|
|
|
Environmental Assessment Errata and ERRATA PART 2 - SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONCERNS AND RESPONSES Pages 1 through 23 Pages 24 through 47 Errata Part II This report summarizes public comment submitted on the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment (hereafter referred to as the Environmental Assessment). The Environmental Assessment was released for public review on September 11 , 2003 , and the National Park Service accepted comments Through October 11 , 2003 . Public responses were received by hand, fax, email, and post. During the comment period, 60 public comment inputs were received. This report provides ( 1 ) a summary of public concerns expressed in the public comments received; and ( 2 ) a specific response to each identified concern. Public comments were analyzed using the National Park Service's adaptation of a process developed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office of Ecosystem Management. This process has been used over the last seven years to address public comments on Yosemite National Park planning efforts including the 1992 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, the 1996 Addendum to the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan, the 1997 Draft Yosemite Lodge Concept Plan, the Valley Implementation Plan, the 2000 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan, and the 2000 Yosemite Valley Plan. The comment analysis process includes three main components: a coding structure, a comment database, and this narrative summary. Initially, a coding structure is developed to help sort comments into logical groups by topics. Code categories are derived from an analysis of the range of topics covered in relevant present and past planning documents, National Park Service legal guidance, and letters themselves. The object of these codes is to allow for quick access to comments on specific topics. The coding structure used was inclusive rather than restrictive—an attempt was made to capture all comments. The second phase of the analysis involves the assignment of codes to statements made by the public in its letters, faxes, and emails. For each comment in a piece of correspondence, codes are assigned by one staff person, validated by another, and then entered into a database as verbatim quotes from actual public statements. The database, in turn, is used to help construct this narrative summary. The third phase includes the identification of statements of public concern and the preparation of this narrative. Statements of public concern are identified throughout the coding and writing process and are derived from and supported by quotes from original letters. These public concerns attempt to present common themes identified from comments in a statement that captures the action the public feels the National Park Service should undertake. Public concerns are derived directly from letters and through a review of the database. Each is worded to give decision makers a clear sense of the public's concerns. Statements of concern are not intended to replace actual comments or sample statements. Rather they can help guide the reader to comments relating to the specific topic in which they are interested. All identified public concerns, whether supported by the comments of one person or many, are included. Although the comment analysis process used attempts to capture the full range of public concerns, this summary should be used with caution. Comments from people who chose to respond do not necessarily represent the sentiments of the entire public. All comments are treated equally and are not weighted by number, organizational affiliation, or other status of respondents. For more information, the reader should refer to the database reports prepared as part of this process and the original letters available in the Planning and Compliance Office, Yosemite National Park; PO Box 577 ; Yosemite National Park, California 95389 . This Comment Analysis Summary is divided into sections. The first section includes general comments on the planning process and National Park Service policies. The next section covers comments on the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvements Project alternatives. The next section addresses comments regarding environmental affects, including comments addressing water resources, wetlands, vegetation, cultural resources, visitor experience, access, visitor services, transportation, socioeconomics, visitor populations, and park operations. Each section includes one or more statements of public concern. These public concerns attempt to present common themes identified from comments in a statement that captures what action the public feels the National Park Service should undertake. [Note: Because all public concerns are presented, oftentimes these statements may offer contradictory direction.] Each public concern is, in turn, followed by supporting quotes from public comments referenced to original letters. Each supporting quote is followed by an attribute which identifies the number assigned to the original letter it came from, whether the comment was made by an individual or an organization, a general description of the organization type, and a reference to the letter number and the comment number within the letter. This information appears as a parenthetical clause in the following format: organization or individual, city and state of letter – relevant planning effort – letter number. For example, “(Individual, Merced , CA - # 7 - 3 )” is a letter from an individual in Merced , California , and assigned the letter number 7 ; the supporting quote is from the third coded comment in the letter. Finally, each public concern statement, and its supporting quote, is followed by the National Park Service Response. Note that minor technical comments are corrected in the appropriate document or errata sheet and do not receive either a public concern statement or National Park Service response in this report. Comments received on the Environmental Assessment were screened to determine whether any new issues, reasonable alternatives, potential for significant impacts, or mitigation measures were suggested. The comments received did not identify new issues, alternatives, or mitigation measures, nor did they correct or add substantially to the facts presented in or increase the level of impact described in the environmental assessment. Comments in favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives, or comments that only agree or disagree with National Park Service policy, are not considered substantive (i.e., they did not challenge the accuracy of the analysis, dispute information accuracy, suggest different viable alternatives, and/or provide new information that makes a change in the proposal). Several comments, although not substantive, did result in changes to the Environmental Assessment. No modifications to the Preferred Alternative were made as a result of comments. A summary of the concerns expressed in the comments received and the National Park Service's responses to these concerns follow. Planning Process and Policy PC #: 130 I was not able to attend the information meeting Sept. 24 , but have been trying to interpret what exactly the plans are to "improve" the campgrounds but I find it very confusing and the "public" comment period expires today! (Individual, No Address - # 49 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The EA Executive Summary provides an overview of each alternative and the proposed actions for each campground. The conceptual improvements are identified in the Table ES- 1 . Improvements to campgrounds are addressed in detail in the Alternatives chapter of the EA for each campground: South Camp, Upper Pines and Lower Pines. Additionally, Table II- 5 beginning on page II- 75 of the EA summarizes all new work proposed for each campground. Improvements generally include new campsites and associated parking and infrastructure relative to each location and as prescribed in the Yosemite Valley Plan and ADA compliant-related construction to existing restroom facilities. All improvements are in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan. PC #: 117 The figures in Chapter 2 (II- 1 through II- 19 ) would be much more user friendly if they were treated like the figures in the Yosemite Lodge Area Redevelopment report, where I had the option of printing out each map using a scale that afforded my viewing them somewhat blown up. The figures in this (i.e., Curry Village ) report offer no such opportunity, they're printing out at too small a scale for the naked eye to see. . . . Therefore, I have no real opinion relating to whether Alternate 2 or 3 is my preference. (Individual, No Address - # 4 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment electronic version; though additional instructions will be included in the errata sheet to assist users with manipulation of map scales as requested by this comment. The following information has been added to the errata sheet on pages E. 1 - 1 and E. 1 - 2 : The figures provided in the electronic version of the Curry Village/East Yosemite Campground Improvements Plan EA can be enlarged and printed out at a larger scale. This can be accomplished by utilizing the following steps: 1 . Open the specified figure by double-clicking on the figure or selecting the figure and utilizing the drop down file/open option. 2 . Once the file is open click on file/print, which will open a window that enables selection of the paper size and orientation. For large scale printing we would suggest selecting tabloid ( 11 x 17 ) and orienting the paper as landscape to match the orientation used in the EA. 3 . After determining the paper size and orientation click on properties. 4 . Then click on advanced, which will open a window that contains a box called scaling. 5 . Scaling increases the scale of the figure by indicating a scale above 100 percent e.g., 140 percent. The enlarged figure can then be printed out. Relationship to Other Planning Efforts PC #: 131 We also greatly appreciate the stated commitment to NPS policies and procedures for Best Management Practices, sustainable design and aesthetics, energy efficiency, minimizing air, noise, and water pollution, and the re-use or use of recyclable materials as found on Page II- 62 to II- 63 . We expect that these same principles are true for the Lodge EA. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: The referenced section addresses management practices and mitigation measures that have been incorporated as integral elements of the proposed action, and will be implemented in connection with project development. No revision to the environmental assessment is suggested by this comment, and we thank the commenter for the expression of support for our plans. PC #: 114 While the project is located in Mariposa County , Tuolumne County supports actions by adjacent jurisdictions that are in accordance with the goals of the Tuolumne County General Plan. The proposed improvement plan is supported by goals in the General Plan. ( County Agency , Sonora , CA - # 40 ) Response: We thank the commenter for acknowledging support for the proposed improvement plan and for clarifying its compatibility with the Tuolumne County General Plan. PC #: 122 The public needs more time to read, digest, and make informed comments on the proposed plans. Furthermore, the email address to submit online comments is wrong. There is a typo (a space before the @ symbol) on your web page that will prevent users from submitting comments online. Whether this is deliberate or not, the time period to submit comments should begin after the necessary information and correct addresses have been posted. (Individual, No Address - # 26 ) Response: This concern requests a technical correction to the online address. Review of this issue has identified that the online information was not in error; rather the automated underscore that appeared to indicate the hyperlinked address obscured an underscore that was present in the address. Although the hyperlink functioned correctly for users applying this feature, persons that copied the address may not have recognized the underscore as a part of the address. While we regret the difficulty this may have created, this did not actually prevent users from submitting comments online, and the suggested comment period extension will not be granted. PC #: 127 Overall, we support the chosen preferred alternatives: Alternative 2 for the Lodge and Alternative 3 for Curry Village . It is critical that the Lodge redevelopment and improvements to Curry Village and the East Valley Campgrounds proceed in congruence with the goals of reclaiming priceless natural beauty, allowing natural process to prevail, eliminating traffic and crowding, and protecting the free flow, values and immediate environments of the Merced River . For the most part, we feel these plans will allow the Park Service to do so. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. We appreciate the commenter's support of Alternative 3 , which is the park's preferred alternative. Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis PC#: No Number Assigned Public Concern: The potential for growth inducing impacts should be addressed. The regulations implementing CEQA are codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 , et seq. Section 15221 states that “when a project will require compliance with both NEPA and CEQA, state or local agencies should use the [NEPA document] rather than preparing a CEQA document if [the NEPA document] will be prepared before [the CEQA document] would otherwise be completed for the project, and the [NEPA document] complies with the provisions of the CEQA guidelines.” State agencies may use the federal documents prepared before State documents if they either contain or are supplemented with a discussion of mitigation measures and growth-inducing impacts (Section 15221 (b)), and are circulated consistent with CEQA requirements (Section 15225 ). The EA adequately addresses mitigation measures for the proposed project, but does not address the potential growth-inducing impacts associated with the redevelopment. A review of growth inducing impacts may be discussed in the FONSI if found to be insignificant. (California State Agency) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by adding text to page III- 5 of the environmental assessment as documented in the errata sheet pages E. 1 - 8 . As noted in that text, the proposed action results in a net reduction in lodging in Curry Village, and the total number of visitors accommodated by campgrounds and lodging associated with the full development associated with the Yosemite Valley Plan does not result in a net increase above the no project conditions. The proposed action is not expected to foster long-term population growth, and is not expected to result in construction of additional housing in the surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed action does not have the potential to induce growth inside or outside park boundaries, and further analysis of this topic in the environmental assessment is not considered necessary. Water Resources PC #: 5 These plans are not protection of the values of the Merced River and in fact, will degrade them. (Conservation Organization, No Address - # 47 ) To tell you the truth, I am shocked at the amount of new buildings and roads that your plan and that your drainage map shows all of the runoff being guided to the Merced River . How can this be? Years ago, I learned that asphalt is the most toxic substance to any waterway and we have all observed the oil product left on roadways and parking lots by motor vehicles, buses and trucks, multiplied by millions in the case of Yosemite Valley and even now, in 2003 , with all the science and the chance to really do things right, it is drained into the precious wetlands and once-crystal Merced! I thought NPS was "protecting and restoring" Yosemite ? A former superintendent once stated that the values of the valley floor were so great that even one square inch devoted to the type of use indicated in your plan was too much. (Individual, Pahoa , HI - # 60 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. That analysis specifically considered the potential impact associated with runoff from the parking areas. In addition, the current project designs specifically include a curb and gutter system that routes all surface runoff through oil/water separators prior to the discharge of runoff from parking areas. PC #: 2 We applaud the Park Service for making efforts to restore the vegetation and ecological integrity of the Merced River through this project and throughout the entire Yosemite Valley Plan. (Conservation Organization, Twain Harte , CA - # 46 ) Response: This comment does not suggest any revisions to the environmental assessment. We appreciate the commenter's support of the proposed action. PC #: 4 Neither plan is protective of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River . In fact both of these related plans will lead to direct degradation of the Merced River 's ORVs. It is the NPS's duty under law to protect and enhance the Merced River 's ORVs. The present plans degrade these values. Consequently, we oppose these plans. (Conservation Organization, Yosemite National Park , CA - # 59 ) The ground-disturbance and construction impacts are scheduled to occur over a 20 -year period [Page II- 60 ]. This noise and construction activity is not conducive to enhancing or protecting wildlife, or natural habitat. Construction this close to the Merced River will further degrade the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the River. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The effects of the proposed action in relation to Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced River are specifically addressed in Chapter 5 of the environmental assessment. As explained in that chapter, this project actually enables the removal of existing camping areas from the river protection overlay, and is expected to result in beneficial effects to the biological and hydrological conditions of the Merced River . Construction noise is also specifically addressed in the environmental assessment, as is its potential impact to wildlife. PC #: 6 Location of Campsites in the 1997 flood extent. We strongly support overall reduction of campsites within the floodplain as proposed in the preferred alternative. We are concerned, however with location of some of the new campsites in the 1997 flood extent as a rationale for further development of more campsites in the flood extent in other areas of Yosemite Valley . The figures used to depict the alternatives did not include the boundaries of the River Protection Overlay or the 100 -year flood plain and we urge you to revise these figures to include these boundaries where applicable. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: Revised figures have been included in the errata sheet. These revisions include new information concerning the precise location of the River Protection Overlay that was not available when the conceptual design of the campgrounds was prepared. As a result, the proposed development of the Lower Pines campground will be revised to avoid all new construction within the River Protection Overlay. This redesign is consistent with the intent of the original project as described in the environmental assessment. As this comment notes, some of the campgrounds are still located in the 100 -year floodplain. The areas to be developed were specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, and the current analysis is not intended to present any rationale for further development beyond that which is described in that plan. The following EA figures have been revised to include the updated River Protection Overlay boundary and the 100 -year floodplain. These figures are provided as part of the EA errata as indicated on page E. 1 - 8 . • Figure II- 9 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 2 • Figure II- 10 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 2 • Figure II- 18 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 3 • Figure II- 19 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 3 • Figure III- 1 Project Area • Figure III- 3 a Jurisdictional Wetlands • Figure III- 5 NPS Scenic Rating Classification PC #: 1 EPA commends the National Park Service for its efforts to restore and improve the functions and values of significant amounts of floodplain and wetland resources in Yosemite Valley based on the Yosemite Valley Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. We are concerned, nonetheless, that this tiered environmental assessment (EA) indicates that some wetland resources would be adversely affected by proposed new construction. It is unclear how many acres of waters of the US would be filled by the proposed project or whether construction in those waters will be the subject of a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nation-wide Permit or an individual permit. The EA should clarify this. If an individual permit is needed, the EA should include an alternatives analysis that designates the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative specified by Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Materials ( 40 CFR 230 ), promulgated pursuant to Section 404 (b)( 1 ) of the Clean Water Act. It is not clear from the EA that the proposed construction in waters of the US constitutes the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. If an individual permit is required, the EA should discuss alternatives that are not feasible or practicable in terms of cost, logistics, and technology. (Federal Agency, San Francisco , CA - # 35 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by rewriting environmental assessment text as indicated on pages E. 1 - 12 to E. 1 - 29 of the errata sheet. Although the nature of impacts to wetland areas was presented in the environmental assessment, the environmental assessment did not specify the exact acreage. This information has been added, and the preferred alternative will result in the fill of 0 . 015 acre of wetlands. Approximately 0 . 007 acre of the wetland area affected is identified as isolated artificial channels that are not subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Detailed information will be provided to the Army Corps to allow their review of this issue, and the National Park Service will comply with all legal requirements applicable to the proposed action. PC #: 8 In addition to building new facilities in lieu of improving existing ones, Alternative 3 proposes to build a new centralized shower facility. Given that these campsites and their associated restrooms will be located in wetlands and high value resources areas, we expect that NPS would take all necessary steps to minimize new areas of construction where environmental degradation would occur. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. As noted on page II- 67 of the environmental assessment, all facilities (including campsites and restrooms) will be sited to avoid wetlands whenever practicable. Based on a review of more detailed wetland mapping information, it currently appears as if no wetland areas will be filled in connection with the construction of new campsites or associated restrooms. PC #: 75 A new road should not be bulldozed close to the Merced River , and nearby wetlands should not be destroyed to accommodate road realignment projects. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The preferred alternative does not involve road construction close to the Merced River , and no wetlands would be destroyed to accommodate road realignments associated with this alternative. PC #: 10 We request that the EA include a detailed description of what wetland areas will be restored to offset the damage to wetlands in South Camp and Upper and Lower Pines campgrounds caused by construction and human use. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by rewriting text as presented on pages E. 1 - 12 , E. 1 - 16 , E. 1 - 19 , E. 1 - 21 , E. 1 - 23 , and E. 1 - 26 of the errata. More detailed information has become available on the extent and location of wetlands than at the time of preparation of the Draft EA. Text of the environmental assessment pages ES- 4 , II- 68 , III- 20 , III- 21 , III- 24 , IV- 79 to IV- 83 , and IV- 157 to IV- 162 , and Appendix E: Wetland Statement of Findings for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project has been revised to incorporate this information and is included in the errata sheet on pages E. 1 - 12 through E. 1 - 29 and in Section 2 of the FONSI package. The updated Wetland Statement of Findings found that no-off-site compensation would be required for the first phase of this project, which would only involve fill of 0 . 002 acre of artificial wetlands that are isolated from jurisdictional wetlands. Later phases of the proposed action (both Alternatives 2 and 3 ) would enable the restoration of approximately 1 acre of existing disturbed wetland habitat located in a portion of Lower Pines campground to be permanently closed in connection with this project and an additional 1 . 1 acres of disturbed wetland habitat along the portion of Southside Drive to be removed. These later project phases would result in the fill of a total of 0 . 013 acre of identified wetland habitat. The proposed action would have a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect on wetlands in Yosemite Valley through actions such as restoration of a portion of Lower Pines Campgrounds to natural conditions. The proposed action is consistent with restoration activities proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan for these areas. PC #: 9 Impacts to Wetlands and Highly Valued Resources in Campgrounds (Alternative 3 ) proposes a heavier concentration of campsites at Upper Pines versus South Camp. Under Alternative 2 , 45 sites would be located in the new development area north of the campground access road in Upper Pines campgrounds while Alternative 3 proposes 59 sites to be located in this area. The location of the additional 14 campsites under Alternative 3 abut wetland delineation and cross into a highly valued resource area. As stated in the EA, more people in this area would cause erosion, trampling and increased sedimentation in this wetland habitat. Alternative 2 proposes to locate the 14 campsites in South Camp, avoiding impacts in one wetland but would also construct a parking lot in a different wetland. In Lower Pines Campground, both alternatives propose locating one campsite in a wetland. Alternative 3 would also affect one additional wetland because of the location of the Mountain Shop. We understand that there will be unavoidable impacts to wetlands, water quality, and highly valued resources under either alternative. We also understand the need for additional campsites and the trade-offs that have been made to protect sensitive resources, including the Merced River , and to restore natural processes. We commend the NPS for evaluating a reduced-density alternative with lower campgrounds at South Camp and Upper Pines even though it was dismissed. However, we urge you to re-consider the location and configuration of the 14 campsites in South Camp and the rehabilitation of restroom facilities in Alternative 2 as elements in the preferred alternative. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. None of the new campsites in Lower Pines or Upper Pines (including the additional 14 sites referenced in this comment) associated with the preferred alternative would be located in a wetland. Although detailed site planning for the South Camp area has not been completed, it also appears that none of the campsites in this area would be located in a wetland under the preferred alternative. PC #: 17 My main concern is the thousands of mature trees that the Park Service is planning to remove. If the general public knew what was being planned, there would be an outcry like we've never seen. First, I am appalled that the Park Service plans to log over 1100 trees in the Yosemite Lodge area, and 1300 trees in Curry Village . This is unacceptable. The mature trees are part of the attraction of Yosemite Valley , the Lodge and the Village. Removing them will be a drastic negative change that destroys a historical resource. Another problem is the widening of Southside Drive . This will remove thousands more trees, including ancient, first growth black oak, and the flowering dogwoods which line Southside Drive . This would be another drastic change that would alter the environmental and historic uses of the Park. This road does not need to be widened. I also oppose moving the Northside Road closer to the river proposed in the Yosemite Lodge EA. Again, the plan is to remove large numbers of very old rare black oak. More mature trees—this time at Sunnyside Campground Camp 4 —are planned to be removed to expand Camp 4 north of the existing Northside Drive . This oak woodland area has been undergoing restoration since 1969 —your plan would waste 33 years of taxpayer-funded restoration. This is also appalling, as is the planned addition of a "cooking pavilion" and a "climbing display building." Development of these oak woodlands is unnecessary and inappropriate for this national park. Any new buildings should be in the already developed areas of the Valley. (Individual, San Francisco , CA - # 17 ) Widening the Southside Drive Road: Hundreds, if not thousands of trees, including ancient black oaks with historical Native America significance, would be cut down to widen Southside Drive , within the Merced River Wild and Scenic corridor. Most, if not all of the flowering dogwoods which line Southside Drive , would be bulldozed away. This should not occur. Degradation to the Merced River Plan should not be allowed. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Southside Drive: Hundreds, if not thousands of additional trees including ancient black oaks would be cut down to widen Southside Drive—which would be in the Merced River Wild and Scenic corridor. Many of the most beautiful flowering dogwoods which line Southside Drive in the spring would be bulldozed away. The entire structure of the riparian forest along Southside Drive would be dramatically altered as a result of the immediate proposal to close Northside Drive and widen Southside Drive . We oppose this. (Conservation Organization, Yosemite National Park , CA - # 59 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The widening of Southside Drive is not proposed in connection with the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvement Project, and this project actually includes the removal of a section of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow. PC #: 14 Curry Orchard. Under both action alternatives, "a new grid of deciduous, non-fruit-bearing trees would be planted to create a canopy that would visually shield views of the parking area from Glacier Point." The plan states that this action is in accordance to the YVP. The YVP called for no such action in the portion of Curry Orchard that is to remain as a parking lot. (Individual, No Address - # 56 ) Response: This concern identifies a technical error that requires a correction in the environmental assessment. Park staff agrees with the commenter's suggestion and corrected text that more accurately represents the Yosemite Valley Plan treatment of this topic has been made on pages E. 1 - 30 to E. 1 - 31 of the errata sheet. PC #: 15 Curry Orchard. Under both action alternatives, "a new grid of deciduous, non-fruit-bearing trees would be planted to create a canopy that would visually shield views of the parking area from Glacier Point." The plan states that this action is in accordance to the YVP. Planting of black oak trees would result in a continuance of human-wildlife conflicts. Just as the existing apple trees attract both deer and bears, so too would acorn-producing oaks. Planting of evergreen trees instead of deciduous trees would provide better screening of the parking lot from Glacier Point due to their increased height and would provide year-round screening, rather than seasonal screening. Evergreens would be more consistent with the type of trees growing naturally in the area, resulting in a more natural appearance. Planting of any kind of trees in an obvious grid pattern results in the appearance of an artificially-landscaped area, which should be avoided to the greatest extent practical. (Individual, No Address - # 56 ) Response: This concern identifies a technical error that requires correction in the environmental assessment. It does not, however, change the analysis or conclusion of the environmental assessment. The environmental assessment did not evaluate the potential types of vegetation that could be used for the Curry Orchard parking. The environmental assessment considered the effect of developing a parking area and the vegetative screening from Glacier Point. As described in the errata on pages E. 1 - 30 and E. 1 - 31 , final landscape planning will consider the installation of a combination of native deciduous and evergreen trees to reduce the appearance of an artificial pattern and enhance the effectiveness of visual screening of views from Glacier Point. Although it is not feasible to avoid the planting of trees in a linear pattern and still accommodate the design of the area for visitor parking, an attempt will be made to vary the planting to reduce the artificial appearance as suggested by this comment. PC #: 27 The Councils choice of alternatives is Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative). Alternatives 2 and 3 of this project will have significant impacts to the cultural resources in the east valley area. The archeological sites, gathering sites and village sites in this area will be disturbed forever. The Councils position on all major projects is no action. (Tribal Association, Mariposa , CA - # 41 ) Response: A review of the pertinent sections of the environmental assessment indicates that the action is adequately addressed and no revision to the document is necessary. Input and concerns of the Council are appreciated and acknowledged. In response the following provides a brief summary of the Action Alternatives, a discussion of potential impacts, investigations and reviews, and reasons supporting the preferred alternative. Summary Discussion : Implementation of any one of the alternatives, including the No Action alternative would result in adverse impacts to archeological resources. As outlined under NEPA, the intensity and duration of these impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity and permanent in duration, and none of the proposed actions would result in major impacts. Impacts resulting from continuing maintenance under the No Action alternative and implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be minimized to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. Mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts would include avoidance through project redesign and planning, the use of barriers or fencing to protect sensitive areas adjacent to staging areas, and monitoring of ground disturbing activities through the construction phase. Regarding ethnographic resources, maintaining the status quo, Alternative 1 , and implementation of both Alternatives 2 and 3 could have adverse affects. Mitigation of effects under each alternative would be accomplished in consultation with associated Native American tribes to develop appropriate strategies to avoid and minimize effects to ethnographic resources. If avoidance is not possible then restoration would be implemented upon completion of the project. Further, the actions outlined under Alternatives 2 and 3 , in conjunction with future consultation with American Indian groups, has the potential to enhance the growth and diversity of native species, possibly resulting in a negligible to minor beneficial impact to one ethnographic gathering area. PC #: 28 If projects are performed the Councils position is minimized ground disturbance with Native American monitors present. (Tribal Association, Mariposa , CA - # 41 ) Request for independent Native American monitoring: most construction for the above-referenced facilities will also require major utility upgrades, and the relocation of several roads [Page 11 - 58 ]. This will create new ground impacts, and could have adverse negative impacts on Native American archeological sites. While NPS planners will say that a Native American monitor will be present when these activities occur, that's not true because it doesn't happen now. These are not independent Native American monitors, but rather people on the NPS payroll who have to keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs. This is unacceptable as it forces compliance with NPS planning goals—even if these goals violate Native American rights secured by NAGPRA. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. When ground disturbing activities cannot be avoided in areas of potential archaeological deposits, impacts will be mitigated by site testing, data recovery, and construction monitoring in accordance with the Archaeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park prepared by Hull and Moratto ( 1999 ) and with the participation of Native American monitors as appropriate, as specified in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement with the California State Historic Preservation Office. PC #: 23 Every attempt should be taken to preserve the WPA projects in the park. What style. (Individual, No Address - # 8 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. There are no Works Progress Administration (WPA) constructed buildings or structures in the Curry Village project area. As documented in the Draft National Register Nomination for the Yosemite Valley Historic District, all of the contributing buildings predate the WPA period. All of these contributing buildings and structures will be retained and rehabilitated in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The contributing buildings in the project area are generally in the Park Rustic style. Both rehabilitation and new construction will continue to employ that style and vocabulary, in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Design Guidelines. PC #: 46 The YVP called for a day-use corral east of Curry Village . There is no mention of this facility in this plan. Since construction of the corral in the South Camp area would result in a major adverse impact to the experience of visitors camping in South Camp, this is a positive development and leads to the conclusion that a corral will not be constructed. (Later addition of it would be a result of a fragmented planning process. However, the impacts of not having this corral must be analyzed in the environmental assessment.) (Individual, No Address - # 56 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by adding text to the overview of project Alternatives 2 and 3 in Chapter II of the environmental assessment as documented on page E. 1 - 32 of the errata sheet. The omission of the day use stock corral from the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvements Project is not intended to imply any decision regarding that facility. The facilities associated with the preferred alternative and the day use stock corral are not sufficiently related to require their analysis in the same environmental assessment under the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Park Service Director's Order 12 . The corral referred to by this comment was analyzed as part of the Yosemite Valley Plan , and will be considered as appropriate when other stock facility issues are addressed. The South Camp campground layout has anticipated the potential future siting of a corral in this area, and adequate setbacks have been incorporated in accordance with recreational health guidelines. PC #: 38 NPS planning in the current documents builds towards a year-round, winterized pattern of visitation at higher, more intense levels. The Yosemite Valley Plan threw out the GMP use limits, and the present documents illustrates that the result is unfettered planning and construction for higher levels of use. (FOYV previously pointed this out (IV- 215 ). NPS has never established any capacity limits for Yosemite Valley which would protect the ORVs of the Merced River . NPS is thus promoting the current projects in complete contravention of its duty to deal with capacity as an instrument to protect the Merced River , its values, or the Valley environment more generally. The two current plans accommodate and encourage new, higher visitation levels; in fact they would accommodate the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan (GMP) daily limit of 18 , 241 for each day of the year. Currently such numbers are only reached in peak season. And as stated on Page IV- 215 : Visitation in excess of 18 , 241 would be served by regional transit or other alternative forms of transportation." In effect, any attempt at capacity limits has been eliminated. These constitute further reasons for our opposition to the current plans. (Conservation Organization, Yosemite National Park , CA - # 59 ) Response: This concern questions the park's authority for undertaking the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvement Project covered by this environmental assessment. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the best available information and park staff's professional judgment, park management has determined that no change is required in the environmental assessment in response to this concern. The preferred alternative will reduce crowding in the project area by reducing the number of overnight accommodations and parking spaces. The preferred alternative will therefore reduce the number of overnight visitors. Implementation of the preferred alternative will also not interfere with the park's ability to implement a user capacity program for this segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River . It should be noted that the preferred alternative is an element of the larger Yosemite Valley Plan that would result in a net beneficial impact to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Segment 2 , as noted on page 4 . 2 - 174 of Volume 1 B of the Yosemite Valley Plan. Further, site specific analysis of the preferred alternative's benefits to Outstandingly Remarkable Values is included in Chapter V of the environmental assessment. PC #: 54 Request for "Disabled-Accessible" amenities to be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act: With each new plan, the Park Service trots out promises of "disabled-accessible" features and benefits carefully gauged to engender public support for the Park Service's hidden agenda, and carefully written not to expose the lack of ADA-approved design and construction. Paths to Yosemite Falls were paved with asphalt supposedly to enable people with physical impairments to access Yosemite Falls , but are these paths designed and built to ADA standards? My understanding is that they are not. In the Curry Village Plan, will "multi-use paved trails, provided for disabled-accessible cabins and restroom facilities" be built to ADA design standards? In all NPS plans to date, will "disabled-accessible" enhancements matter if disabled people are told the only way they can see the park is to give up their protective vehicles and necessary supplies, and take diesel buses into the Valley? How will they get on and off the shuttle buses, repeatedly, to see the Valley's wondrous sights? For many people, the answer will be—with great difficulty—if at all. How can NPS enhance the visitor experience for these people from the seat of a bus? These plans are a disgrace, as is the careful wording used to garner public support for NPS objectives that, when put to the test, will do little to truly enhance the visitor experience for physically challenged people, but will secure NPS objectives to pave over the Valley. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. It is the intention of the National Park Service to comply with the standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act as applicable to each facility that is specifically designed as disabled-accessible. This will include a percentage of the new cabins at Curry Village , as well as some of the new RV campsites and walk-in campsites. The elimination of day-use parking in the Curry Village area was addressed in the Yosemite Valley Plan in connection with substantial public input and consideration of a range of alternatives, and reconsideration of this issue is beyond the scope of this environmental assessment. PC #: 35 Registration building—Both action alternatives propose a substantial expansion of the Curry Village registration function. In alternative two, this is justified because "[the] addition of approximately 1 , 500 to 1 , 800 square feet would serve the current and future needs of Curry Village;" the current facility is deemed too small and inefficient. Alternative three proposes the construction of a new building instead of expansion of an existing building (as proposed in alternative two). Construction of a new registration building was not proposed in the YVP; indeed, the YVP implies that the existing building would be continued to be used for this purpose (as proposed in alternative two). Further, the environmental assessment concludes that continuing to use the existing registration building would have a minor, adverse impact, whereas constructing a new registration building will have a major, adverse impact. The existing registration facility at Curry Village is adequate most of the time; expanding it by such a large amount seems to be an unnecessary luxury. Area devoted to structures in Yosemite National Park should be kept to a minimum. Further, considering the concessioner's persistent inability to provide adequate staffing for routine operations, expanding the registration facility would not increase efficiency of the registration function unless the concessioner provided an increased level of staffing (which seems unlikely). Finally, the future needs for a registration facility will decrease in Curry Village ; the facility should be designed for its long-term needs, not for short-term needs. When all of these factors are considered, it's clear that the registration function should remain in the existing registration building because that is the action consistent with the YVP and results in the least amount of environmental impact. If it is absolutely necessary to expand the registration function and that expansion will actually result in dramatically increased efficiency during check-in, the expansion must take place in the existing building. (Individual, No Address - # 56 ) Response: This concern calls for the modification of the proposed preferred alternative in this environmental assessment. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the best available information and park staff's professional judgment, park management has determined that the suggested continued use of the existing registration facility (located in the old post office building) is not practical. As stated in the environmental assessment, the existing facility is not adequate to accommodate modern registration functions and remodeling of this building would be required as described in Alternative 2 if this option was selected. The impacts associated with the proposed new registration building are addressed in the environmental assessment. Although this new building is not specifically identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan , the level of impact to the Historic District associated with the preferred alternative in the environmental assessment is consistent with the level of impact identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan . In addition, the preferred alternative allows the restoration of the historic post office building. PC #: 33 Curry Village will be comprised of low-cost rental accommodations, and multiple new structures for employee, housekeeping, maintenance and service facilities. It will include a new, gated service yard with "turn-around space for large delivery vehicles ( 18 -wheelers?), maintenance vehicles and Cleaning carts" [Pages 11 - 45 , 11 - 46 ]. In addition, a 1 , 500 - 1 , 800 square foot facility would be built to accommodate a single fire engine (a good idea), and "also house a security office and support spaces." Will these support spaces be administrative offices or jail holding cells? Will NPS Rangers, or concessionaire-operated security services utilize them? Aside from housing a single fire truck, why is a 1 , 800 square foot building needed for security? Further, why build it at Curry Village ? Why not build it, and necessary parking for security vehicles, next to Yosemite Lodge? (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: The proposed facility is intended to house the fire station, and that will occupy nearly all of the building. Reference to the security office refers to a small office for Curry Village site security personnel. No jail or substantial administrative facilities are planned at this location. This has been clarified by the addition of the following statement on page E. 1 - 33 of the errata sheet: “The 1 , 500 to 1 , 800 square foot facility would also house a security office for concessionaire-operated security administration purposes and support spaces for equipment and material storage.” PC #: 124 Alternative 2 proposes to construct a new amphitheater instead of improving the existing amphitheater in its current location. It was only after talking with NPS staff regarding the decision to build a new amphitheater that we learned of plans to host more evening programs at amphitheater locations versus the traditionally held camp fire educational programs; therefore, more space will be needed to host these events. This rationale is important for understanding why the construction of a new amphitheater was proposed and should be included in the EA. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern requests a clarification to be inserted into the environmental assessment. Park staff agrees with the commenters' suggestion and an explanation of the seating capacity of the proposed Amphitheater at Clark 's Bridge associated with the preferred alternative is addressed in the errata sheet page E. 1 - 33 through E. 1 - 35 . As noted in the environmental assessment, the Yosemite Valley Plan states that the existing Lower Pines amphitheater is to be replaced by a new amphitheater to be located at the site of the existing concessionaire stables parking area. The proposed new amphitheater occupies approximately the same footprint as the existing one to be replaced. PC #: 97 CSERC agrees with and supports the Park Service in their goals to keep campgrounds out of the Merced River Floodplain and to repair damage caused in the 1997 flood events. (Conservation Organization, Twain Harte , CA - # 46 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. We thank the commenter for this statement of support. PC #: 99 Upper and Lower Pines—The plans for Upper and Lower Pines campgrounds are, in one-albeit, very important-way inconsistent with what is called for in the YVP. The YVP states, "The National Park Service would evaluate different layouts and configurations for campgrounds to improve visitor experience and better serve family groups." The intent of the YVP is clear, however the National Park Service failed to consider any alternative layouts for these two campgrounds that would maintain the number of campsites called for in the YVP. Indeed, I witnessed the project manager specifically direct the contractor responsible for the design to minimize any deviation from the existing road alignment. So, it's no surprise that both action alternatives do just that, in clear contradiction of what the YVP called for. The National Park Service must start with a clean slate and, within the area designated by the YVP, consider alternative layouts for these two campgrounds that provide the number of campsites called for in the YVP. Even if it is determined that one of the layouts proposed in this plan is the best, each campsite (including tent area) should be refurbished, in the spirit of the YVP's goals of "improving visitor experience and better serving family groups." Both action alternatives fail to meet visitor experience goals called for in the YVP. (Individual, No Address - # 56 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. Site planning associated with campground design is continuing, and an attempt has been made to incorporate design features that facilitate family and large group use of multiple campsites by establishing “buddy pads” with adjacent eating areas and including two tables at some campsites. This effort has been limited to new campsites in recognition of budget realities. This does not preclude potential future improvements to existing campgrounds if funding becomes available. PC #: 48 I like the idea of the walk-in campgrounds in the new campground area. (Individual, Moraga , CA - # 2 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. We appreciate the commenter's statement of support for the walk-in campgrounds that are included as a component of the preferred alternative. PC #: 67 My chief concern is the reduction in parking per campsite as given in Table I- 1 (p. I- 2 ). It states: "provide parking at a 1 : 1 ratio for drive-in campsites and a 3 : 1 ratio for group campsites." Presently two cars per site is the norm in these campgrounds, and I believe it should be maintained. We frequently arrange to share a campsite with people coming from another area, or who can not come at the same time. You would be taking away our freedom to do this. (Individual, Ridgecrest , CA - # 39 ) Response: This concern requests a technical correction on page I- 2 of the environmental assessment. Park staff agrees with the commenter's suggestion and a correction has been made on page E. 1 - 37 of the errata sheet. The campground design includes new parking at a ratio of 1 : 1 for walk-in campsites and 3 : 1 for group campsites. The commenter is correct that existing drive-in campsites frequently accommodate two vehicles, and new drive-in sites are being designed to continue to accommodate this (including recreational vehicle sites, which are being designed to accommodate one recreational vehicle and one additional vehicle). PC #: 61 Although it is good to hear there are plans to create some RV campsites, the addition of electrical hookups only at 30 sites in Upper Pines and 18 sites in Lower Pines cannot be viewed as traditional RV hookup sites found in most any other campground, either public or private. When a campground offers RV hookups, it means electricity, water and sewer, or at a minimum, water and electricity. Just look at the sites set up for your campground hosts, as well as the desk officer residences in North Pines. They each have full hookups—electricity, water and sewer. If it can be done for these volunteers, why can't it be done for the general public at these 48 proposed sites? I doubt your camp hosts would like to have electricity only at their site, forcing them to hook up their trailers or move their motorhomes every few days to go to the dump station to get fresh water and dump their sewage. If we are going to spend millions on Yosemite improvements, let's do it right. Please, provide full hook-ups for RVers—electricity, water and sewer. (Individual, Laguna Niguel , CA - # 6 ) My comment is with the East Yosemite Campground Improvement Project. Ever since the closure of Upper and Lower River campgrounds in 1997 it is very hard to get reservations at the remaining campgrounds at the peak summer months. The campsites you are adding are for group and walk-in only. There is not enough sites for trailer/motor home camping. . . . I think you should reopen Upper and Lower River campgrounds and part of lower pines there was close to 800 campsites and with these new projects there will be less than 500 . I am sure some of the campsites in upper and lower rivers could be reopened and not cost very much. (Individual, No Address - # 23 ) Response: The decision to include electrical hookups only for the RV sites was made during the preliminary planning process. Text is provided on page E. 1 - 36 of the errata sheet that explains the background for the decision. PC #: 93 Request to relocate RV camping away from tent camping: In the Upper Pines Campground, 30 new RV campsites are located right next to tent campsites. RV owners tend to operate their generators early in the morning, throughout the day, and into the night. RV camping should be completely separated from tent campsites to reduce the motorized noises they create. This situation is repeated in the Lower Pines Campground in which 18 RV campsites are clustered in with tent campers. This combination creates tension and volatility between campers who desire some level of natural quiet, and those who can't leave their stereos, satellite dish TVs, and heaters at home. Arguments over these types of issues have resulted in some people being killed, because the tension escalates into violence. RV campers should have their own campground, and it should not be next to tents. (Individual, Malibu , CA - # 43 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that is addressed on page E. 1 - 7 of the errata sheet. The YVP specifically called for the accommodation of a variety of camping types, and specified the campgrounds that would be available for redevelopment. The plan presented in the environmental assessment is consistent with the YVP direction, and includes electrical hookups at all new recreational vehicle campsites to reduce noise associated with generator use at those sites. PC #: 64 I think it would be good to add cold water showers in the campgrounds. These could be similar to "beach showers" for people to rinse off during the day. Also, I think the walk-in campground needs a hot water shower—those people have to walk past all the other camps just to have a shower. In the bathroom design the lavatories "room" will end up being used for bathing. People will wash their feet, their babies, and their children and themselves. Just avoid this by creating a few cold showers. They can be the type where you keep your bathing suit on—that way you don't need "privacy" screens, etc. (Individual, San Francisco , CA - # 10 ) Response: This concern, with a reasonable basis, calls for the modification of the proposed preferred alternative in this environmental assessment. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the best available information and park staff's professional judgment, park management has determined that the suggested change is not warranted because the central shower facility to be located near the new campground entrance station is expected to be adequate to serve the East Valley campgrounds. The provision of showers at campground restrooms is directly addressed in Alternative 2 in the environmental assessment, and this alternative was specifically rejected in favor of the preferred alternative. PC #: 98 New construction versus rehabilitation of existing facilities. Alternative 3 proposes to build 12 new restroom facilities in Upper Pines campground versus taking advantage of existing restrooms as in Alternative 2 . It is unclear from the EA why rebuilding from scratch 12 or more new restroom facilities (located in the same place in some cases) would be environmentally preferable or as economically feasible as rehabilitating existing facilities. If this is the case however, we recommend that the EA include that information. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by text on page E. 1 - 38 of the errata sheet. The relocation and rebuilding of restrooms associated with the preferred alternative is necessary to address access for disabled persons and is intended to locate restrooms in convenient locations that will encourage access along campground roadways and reduce resource damage and camper disturbances associated with informal trails across the campgrounds. PC #: 101 The East campground I believe should have showers as described in Alternative 2 . (Individual, Mariposa , CA - # 58 ) Response: This concern calls for the modification of the proposed preferred alternative in this environmental assessment. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the best available information and park staff's professional judgment, park management has determined that the suggested change is not warranted because the central shower facility to be located near the new campground entrance station is expected to be adequate to serve the East Valley campgrounds. The provision of showers at campground restrooms is directly addressed in Alternative 2 in the environmental assessment, and this alternative was specifically rejected in favor of the preferred alternative. PC #: 60 Yosemite's administrators and planners should look to the California state parks as a model for how to build restrooms and showers. At parks where I have camped, there is a combination restroom/shower house in each campground loop. It has individual his-or-her restrooms and individual his-or-her showers, with a washbasin on either end for dishwashing and the like. These showers are coin-operated to pay for themselves. In the Yosemite improvements plan, rather than demolish existing restrooms and build new facilities with restrooms only and a central shower house, there should be combination restroom/shower houses in each loop for both Upper and Lower Pines campgrounds. A central shower house would only create congestion where it is located, and would be inconvenient to families with young ones, especially those who are staying at the far ends of the two campgrounds. No one is going to want to traipse on foot to this central shower house to wash dishes. And walking to this central shower house to bathe would be no better than it is now for campers, who have to go to Curry Village for a shower. In fact, it would be worse because there won't be any parking at the new shower house, while there is existing parking available at Curry Village . Please, put the showers in the campgrounds! (Individual, Laguna Niguel , CA - # 6 ) Response: This concern calls for the modification of the proposed preferred alternative in this environmental assessment. After deliberating on the issue in the light of the best available information and park staff's professional judgment, park management has determined that the suggested change is not warranted because the central shower facility to be located near the new campground entrance station is expected to be adequate to serve the East Valley campgrounds. The provision of showers at campground restrooms is directly addressed in Alternative 2 in the environmental assessment, and this alternative was specifically rejected in favor of the preferred alternative. PC #: 78 As far as development of South Camp area goes, why on earth is one restroom and shower building within the talus zone? Have you no memory of the massive rockslide within the past ten years that probably would have killed any people within such a restroom and shower building at the time? Surely you can do better than this! (Individual, No Address - # 4 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. As noted in that document, one restroom in the Upper Pines campground and a portion of one restroom in the South Camp area would be located in the talus zone under the preferred alternative. This would contribute to a local, long-term moderate adverse impact to public health and safety associated with this alternative. Restrooms are allowed in the talus zone in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. As noted in the EA, the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines classifies facilities as essential, hazardous, special occupancy, standard occupancy, and miscellaneous structures. New structures classified as essential, hazardous, and special occupancy are to be located outside of the talus zone. New structures classified as standard occupancy should also be located outside the talus zone unless no practicable alternative exists and all safety and hazard probability factors have been considered. New structures classified as miscellaneous may be placed in any area if there is no practicable alternative. Restrooms and parking areas are considered miscellaneous structures by the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. The location of a portion of one restroom/shower facility and a portion of the parking area in the talus zone was necessary to provide the range of visitor services identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. Location of miscellaneous structures in the talus zone is in conformance with the Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines. PC #: 102 I support the idea of moving tents at Curry out of rock fall zones. (Individual, Santa Cruz , CA - # 31 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. As addressed in this document, the preferred alternative specifies that 253 tent cabins are to be removed from the rockfall zone. This action is consistent with the direction provided in the approved Yosemite Valley Plan. PC #: 79 We further object to the proposal to relocate Curry Village Road , and the destructive environmental effects, similar in all respects to those mentioned regarding Southside Drive . (Conservation Organization, Yosemite National Park , CA - # 59 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The realigned portion of Curry Village Road is limited to a modification of the existing entry loop, extension of the roadway across an existing parking area, and a new segment of roadway through the existing developed Boy's Town area to connect to the existing campground access roadway. These changes will allow the removal and restoration of a segment of Southside drive across Stoneman Meadow. These actions are all addressed in the environmental assessment, and no revision is considered necessary in response to this comment. PC #: 80 A number of items in Alternative 3 are very positive, including the elimination of day-visitor parking, which would increase the percentage of transit use. Continued removal of day parking and the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan's transportation initiatives is the next imperative. (Individual, Victorville , CA - # 13 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment and in existing Yosemite National Park planning documents. It is our intention to proceed with the implementation of all aspects of the Yosemite Valley Plan as recommended by this comment, and this environmental assessment addresses only a portion of that plan. No revision of the environmental assessment is considered necessary in response to this comment, and we thank the commenter for this statement of support for the preferred alternative. PC #: 82 The parking for the walk-in campgrounds in the Preferred Alternative is not adequate: just one parking place for a campground that is able to hold six people. There is no discussion in the plan of overflow parking for overnight camping. You might be able to get a family of six, including small children, into a single vehicle like a minivan, such that six people could actually use one of these sites. But these walk-in sites are likely to be more popular with adults than families, because of the inconvenience of carrying gear to the site and being some distance from the car. And you cannot get six adults and their camping gear in a car. In fact, you can't get four adults and their gear in a regular car, and it would be hard to get them into an oversized vehicle like an SUV or a van. So, the effect of the plan will be to limit the use of these sites to groups of two or three at the most. It is fundamentally dishonest for the plan to speak of these sites as capable of holding six people while planning the parking so that they will only hold half that number. The same holds true for the group campsites: just three parking spaces is inadequate for a 10 , 000 square foot campsite. By contrast, the group sites in Tuolumne Meadows are allocated parking for six vehicles. Moreover, there is no need to limit the parking in this fashion. Additional parking could be generated east and south of the proposed South Camp in the level or slightly sloping area within the project boundary that would be accessible from the Happy Isles loop road. Including such overflow parking for the walk-in sites would make these fully functional sites, not simply a cosmetic gesture towards replacing campsites removed in the Valley Plan. Please provide the additional parking necessary for these campsites to function as needed. (Recreational Group, Mill Valley , CA - # 44 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by adding text on page 2 . 1 - 37 of the errata sheet. Parking plans include one parking space per walk-in campsite, one space to accommodate up to two vehicles per drive-in site, and three parking spaces per group campsite. These parking/campsite ratios were defined in the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation and therefore will not be addressed further in this environmental review document. In accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, a total of 435 parking spaces have been provided for the 415 campsites (please see EA Table ES- 1 ) , with one space per individual campsite and three spaces for each group campsite. PC #: 86 Increase paved/impervious surfaces as with the Lodge EA, the improvements to roads and trails servicing these areas of Curry Village and East Valley Campgrounds as well as the new development in some areas will increase the amount of paved and impervious surfaces. Unfortunately, the Curry Village/Campground EA does not include data on the change square footage of impervious surfaces for each alternative and we request that this information be added to the assessment. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by providing additional text on page E. 1 - 37 of the errata sheet. Impervious surfaces have been calculated for each of the alternatives resulting in an overall decrease in impervious surfaces associated with both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 . This decrease is primarily associated with the removal of existing campsites and associated roadways and facilities in the Lower Pines campground and the removal of structures in Curry Village . PC #: 87 We urge you to consider semi-pervious, non-asphalt alternatives for trails and parking lots, especially where new trails and parking lots may cross over wetlands. (Conservation Organization, San Francisco , CA - # 53 ) Response: This concern raises an issue that has been clarified by rewriting text as indicated on pages E. 1 - 37 of the errata sheet. Through years of maintenance and snow removal activities, the NPS has determined that asphalt and other hard surfacing protects the subsurface from rutting and related damage in areas that are subjected to snow removal activities due to typically saturated subsurface materials. Areas that are not subject to snow removal activity may be developed with semi-pervious surfaces as suggested by this comment. This suggestion will be relayed to park management, and the following information will be included in the errata: “Semi-pervious, non-asphalt surfacing will be considered for trails and parking areas that are not subjected to seasonal snow removal. It is a standard practice of YNP to utilize asphalt/hard surfacing in all areas required to be maintained with snow removal and other heavy machinery.” Yosemite National Park Operations and Facilities PC #: 91 The tent cabins are disgusting, and all of them should be removed, so the removal of some of them is a step in the right direction. The Curry Village cabins were in terrible shape the last time I stayed in one a few years ago. The entire area is like a depression-era shanty town. It is also good that all employee housing and support facilities would be demolished. (Individual, Victorville , CA - # 13 ) Response: This concern, given the best available information and the professional judgment of park staff, is adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. The removal of tent cabins is an element of the preferred alternative, and this statement of support for this action is noted. PC#: No Number Assigned Public Concern: The Environmental Assessment should address increased wastewater volumes and the capacity of existing wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed method of wastewater disposal from the recreational vehicle dump stations is to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Disposal of wastewater from that and other proposed facilities may result in an increase flow volume to the wastewater treatment facility, which is subject to Regional Board regulation. As part of the environmental review process, we recommend the NPS identify the estimated increase in volume of wastewater discharge and evaluate the treatment facilities capacity to accept it. (California State Agency) Response: This comment presents a reasonable request for additional technical information to be added to the environmental assessment. This request has been addressed by adding the requested information to the environmental assessment pages III- 56 , IV- 129 , and IV- 211 as described on page E. 1 - 37 and E. 1 - 38 of the errata. As explained in the errata sheet, future wastewater flows associated with the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan, including full buildout of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvement Project and all other YVP projects, will not exceed the permitted capacity of the existing El Portal Wastewater Treatment Facility. That facility is currently permitted to treat 1 .0 million gallons per day, and no modification is expected as a result of the proposed action.
|
| Finding of No Significant Impact (main) - Letter from the Superintendent - Finding of No Significant Impact (table of contents) - Finding of No Significant Impact (document) - Wetland Statement of Findings - Floodplain Statement of Findings - Environmental Assessment Errata and Response to Substantive Comments |
