Errata Sheets: Part 1, Errors and ClarificationsThe environmental assessment was available for public review and comment for a 30-day period from July 18, 2003 through August 18, 2003. On August 21, the comment period was extended to September 2, 2003. The comments received 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 Selected Alternative were made as a result of public comments on the environmental assessment. The park did, however, modify some individual route segments to further minimize impacts to highly valued resources, particularly California Black Oaks.
Changes to the environmental assessment are outlined below.
1. The section of the document on Regulations, Policies, and Management Goals has been revised to clarify that this document also serves as the environmental document for the California Environmental Quality Act review process. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board serves as the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act review process and Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification process.
Page I-5, Regulations and Policies, the following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph.
“This environmental document also serves as the environmental document for the California Environmental Quality Act review process. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board serves as the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act review process and Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification process.
2. Changes were made regarding utility infrastructure in the Curry Village Employee Dormitory area based on the completed design for the housing project. Page II-6, Phase 1 – Improvements, The eighth bullet is revised as follows: §
Curry Village Dormitory
3. Changes were made regarding utility infrastructure in the Curry Village area based on the completed design for the employee housing project in this area. Page II-11, Curry Village, The first full paragraph is revised as follows:
“A new Curry Village Dormitory
Page II-13, Utility Corridor Construction, the third paragraph is revised as follows: “As shown
in Figures II–27 and II–28 all utilities placed in road corridors are
expected to be placed within the In addition, Figures II–27 and II–28 have been retitled to “Typical Utility Corridor Cross Sections” and a note has been added to these figures stating “Road widths shown are approximate. Utilities will be placed within existing road footprints and Valley roads will be replaced at their existing widths.”
5. Commentors requested clarification on construction activities that would occur during nighttime hours.
Page II-15, Construction of Lift Stations, a new sentence was added to the end of the section, as follows:
“Nighttime construction activities will include those activities technically required to occur at night, such as activities associated with implementing wastewater system bypasses to allow new lift stations to be connected into the wastewater system. These activities will be minimized by constructing as much of the bypass system as possible during daytime hours and limiting nighttime activities to the minimum required to implement the by-pass and tie in the lift stations. Since there are a limited number of lift stations in each construction phase, these nighttime activities would be minimal.”
6. The discussion of the electric transformer at the Curry Village Dormitory was modified to reflect more recent design information on the housing area.
Page II-15, Construction of New Electric Transformers, the second paragraph was revised as follows:
“New transformers are proposed for the Upper Pines Campground, Lower Pines Lift Station, Curry Village Dormitory, the proposed North Pines Amphitheater, Housekeeping Camp Lift Station, Tenaya Creek Campground Lift Station, and the proposed Yosemite Village Transit Center. The transformer sites are expected to consist of underground, pre-cast concrete vaults containing submersible electric transformers and associated electrical lines. The transformers are expected to occupy approximately 200 square feet and be approximately 4 feet deep. The transformer at the Curry Village Dormitory is expected to be above ground and pad-mounted and screened with a fence.”
Figure II-27: Typical Utility Corridor Cross-Sections [PDF]
Figure II-28: Typical Utility Corridor Cross-Sections [PDF]
7. Commentors requested clarification of the project’s affect on Valley utility capacities and existing capacity limits on the Valley wastewater system.
Page II-16, Current Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Capacity Does Not Change, the following revisions have been made.
“All of the alternatives under consideration would maintain the existing
wastewater treatment capacity at the El Portal Wastewater Treatment
Plant,
8. A Commentor asked for clarification on whether the mitigation measures applied to Alternative 1 the No Acton Alternative.
Page II-20, the heading Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives has been changed to Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives, and the paragraph below the heading has been revised to read as follows:
“The National Park Service
places a strong emphasis on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of
impacts. To help ensure that implementation of the proposed East
Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan and all activities
associated with implementation of the repairs required to the existing
wastewater system under all three alternatives protect
In addition, Figure II-22 has been revised to reflect these changes.
9. The Housekeeping Utility Corridor has been refined by the park to further minimize impacts to mature trees in the Housekeeping Area.
Page II-11, Housekeeping Camp, third sentence has been revised as follows:
“A new Housekeeping Utility
Corridor would provide wastewater,
Figure II-22: Alternative 2 Curry Village (Subarea 5) [PDF]
In addition, Figure II-23 has been revised to reflect this change.
10. The Yosemite Village West Wastewater Realignment has been refined by the park to reduce impacts to mature California Black Oak trees along Northside Drive.
Page II-12, Yosemite Village, the first full sentence is revised to read as follows:
“The gravity wastewater lines
from Yosemite Village (Yosemite Village West Wastewater Realignment)
would be routed down along Village Drive,
In addition, Figure II-24 has been revised to reflect this change.
11. Route Option A in the Camp 6/Cook’s Meadow area was refined by the park to further reduce potential impacts to mature California Black Oaks near Residence One.
Page II–12, Camp 6/Cook’s Meadow, the fourth paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
“During consultation with
culturally associated tribes regarding the effects of the proposed
Yosemite Creek Utility Corridor route on a traditional cultural resource
area, a second option for the Yosemite Creek Utility Corridor was
proposed. This potential option, referred to as Route Option A, would
leave Northside Drive approximately
In addition, Figure II-25 has been revised to reflect this change.
12. Figure II-26 has been revised to reflect the routing refinements discussed above for Figures II-22 through II-25.
13. Table II-1, Summary Comparison of Key Features of the Alternatives, has been revised to reflect updated design information for the employee housing project in the Curry Village area.
Page II-31, Table II-1, Summary Comparison of Key Features of the Alternatives, has been revised as shown on the following table
14. An error on Alternative III in Table II-2, Summary of Environmental Consequences, has been corrected to be consistent with the soils analysis in Chapter IV, which states that after mitigation impacts to soils would be minor.
Page II-33, Table II-2, Summary of Environmental Consequences, under Alternative III, the third paragraph has been revised as shown on the following table.
Figure II-23: Alternative 2 Housekeeping Camp (Subarea 6) [PDF]
Figure II-24: Alternative 2 Yosemite Village (Subarea 7) [PDF]
Figure II-25: Alternative 2 Camp 6/Cook's Meadow (Subarea 8) [PDF]
Figure II-26: Construction Phasing [PDF]
15. The project’s potential for growth inducing effects has been addressed as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Page III-2, Land Use, has been revised to include the following sentence at the end of the section:
“This project affects only utility service within Yosemite National Park and is in compliance with the Yosemite Valley Plan. The project does not substantially change the capacity of Valley utilities. Although construction of the project will result in some negligible economic benefits, the project is not expected to foster long-term economic or population growth, nor to result in construction of additional housing in the surrounding areas. Therefore, the project is not expected to have any growth inducing effects inside or outside park boundaries.”
16. The tables in Chapter IV for soils and vegetation have been revised to reflect the routing refinements discussed above in Chapter II. (The routing refinements did not affect wetland acreages.) The acreage changes are very small and in most cases, reduce impacts to highly valued resources, therefore the analysis of impacts for these sections has not been revised.
Table IV-7, Soils Impacts Associated with Alternative 2, on page IV-76 is revised as follows:
Soil Impacts Associated with Alternative 2
a Includes repairs to existing wastewater lines as described in Alternative 1, as well as construction of proposed consolidated utility corridors.
Table IV-9, Vegetation Community Types Potentially Affected by Alternative 2, on page IV-93 is revised as follows:
Vegetation Community Types Potentially Affected by Alternative 2
a Includes repairs to existing wastewater lines as described in Alternative 1, as well as construction of proposed consolidated utility corridors.
17. The discussion of floodplains was revised to clarify that lift stations and transformers within the floodplain would be submersible.
Page IV-81, Hydrology, Floodplains, and Water Quality, the last sentence in the first paragraph under Analysis was revised as follows.
“Proposed lift stations and electric transformers to be constructed in the floodplain under this alternative would be designed to be submersible and would be placed underground to reduce the potential for adverse effects from flood events.”
18. Commentors requested clarification of the construction activities that would occur at night, and the impact that this might have on wildlife, noise, and visitor experience. The discussion of potential adverse effects in the analysis section has been revised to acknowledge the limited nighttime activities. The discussion of the intensity of adverse effects does not change from that documented in the environmental assessment.
Page IV-100, Wildlife, the first paragraph under Analysis has been revised to read as follows:
“Implementation of Alternative 2
could disturb wildlife in the vicinity of construction activities.
Effects would be related to heavy equipment and human intrusion and
could include noise, dust generation, vegetation removal, trench
excavation, or decreased oxygen levels in aquatic habitats. Nighttime
construction activities would include those activities technically
required to occur at night (during low utility usage periods), such as
activities associated with implementing wastewater system bypasses to
allow new lift stations to be connected into the wastewater system.
These activities will be minimized by constructing as much of the bypass
system as possible during daytime hours and limiting nighttime
activities to the minimum required to implement the by-pass and tie in
the lift stations. Since there are a limited number of lift stations in
each construction phase, these nighttime activities would be minimal.
In general, construction activities
Page IV–112, Noise, has been revised to include the following sentence at the end of the Analysis paragraph:
“Nighttime construction activities would include those technically required to occur at night (during low utility usage periods), such as activities associated with implementing wastewater system bypasses to allow new lift stations to be connected into the wastewater system. These activities will be minimized by constructing as much of the bypass system as possible during daytime hours and limiting nighttime activities to the minimum required to implement the by-pass and tie in the lift stations. Since there are a limited number of lift stations in each construction phase, these nighttime activities would be minimal.”
Page IV–127, Visitor Experience and Recreational Resources, has been revised to include the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph under Analysis:
“Although the majority of construction activities will occur during daytime hours, there are some construction activities that must occur at night. Nighttime construction activities would include those technically required to occur at night (during low utility usage periods), such as activities associated with implementing wastewater system bypasses to allow new lift stations to be connected into the wastewater system. These activities will be minimized by constructing as much of the bypass system as possible during daytime hours and limiting nighttime activities to the minimum required to implement the by-pass and tie in the lift stations. Since there are a limited number of lift stations in each construction phase, these nighttime activities would be minimal.”
19. This environmental assessment also serves as the California Environmental Quality Act document for the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification review by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Page VI-2, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, has been revised by adding the following sentence to the end of the paragraph:
“This environmental assessment serves as the California Environmental Quality Act document for the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification review by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.”
20. The List of Preparers was corrected.
The List of Preparers on page VII-1 has been revised as follows.
21. As a result of the finalization of wetland delineations, the following changes have been made to the tables listing wetland impacts for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. The changes are minor and the discussion of the intensity of effects for the various alternatives does not change.
Table
IV-4, Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative
1, on page IV-34, is revised as follows: Table IV-4 Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative 1
Table IV-8, Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative 2, on page IV-87, is revised as follows: Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative 2
a Includes repairs to existing wastewater lines as described in Alternative 1, as well as construction of proposed consolidated utility corridors.
Table IV-11, Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative 3, on page IV-141, is revised as follows:
Wetland and Aquatic Habitats Potentially Affected by Alternative 3
a Includes repairs to existing wastewater lines as described in Alternative 1, as well as construction of proposed consolidated utility corridors.
22. A commentor noted that effects to special-status species were not included in the biological section of table C-2.
Appendix C, table C-2, on page C-12, has been revised as follows:
Table C-2 Effects of the Proposed Action on Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the Valley Segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
