Future Recreation Use and Operations of Lake Berryessa Final Environmental Impact Statement Solano Project, Napa, California Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, CA October 2005 Future Recreation Use and Operation of Lake Berryessa Final Environmental Impact Statement Solano Project, Napa, CA Mid-Pacific Region U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region Sacramento, CA This final Environmental Impact Statement is prepared in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) procedures. Reclamation is proposing to amend the 1992 Reservoir Area Management Plan (RAMP) by preparing a Visitor Services Plan (VSP). The Preferred Alternative would permanently remove all private long-term exclusive-use trailer sites and provide increased and improved short-term use opportunities. However, potential mitigation measures could include a phase out period that could involve relocation or consolidation of trailers on an interim basis to a less intrusive, fully developed site; actions that could require additional environmental analysis. The Preferred Alternative would also rehabilitate shorelines in the vicinity of the resort areas and would adopt the criteria of a water recreation management program termed the “Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum” (WROS). The WROS does not impose specific numeric restrictions on any particular type of motorized or non-motorized watercraft. Rather, the WROS is a zoning classification system designed to better protect the Reservoir’s natural resources, ensure public safety, expand opportunities for diverse boating experiences by the visiting public, and more accurately forecast future visitor needs. The WROS process incorporates adaptive management, therefore monitoring of the land and water use classifications (zones) designated for Lake Berryessa and adapting for appropriate or necessary change will be an ongoing process. This final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and three other alternatives, including a No Action Alternative as described in the VSP. The impact categories evaluated include Land Use, Geology, Soils and Topography, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Recreation, Scenic Resources, Socio-Economic Environment, Public Safety, Hazardous Materials and Soil Contamination. This final EIS also fulfills the requirements of Executive Orders 11990 (protection of wetlands) and 12898 (environmental justice). For further information regarding this final EIS, contact the Park Manager, Central California Area Office, Lake Berryessa Administrative Center, 5520 Knoxville Road, Napa, California, Telephone (707) 966-2111. 1 Contributors The following Agencies and Organizations provided information in the preparation of this document: Napa County Sheriff’s Office Napa, California Napa County Fire Department Napa, California Napa County Office of Administration, Napa, California Napa County Resource Conservation District Napa, California Napa County Land Use Planning Napa, California California Fish and Game Department, Sacramento, California California Department of Forestry Napa, California California Department of Boating And Waterways, Sacramento, California California Department of Transportation Napa, California California Highway Patrol Napa, California U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District San Francisco, California U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 2 Contents_________________________________ Title Page ............................................................................................................................1 Contributors.......................................................................................................................2 Table of Contents...............................................................................................................3 Summary............................................................................................................................17 Description of Preferred Action ....................................................................................... 17 Additional Alternatives Considered ................................................................................. 19 Comparison of the Preferred Alternative B to Other Alternatives ....................................... 22 Table S 1 Summary Comparison of Impacts by Alternatives.............................................. 26 Table S 2 Summary of Impacts/Monitoring/Mitigation Measures: Pref. Alternative ............ 30 Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................ 33 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action................................................................................ 33 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 33 1.2.1 Regional Setting of Lake Berryessa .............................................................. 34 1.2.2 History of Reservoir Development and Operations ........................................ 34 Chapter 2 – Alternatives..................................................................................................38 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 38 2.2 Alternatives Development and Selection .................................................................... 38 2.2.1 Alternative Concept Proposals ..................................................................... 38 2.3 Alternatives Described in Detail ................................................................................ 40 2.3.1 Alternative A (No Action) ........................................................................... 40 2.3.2 Factors Common to Action Alternatives (B,C,D) .......................................... 41 2.3.3 Alternative B .............................................................................................. 43 2.3.4 Alternative C .............................................................................................. 53 2.3.5 Alternative D.............................................................................................. 61 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated……………............................................... …65 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, Existing Setting and Environmental Consequences and Mitigation ..................................................................66 3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 66 3.1.1 Affected Environment and Existing Setting...................................................... 66 3.1.2 Environmenta l Consequences and Mitigation ................................................... 83 3.1.2.1 Potential Impact Due to Inconsistency with Reservoir Jurisdiction..................................................................................... 83 3.1.2.2 Potential Impact due to Inconsistency with the Mission of Reclamation ................................................................................... 83 3.1.2.3 Potential Impact Due to Inconsistency with Reclamation Policies .......................................................................................... 83 3.1.2.4 Potential Impact due to Inconsistency with Uses of Reclamation Land (Grazing) ............................................................ 83 3.1.2.5 Potential Impact due to Inconsistency with Land Classification Categories as Described in the 1992 RAMP................. 83 3.1.2.6: Potential Impact Due to Incompatibility with Napa County Land Classification ......................................................................... 84 3 3.1.2.7: Potential Impact due to Incompatibility with Related Plans (RAMP)......................................................................................... 84 3.1.2.8: Potential Impact due to Incompatibility with Rela ted Plans Lake Berryessa Wildlife Area)............................................................ 84 3.1.2.9: Potential Impact Due to Incompatibility with Related Plan (Quail Ridge Reserve)........................................................................ 84 3.1.2.10: Potential Impact due to Incompatibility with Related Plans (Blue Ridge/Berryessa Natural Area Conservation Partnership) .......... 84 3.1.2.11: Potential Impacts Due to Inconsistency with Reservoir Jurisdiction, Mission, Policies, Uses (Grazing), Land Classification (RAMP) and Napa County Land Use Classifications .................................................................................. 85 3.1.2.12: Potential Impacts Due to Incompatibility with Related Plans (RAMP)........................................................................................... 85 3.1.2.13: Cumulative Environmental Impacts To Land Use ............................ 85 3.1.2.14: Potential Impacts to Land Use From Irreversible and Irretrie vable Commitment of Resources ............................................. 86 3.1.2.15: Potential Impacts to Land Use from Short-Term Effects versus Long-Term Effects................................................................ 86 3.1.2.16: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to Land Use......................................