane.Deckert@ihs.gov

NOVEMBER 2015

mailto:Shane.Deckert@ihs.gov

Northern California Youth Regional Treatment Center Indian Health Service Sacred Oaks Healing Center Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary ES-1 November 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service proposes to construct and operate a Youth Regional Treatment Center within Northern California. The Youth Regional Treatment Center would be located west of Davis, California, within Yolo County. The Youth Regional Treatment Center (Sacred Oaks Healing Center) would provide specialized health care services to American Indian/Alaska Native youth that are not currently available in California.

The need for a youth regional treatment center was established in the 1980s. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, which was amended in 1992 by Public Law 102-573, states in Section 704 that the Indian Health Service Area Office in California shall construct and operate one youth regional treatment center in the northern area and one to serve the remainder of the state (Indian Health Service, 2000). The requirements of the law are based on results of a study conducted by the National Institutes of Mental Health, which indicated that five percent of the adolescent American Indian/Alaska Native population in California showed substance use disorders. This amounts to 7,950 youth based on Census 2000 data. In 2001, California tribal leaders voted to develop residential treatment services for American Indian/Alaska Native youth in California to comply with Public Law 94-437/102-573. An interim treatment program was developed by the Southern Indian Health Council but although this program was effective, there were major shortcomings that precluded its continuance (California Area Indian Health Service, 2003).

The Youth Regional Treatment Center will consist of developing a 3,738 square meter (40,235.5 square feet) facility on 4.86 hectare (12-acre) parcel, which is currently irrigated farmland. The proposed Youth Regional Treatment Center would treat up to 96 American Indian/Alaska Native youth per year on a resident basis (California Area Indian Health Service, 2003), and create 70.2 new staff positions.

This Environmental Assessment was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508) for implementing National Environmental Policy Act, the United States Department of Health and Human Services General Administrative Manual, Part 30, and the current Indian Health Service Environmental Review Manual (Department of Health and Human Services/Indian Health Service 2007).

This Enviornmental Assessment analyzes the potential environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives that were considered for the location of a Youth Regional Treatment Center in Northern California. The Proposed Action alternative and the No

Executive Summary ES-2 November 2015

Action alternative are the two reasonable alternatives considered for this project. Under the No Action alternative, the Youth Regional Treatment Center would not be constructed.

Table of Contents i November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Location and Setting

1.3 Project History and Background

1.4 Purpose and Need

1.5 Environmental Issues Addressed in this EA

1.6 Environmental Issues Dismissed from Analysis

1.7 Overview of the Environmental Process

1.8 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Alternatives under consideration

2.1.1 Proposed Action

2.1.2 No Action

2.2 Alternatives considered but rejected

2.3 Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Air Quality

3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Groundwater

3.2.2 Stormwater

3.2.3 Sole Source Aquifer

3.3 Land Resources

3.3.1 Topography

3.3.2 Soils

3.3.3 Seismic Conditions

3.3.4 Prime Farmland

3.3.5 Floodplain

3.4 Cultural and Historical Resources

3.5 Biological Resources

3.5.1 Environmental Setting

3.5.2 Threatened, Endangered, and State-Special Status Species

Table of Contents ii November 2015

3.5.3 Invasive and Noxious Weeds

3.6 Socioeconomics

3.7 Transportation and Access

3.8 Land Use

3.9 Utilities and Public Service

3.9.1 Utilities

3.9.2 Public Services

3.10 Noise

3.11 Hazardous Material and Solid Management

3.12 Visual Resources

3.13 Waste Water Treatment

3.14 Human Health and Safety

3.15 Global Warming

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Air Quality

4.2 Water Resources

4.3 Land Resources

4.3.1 Topography and Soil

4.3.2 Geologic and Seismic Activity

4.3.3 Prime Farmland

4.3.4 Floodplain

4.4 Cultural and Historic Resources

4.4.1 No Action

4.4.2 Proposed Action

4.4.3 Mitigation

4.5 Biological Resources

4.5.1 Threatened, Endangered, and State Special Status Species

4.5.2 Vegetation

4.5.3 Wildlife

4.5.4 Invasive and Noxious Species

4.6 Socioeconomics

4.6.1 No Action

4.6.2 Proposed Action

Table of Contents iii November 2015

4.6.3 Mitigation

4.7 Transportation and Circulation

4.7.1 No Action

4.7.2 Proposed Action

4.7.3 Mitigation

4.8 Land Use

4.8.1 No Action

4.8.2 Proposed Action

4.8.3 Mitigation

4.9 Utilities and Public Service

4.9.1 No Action

4.9.2 Proposed Action

4.9.3 Mitigation

4.10 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Management

4.10.1 No Action

4.10.2 Proposed Action

4.10.3 Mitigation

4.11 Human Health and Safety

4.11.1 No Action

4.11.2 Proposed Action

4.11.3 Mitigation

4.12 Noise

4.12.1 No Action

4.12.2 Proposed Action

4.12.3 Mitigation

4.13 Visual Resources

4.13.1 No Action

4.13.2 Proposed Action

4.13.3 Mitigation

4.14 Global Warming

4.14.1 No Action

4.14.2 Proposed Action

4.14.3 Mitigation

Table of Contents iv November 2015

CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES

CHAPTER 7 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

CHAPTER 8 LIST OF PREPARERS

FIGURES

Figure 1-2 Site Location Map Figure 1-3 Conceptual Site Plan Layout Figure 3-1 Soil Map Figure 3-2 Fault zones in Yolo County Figure 3-3 Prime Farmland Map Figure 3-4 100-Year Floodplain Map Figure 3-5 Maximum Flow Depth Map

PHOTOS

Photo 3-1 Existing Site Photo 3-2 Chickahominy Slough located south of CR 31 Photo 3-3 Red-Tailed Hawk Nest near Project Area Photo 3-4 Swainson’s Hawk Near Project Area Photo 3-5 Roadside Vegetation near the Project Site Photo 3-6 Approximate Entrance to YRTC from CR 31 Photo 3-7 View of Existing Property from Road

TABLES

Table 2-1 Environmental Effects of Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives Table 3-1 Plants listed by CNPS in 9 Quads centered on Winters Quad Table 3-2 Federal and State Special Status Species List Table 3-3 Fauna observed on site Table 3-4 Invasive Plants Observed On or Near the Site Table 3-5 Regional Population Table 4-1 Acceptable/Unexceptable Noise Levels during Construction Table 4-2 Treshold of Significance for Operational Noise Exposure Table 4-3 Typical Construction Noise Levels Table 5-1 Cumulative Impacts

APPENDICES (Appendices available on CD) Appendix A ......................................................................................................... Constraints Report Appendix B ............................................................................................. Cultural Resources Report Appendix C .............................................. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office Appendix D ........................................................................................... Scoping and EA Comments Appendix E ........................................................................................ Prime Farmland Consultation Appendix F....................................................................................... Floodplain Calculations Memo file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689063 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689020 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689020 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689022 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689023 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689024 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689026 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689026 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689028 file://TUS-FS/Tus-projects/33/41227-01/Anchorage%20ADMIN%20ONLY/20150921.D41227.01.EA.ADMIN3.docx%23_Toc430689028

Acronyms and Abbreviations v November 2015

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ºF ..................................................................................................................................... Fahrenheit ac-ft/year ............................................................................................................... acre-foot per year ADT ............................................................................................................... Average Daily Traffic AI/AN ............................................................................................. American Indian/Alaska Native BIA ............................................................................................................. Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM ........................................................................................... U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP ........................................................................................................ Best Management Practice CAA ............................................................................................................................ Clean Air Act Caltrans .............................................................................California Department of Transportation CAPs ................................................................................................................ criteria air pollutants CARB .............................................................................................. California Air Resources Board CATAC ....................................................................... California Area Tribal Advisory Committee CBRA ................................................................................................ Coastal Barrier Resources Act CDFG ............................................................................... California Department of Fish and Game CEQ............................................................................................ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA .................................................................................... California Environmental Quality Act CFR ...................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations CHRIS ............................................................ California Historical Resources Information System CGP ...................................................................................................... Construction General Permit CNDDB................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database CNPS............................................................................................... California Native Plant Society CO .......................................................................................................................... carbon monoxide CPC ......................................................................................................... California Plumbing Code CR ................................................................................................................................ County Road CWA ....................................................................................................................... Clean Water Act CVFED ........................................ Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program CZMA .............................................................................................. Coastal Zone Management Act dB .......................................................................................................................................... Decibel dBA ........................................................................................................ Decibel Measurement Unit DHHS ..................................................... United States Department of Health and Human Services DWR ................................................................ State of California Department of Water Resources EA .......................................................................................................... Environmental Assessment EIS................................................................................................. Environmental Impact Statement EPA ............................................................................................. Environmental Protection Agency ESA ................................................................................................. Environmental Site Assessment FEMA ............................................................................. Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM ....................................................................................................... Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI .......................................................................................... Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA ............................................................................................... Farmland Protection Policy Act GHG .......................................................................................................................... greenhouse gas gpd............................................................................................................................. gallons per day gpm ...................................................................................................................... gallons per minute ha ..........................................................................................................................................Hectares

Acronyms and Abbreviations vi November 2015

HVAC ............................................................................. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning IHS/CAO................................................................... Indian Health Service California Area Office IHS .................................................................................................................. Indian Health Service LEED ..................................................................... Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design LOS ........................................................................................................................... level of service LPD ............................................................................................................................... liters per day LSD .............................................................................................................. Logan Simpson Design mph ............................................................................................................................ miles per hour MCLs ...............................................................................................Maximum Contaminant Levels NAAQS ............................................................................. National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA ........................................................................................ National Environmental Policy Act NHPA ......................................................................................... National Historic Preservation Act NOI .......................................................................................................................... Notice of Intent NOx ........................................................................................................................... nitrogen oxides NPDES ............................................................... National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS ................................................................................................................ National Park Service NRCS .............................................................................. National Resources Conservation Service NRHP ....................................................................................... National Register of Historic Places OSHA .................................................................... Occupational Safety and Health Administration PJD ................................................................................................. Program Justification Document PL .................................................................................................................................... Public Law PM ......................................................................................................................... particulate matter ROW ............................................................................................................................. right-of-way SCAQMD ................................................................ South Coast Air Quality Management District SDWA ....................................................................................................... Safe Drinking Water Act SHPO ......................................................................................... State Historic Preservation Officer SIPs ......................................................................................................... state implementation plans SO2 .............................................................................................................................. sulfur dioxide SSA ................................................................................................................... Sole Source Aquifer SVAB ..................................................................................................Sacramento Valley Air Basin SWPPP ................................................................................ Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ug/L .................................................................................................................... microgram per liter USC ..................................................................................................................... United States Code USDA ............................................................................... United States Department of Agriculture USFWS .............................................................................. United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................................................................ United States Geological Survey USTs ....................................................................................................... underground storage tanks VOCs..................................................................................................... volatile organic compounds YCDH ....................................................................................... Yolo County Department of Health YCFCWCD ...................................... Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District YCTD ...................................................................................... Yolo County Transportation District YSAQMD ............................................................... Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District YRTC .......................................................................................... Youth Regional Treatment Center

CHAPTER 1 1 November 2015

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 through 1508) for implementing NEPA, the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) revised GAM Part 30, which details environmental protection and NEPA policy for the Department, and Indian Health Service (IHS) (NEPA) Environmental Review Manual (DHHS/IHS 2007).

Key goals of NEPA are to help Federal agency officials make well-informed decisions about agency actions and to provide a role for the general public in the decision-making process. The study and documentation mechanisms associated with NEPA seek to provide decision-makers with sound knowledge of the comparative environmental consequences of the several courses of action available to them. NEPA studies, and the documents recording their results, such as this EA, focus on providing input to the particular decisions faced by the relevant officials.

In this case, the Indian Health Service California Area Office (IHS/CAO) will decide whether to fund the construction and operation of a Youth Regional Treatment Center (YRTC) in Davis, California (the Sacred Oaks Healing Center). The Associate Director, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, will make this decision in part based on the results of this EA, the overall management framework already established for the IHS, and the legislation guiding the actions of the

IHS.

Public and agency participation was solicited in the preparation of this EA in an effort to involve the general public and agencies in determining the scope of issues to be addressed. Among other tasks, scoping determines important issues and eliminates issues not important; allocates

The Purpose of an EA

An EA is a study conducted by a Federal agency to determine whether an action the agency is proposing to take would significantly affect any portion of the human or natural environment. The intent of the EA is to provide project planners and Federal decision-makers with relevant information on a Proposed Action’s impacts on the environment.

If the EA finds that no significant impacts would result from the action, the agency can publish a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and can proceed with the action. If the EA finds that significant impacts would result from the action, then the agency must prepare and publish a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to help it decide about proceeding with the action.

CHAPTER 1 2 November 2015 assignments among the interdisciplinary team members and/or other participating agencies;

identifies related projects and associated documents; identifies other permits, surveys, and consultations required by other agencies; and creates a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and distribute the environmental document for public review and comment before a final decision is made. Scoping includes any interested agency or any agency with jurisdiction by law or expertise to obtain early input.

To satisfy scoping requirements for this project, a scoping package was provided electronically to federal, state and local public officials, community groups, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties requesting their input on issues addressed in the EA. The scoping package included a brief description on the project, purpose and need, description of the site, site location maps, and summary of preliminary research regarding effects of the project on environmental and social issues. Follow up phone calls were made to all recipients to answer any questions and ensure they had received the scoping package. IHS underwent consultations with several State and Federal agencies regarding the project. For a more detailed discussion of the scoping process, including persons and agencies contacted and agency consultation letters, refer to Chapter 7 and Appendix B, respectively.

1.2 Location and Setting

The project site is located seven miles (11.3 kilometers) west of the City of Davis, California in Yolo County, at 33250 County Road (CR) 31. The parcel is located at approximately 38°33'43.77" North Latitude and 121°53'39.59" West Longitude, within Sec. 5, T8N, R1E, Mount Diablo Meridian (Figure 1-1). The site is bordered on three sides by agricultural land under active cultivation. CR 31 borders the site to the south, and CR 93A intersects with CR 31 at the southwestern corner of the site. The existing DQ University is located 1,400 feet to the northeast.

The site contains no structures. Irrigation ditches border the west and east sides of the site. The entire site is owned by the federal government but has been leased to allow the farming of hay for over 30 years, and it is currently in active cultivation. The YRTC will consist of a 3,738 square meter (40,235.5 square feet) facility and associated infrastructure. A paved driveway would provide access to the facility from CR 31 to paved parking areas within the interior of the site. The remainder of the property will be developed for stormwater management, wastewater treatment, gardens, and ceremonial facilities. The proposed facility would provide enough space to treat up to 96 American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth per year on a resident basis, and create approximately 70.2 new staff positions.

CHAPTER 1 3 November 2015

The project site is located within the Great Valley Physiographic Province of the Sacramento River, in the Sacramento Valley bioregion. The Coastal Range Foothills border the valley to the west and drain into the region around the project site. The Great Valley area has an average rainfall of 20 inches a year, with temperatures ranging from below freezing to mid-summer highs over 100°F. Most of the native environment has been removed or altered by agriculture. The entire area is largely under agricultural cultivation with a few large lot homes in the surrounding area. The predominant vegetative community on the site is hay grass, which is actively cultivated on the site and adjacent fields.

CHAPTER 1 4 November 2015

Figure 1-1 Regional Location

CHAPTER 1 5 November 2015

1.3 Project History and Background

Substance abuse treatment programs and services for AI/AN youth are limited to Tribal and urban Indian Health programs which only provide outpatient treatment services in the Indian communities. Residential/inpatient treatment programs and services provided by private-sector health care providers have not appropriately addressed the unique cultural needs of Indian youth living in California.

IHS, to enable coordination with all the California tribes and communities, created the California Area Tribal Advisory Committee (CATAC) in 1997. Comprised of elected tribal leaders from all regions of California, the CATAC oversees the YRTC Task Force. The YRTC Task Force, which is composed of elected tribal leaders, tribal health program administrators, and clinical substance abuse treatment health professionals, has taken on the task of determining how best to provide residential substance abuse treatment for AI/AN youth in California.

In 2001, California tribal leaders voted to develop two YRTCs in accordance with Public Law (PL) 94-437, amended to PL 102-573. The IHS/CAO submitted two Program Justification Documents (PJD) in 2003 seeking funding to develop the YRTCs, one in Northern California and one in southern California. Both YRTCs would serve AI/AN youth from any portion of California.

In order to meet the requirement to develop a YRTC in Northern California, the IHS/CAO evaluated four sites in an initial Phase 1 Site Selection and Evaluation Report (SSER) completed in June 2007. Three of the sites were dismissed from further consideration, and one site was considered in a subsequent SSER amendment in December 2008. A preferred site for the YRTC was then identified by the amended SSER and a draft EA was prepared. The properties included in the November 2008 Amendment SSER Phase I were (not listed by ranking):

1. Oak Grove, on Highway 70, a carry-over from June 2007 SSER—this property was sold during the amendment process.

2. Marr, in Oroville, a new property brought by a broker. Ownership issues took it off the market.

3. Honeyrock (Christian Outreach Ministries—1932 stone building), in Oroville. The Marr broker also brought this late entry.

4. Wheatland, on Hwy 65, ranked very poorly, and was never considered viable again.

This amendment led to very strong consideration for Honeyrock, including engineering studies, utility engineering, roadway/traffic assessment, public meeting and a draft EA. Results of the

CHAPTER 1 6 November 2015 initial studies determined that excessive slope over forestation would present significant constraints to developing the property, resulting in the Area Director’s decision to seek alternative locations, outside of the Butte County. IHS then prepared a SSER in January 2011, including properties in Vacaville and Fairfield, Winters and Esparto, but those properties had substantial issues with planning and access. A new SSER was prepared in February 2012, including D-Q University, a second offering in Butte County on Clark Road, the Fremont- Rideout Psychiatric Hospital in Yuba City, and a second look at the Live Oak property on Highway 70. Tribes in the Oroville area sensed a level of discontent among the Oroville residents that would continue to impact our ability to adequately serve the youth in that area. Clark Road was dismissed because it offered too much land for the project needs, and is impacted by power line easements that prevent effective development of the site. Oak Grove was sold. The Psychiatric hospital in Yuba was determined to be too institutional and very difficult to create a cultural atmosphere for the clients. Additionally, there was only enough funding approved for land purchase, not for land and facility purchase. Owners could not wait for the new funding request cycle. Rideout was dismissed. D-Q U became the final choice with overwhelming support form Tribal governments throughout the state, and IHS' ultimate acquisition target.

Four additional parcels were identified in Northern California as potential suitable sites for the YRTC, and in 2012 a Phase I SSER was conducted on these four sites. Each potential site was surveyed in terms of site requirements, accessibility, adequacy of support services, utilities, potential flood problems, historical and cultural resources, and other applicable considerations.

One site, located at the DQ University Campus, best satisfies most criteria for the proposed

YRTC.

1.4 Purpose and Need

IHS proposes to construct and operate a YRTC in Northern California within the IHS/CAO. The YRTC would provide substance abuse treatment services to AI/AN youth throughout the Northern California region.

The YRTC would consist of a 3,738 square meter (40,235.5 square foot) facility on a 4.86 hectares (ha) (12-acre) parcel owned by the federal government (Figure 1-2). This facility would have the capacity to treat up to 96 AI/AN youth per year on a resident basis (CAIHS 2003), and create 70.2 new professional staff positions. The proposed facility would also have five family suites to allow concurrent treatment of the family of the youth in residence. A conceptual site plan is provided on Figure 1-3.

The purpose of the project is to develop regional treatment facilities for at-risk youths and ensure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services are available and

CHAPTER 1 7 November 2015 accessible to AI/AN youth. This project will further the federal government’s obligation to develop and administer comprehensive health care delivery systems that meet the needs of Indian people, promote healthy AI/AN communities and cultures, and honor and protect the inherent sovereign rights of Tribes.

CHAPTER 1 8 November 2015

Figure 1-2 Site Location Map

Figure 1-3 Conceptual Site Plan Layout

CHAPTER 1 9 November 2015

The need for a YRTC was established in 2001 when California tribal leaders voted to develop residential treatment services for AI/AN youth in California, to comply with the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, PL 94-437 and amendment PL 102-573. The amendment states in Section 704 that the IHS Area Office in California shall construct and operate one YRTC in the northern area and one to serve the remainder of the state (IHS 2000). The requirements in the law are based on results of a study conducted by the National Institutes of Mental Health, which indicated that five percent of the adolescent AI/AN population in California showed substance use disorders. This amounts to about 7,950 youths according to Census 2000 data. The Southern Indian Health Council created an interim treatment program; however, due to technical and administrative constraints, it was discontinued (CAIHS 2003).

The goal of the project to construct a youth treatment center is to help the IHS ensure that residential/inpatient rehabilitation, community-based rehabilitation, and follow-up services for substance abuse are available and accessible to AI/AN youth in Northern California. The facility will include:

• 32 beds for AI/AN (16 male; 16 female)

• 6 beds for close observation

• 5 family suites

• Case history assessments, evaluation, and testing

• Individual, group, and family counseling sessions

• Individualized treatment

• Activities to meet educational, spiritual and cultural needs

Ultimately, this facility will support the IHS mission, in partnership with AI/AN people, to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of the AI/AN to the highest level.

1.5 Environmental Issues Addressed in this EA

In accordance with NEPA, and based on a review of the project site, the following environmental issue areas are evaluated in this EA:

• Air Quality

• Water Resources

CHAPTER 1 10 November 2015

• Land Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Biological Resources

• Socioeconomics

• Transportation and Access

• Land Use

• Utilities and Public Services

• Noise

• Hazardous Materials and Solid Management

• Visual Resources

• Waste Water Treatment

• Human Health and Safety

• Climate Change

1.6 Environmental Issues Dismissed from Analysis

The following issues and impact topics were dismissed from analysis in this EA because the Proposed Action would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these resources:

Wetlands: Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas, and are protected under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit program. The soils in the area are mapped as not hydric. A site visit has further concluded that there are no wetlands on or near the proposed project site. Therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

Coastal Zones: The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the

CHAPTER 1 11 November 2015 fish and wildlife using those habitats. The CZMA and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies proposing actions, whether within or outside of a State’s coastal zone, to determine if the action is reasonably likely to affect any land or water use or natural resource within that coastal zone. There are no coastal zones within the vicinity of the site; therefore this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is administered by four federal agencies: the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Forest Service. The Act protects selected rivers, and their immediate environments, which possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The nearest wild and scenic river is the American River located in Sacramento County. It is located 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of the site, and flows into the Sacramento. This topic is dismissed from further analysis.

Coastal Barrier Resources: The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) restricts Federal expenditures and financial assistance which would have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers. The Act established a Coastal Barrier Resources System consisting of those undeveloped coastal barriers located on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States. The coastal barriers provide habitat for migratory birds and wildlife, and contain resources of extraordinary scenic, scientific, natural, historic, and other importance. The project area is not in the vicinity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System; therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

National Natural Landmarks: Federal agencies must assess the impacts their actions have on National natural landmarks such as Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Refuges, and Wildlife Preserves. There are no wildlife refuges, sanctuaries, or other natural landmarks in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis.

Environmental Justice/Protection of Children: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, requires Federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of its projects on minority or low-income populations. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, directs Federal agencies to “identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.”

The average median household income in Yolo County is $57,920, compared to $47,493 in California. In Yolo County, 19.1 percent of the population is below poverty level, compared to

15.9 percent in California. Though the area in general has higher poverty rate than the state, the

CHAPTER 1 12 November 2015 proposed project is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse effects on low income population. The proposed project would increase opportunities for employment in the short-term from construction and operation of the facility would provide long-term treatment opportunities for AI/AN youth in Northern California. Because no disproportionate impacts on children, minority, or low-income populations would result from the alternatives, this topic was eliminated from further analysis in this EA.

1.7 Overview of the Environmental Process

The EA has been released for a 30-day public comment period. Comments will be considered by the IHS/CAO, and either a FONSI will be prepared, or additional environmental analysis will be conducted.

1.8 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals

The following direct and indirect federal actions may occur as a result of the Proposed Action:

• Apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity in Compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);

• Consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, if endangered species may be impacted by the Proposed Action.

• Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), if historic properties may be impacted by the project.

CHAPTER 2 13 November 2015

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action and project alternatives are described and compared in this section. This section also describes the alternatives that were considered but rejected based on specific site selection criteria evaluated for each sit by the IHS/CAO. The project alternatives considered in this EA consist of:

• The Proposed Action – Development of a 3,738 square meter (40,235.5 square foot) YRTC on 4.86 ha (12 acres) of irrigated farmland.

• No Action Alternative – No federal action or proposed development.

2.1 Alternatives under consideration

2.1.1 Proposed Action

The IHS proposes to design and construct a YRTC on a portion of the DQ University campus located at 33250 CR 31 in Yolo County, California. The parcel is located at approximately 38°33'43.77" North Latitude and 121°53'39.59" West Longitude, within Sec. 5, T8N, R1E, Mount Diablo Meridian, and is shown on United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quad Winters (Figure 2-1).

The YRTC will consist of a 3,738 square meter (40,235.5 square foot) facility on a 4.86 ha (12-acre) parcel. Access to the facility would be from CR 31 (a Yolo County roadway). The YRTC would have the capacity to treat 96 AI/AN youth per year on a resident basis and create

70.2 new staff positions (CAIHS 2003). The proposed facility would also have five family suites to allow concurrent treatment of the family of the youth in residence.

Approximately 40 construction jobs will be provided in the short term. Employment at the YRTC would be offered to California tribal members and local community residents. California Indian tribes had a 40 percent unemployment rate in 2003. Yolo County and Sacramento County has unemployment rates of 9.5 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively (BLS 2013). Employment conditions for California tribes and the local community will be improved as a result of this project.

Construction of the YRTC is expected to begin in 2016, and continue for up to one year. IHS would provide the funding to construct the YRTC through new facilities construction funding authorized by Congressional Appropriations under the Health Facilities Construction Priority System. The federal FY15 budget authorized $17.1 million for this project.

CHAPTER 2 14 November 2015

Figure 2-1 DQ University and three alternate site locations

IHS would be required to incorporate Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Design Standards in the design of the YRTC, use alternative energy sources such as solar, geothermic, and wood biomass, and to use eco-friendly building materials to the extent possible. Additionally, IHS would design the project to avoid and minimize short- and long-term impacts on the environment.

2.1.2 No Action

No permanent center currently exists within Northern California to serve AI/AN youth in need of substance abuse treatment services. Under the No Action alternative, YRTC would not be constructed. Youth would continue to be treated at outpatient care facilities that do not address the unique cultural needs of AI/AN youth. In addition, the existing facilities would not meet the health care demands of the present and projected population of AI/AN youth in need of treatment.

CHAPTER 2 15 November 2015

The No Action alternative would not change existing land use activities, or cause any environmental impacts. No residential treatment center would be constructed, and the purpose and need for the project would not be met.

Should IHS not develop the YRTC on the DQ University property, the site would remain the property of the federal government and the existing agricultural lease would continue.

2.2 Alternatives considered but rejected

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, and to briefly discuss the rationale for eliminating any alternatives that were not considered in detail. The preferred site on the DQ University campus (the Proposed Action) and three alternative sites were considered in the Phase I SSER completed in 2012 (SSER 2012). All of the sites were evaluated according to the Technical Handbook for Environmental Health and Engineering Volume II Health Care Facilities Planning, Part 13-4 – Site Selection and Evaluation Process during a site inspection conducted on November 15, 2011. Each site was numerically ranked based on the evaluation of site selection parameters such as site access, community features, physical parameters, environmental considerations, and suitability for the YRTC. The numerical ranking for each of the sites was then tabulated to obtain an overall score. The DQ University site scored is 1,855.

For more detailed information on the screening criteria, and how the site was chosen, refer to the site rating sheets in the February 2012 Phase I Site Selection & Evaluation Report (IHS 2012).

Section 1.3 also provides additional details regarding why the D-Q University site was chosen.

The alternative sites are not evaluated fully in this EA because they are no longer under active consideration.

The three alternative sites that were considered in the SSER but rejected are:

• Clark Road (Butte County) - Ranked as #2 by the SSER with a score of 1,798. This site is located on a 5.67 ha (14 acres) parcel near the intersection of State Highway 191 and State Highway 70 near the town of Oroville. This parcel is currently zoned for sports and entertainment. Electrical service lines transect the property. No public water or sewer utility is available. Housing is abundant in the town of Oroville. The property is situated on a public transportation route. The relatively flat site has positive drainage and there was no water standing during the time of the investigation. Distances to major cities for quality housing and community services include: Oroville – 9.1 miles (14.7 kilometers);

Paradise – 12.1 miles (19.5 kilometers); Marysville – 34.3 miles (55.2 kilometers);

Sacramento – 75.5 miles (121.5 kilometers).

CHAPTER 2 16 November 2015

• Yuba Hospital (Sutter County) – Ranked #3 by the SSER with a score of 1,758. This site is located on approximately 2.26 ha (5.6 acres) parcel with an existing 4,738 GSM acute psychiatric hospital at 1251 Stabler Lane, in Yuba City. The facility was built in 1991. The site is in an urban setting with retail, law enforcement, and a church immediately adjacent. This property is fully landscaped with 129 paved parking spaces, enclosed courtyards, and a secure sports yard. The site is appropriately zoned for the inpatient function that was operating until 2009, when state funding was terminated.

Electrical service, water, and sewer waste water disposal are all city services. Local public transportation is available. Distances to major cities for quality housing and community services, which are plentiful in Yuba City, include: Marysville – 3.4 miles (5.5 kilometers); Oroville – 30 miles (48.3 kilometers); Sacramento – 42 miles (67.6 kilometers).

• Live Oak (Sutter County) – Ranked #4 by the SSER with a score of 1,605. This site is located on a 4.05 (10 acres) ha parcel approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) north of Yuba City. The property fronts on Live Oak Road, a two-lane county-maintained, paved road, which connects to State Highway 99 via a controlled off-ramp. Zoning is for agricultural use. Electrical service is available. Water and septic will be established on-site. Local public transportation is not available. Distances to major cities for quality housing and community services include: Marysville – 7.5 miles (12 kilometers);

Oroville – 26.1 miles (42 kilometers); Sacramento – 46 miles (74 kilometers).

2.3 Comparison of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

Table 2-1 summarizes the environmental effects of the various alternatives. It provides a comparison of how well the alternatives respond to the project need, objectives, significant issues, and impact topics. Chapter 4 discusses the environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives in detail.

CHAPTER 2 17 November 2015

Table 2-1 Environmental Effects of Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives Environmental Resource/ Component

Proposed Action No Action

Air Quality Yolo County is a nonattainment area for air quality.

• Temporary, minor, adverse impacts on air quality during the construction phase from equipment emissions and fugitive dust

• Negligible to minor adverse impact during operation

• No changes in current air quality conditions around the project area

Invasive and Noxious Species

Invasive species may be present on the site as it is currently disturbed

• Minimization measures will be utilized to…