Errata Sheets:  Part 2, Summary of Substantive Public Comments and Responses

Introduction

The National Park Service in Yosemite National Park proposes to implement an East Valley Utilities Improvement Plan to develop consolidated utility corridors, remove utility infrastructure from environmentally sensitive areas, and to allow for ecological restoration of areas identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. 

 

Over the last several decades, the existing utility infrastructure serving Yosemite Valley was developed incrementally as needed.  A variety of different underground utility corridors were constructed throughout the Valley to provide service to developed areas. As a result, there has been no unified approach to infrastructure design, and these utility lines criss-cross their way around the Valley. Wastewater, potable water (referred to hereafter as water), electric, and communication lines are located primarily in individual underground corridors, with multiple utility corridors currently serving the same developed areas. Some of these utility corridors cross through meadows identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan for ecological restoration, as well as other environmentally sensitive areas.

 

In order to implement many of the actions called for in the Yosemite Valley Plan, existing utility facilities in the Valley must be upgraded, relocated and/or removed, or abandoned in place. Development of a utilities improvement plan is needed to provide long-term guidance to utility infrastructure improvements. This plan will also ensure that the utility system developed maximizes the efficiency of utility operations and minimizes adverse impacts on the park’s natural and cultural resources. Where possible, various utilities would be consolidated into integrated corridors to ensure adequate service to existing and proposed facilities. The integration of utilities into fewer corridors would reduce existing operation and maintenance impacts on park resources. This would be achieved by removing some utility infrastructure from the Merced River riverbed and floodplain and relocating some utilities out of environmentally sensitive areas, thus allowing for the proposed ecological restoration of those areas identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan was developed to achieve these goals. This park conducted public scoping on this project, then called the Yosemite Valley Integrated Utility Master Plan, in January 2003.  The project name has been changed to more accurately reflect the scope of the project, which looks at major utility improvements in the east Valley, from the Yosemite Creek Lift Station to the park water storage tank near Happy Isles.

 

The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan identifies potential utility corridors that would (1) allow for efficient consolidation of utilities, (2) maximize use of existing and proposed transportation corridors, and (3) minimize use of environmentally sensitive areas. The specific utilities addressed in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan include wastewater, water, electric, and, to a limited extent, communications facility improvements located in the east Valley.

 

The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment was released for public comment in July 2003. This document contains a summary of substantive public concerns for the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment, and the National Park Service responses to those concerns.

Comment Analysis Process

The letters, emails, and faxes represented in this report were analyzed using the National Park Service’s adaptation of a process developed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office Ecosystem Management Staff, Content Analysis Team. This process has been used over the last seven years for public comment 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 a 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 a summary report. 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 in or out of scope, or supported by the comments of one person or many, are included.

 

The fourth phase of analysis is careful reading of each public concern statement and its supporting quotes to determine if the concern is within or out of the scope of the project, and whether substantive or nonsubstantive.  In accordance with the National Park Service’s NEPA guidance (Director’s Order #12) and based on the Council of Environmental Quality regulations, a substantive comment is one that:

 

§         Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the environmental analysis;

§         Questions, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis;

§         Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the environmental analysis;

§         Causes changes or revisions in the proposal.

 

Nonsubstantive comments include those that simply state a position in favor or against the proposed alternative, merely agree or disagree with National Park Service policy, or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion.  Although a commentor’s personal opinions on a subject may influence the development of the final plan, they generally would not affect the impact analysis.

 

Based on this analysis, National Park Service responses are developed for each public concern.  These responses, the concerns and supporting quotes, along with an appropriate introduction, form the final Public Comment and Response Report (available upon request).

 

The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment, Errata Sheets: Part 2, contains those concerns that were screened as being substantive, along with supporting quotes and the National Park Service responses.  Emphasis in this process is on the content of the comment rather than the number of people who agree with it. This is not a vote-counting process and no effort has been made to tabulate the number of people for or against a certain aspect of a specific planning topic. This information can be derived manually from the database, if desired.

 

Although the comment analysis process used attempts to capture the full range of substantive 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 substantive 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.

How to Use This Document

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 East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan alternatives. The next section addresses comments regarding natural resources, including water, vegetation, wetlands, rare and threatened species, and air quality.  The next section addresses park social resources, including visitor experience, access, transportation, 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. 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.

Public Comments and Responses

The environmental assessment was available for public review and comment from July 18, 2003 through 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 as shown in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment, Errata Sheet: Part 1. No modifications to the Preferred Alternative were made as a result of comments.

Planning Process and Policy

32.       Public Concern:  The National Park Service should delay consideration of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment until after the court decision on the appeal of the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan.

“The National Park Service should await the outcome of the appeal of the decision in the case over the Merced River Plan for the court's determination as to whether a determination of user capacity is required under the law.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #17-4)

Response:  Since the issuance of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Merced River Plan case.  The Court found that the Merced River Plan contained adequate data and that the National Park Service worked cooperatively with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to remedy wastewater system failures.  The Court also found that the river corridor boundary in El Portal was not protective of Outstandingly Remarkable Values and that the Merced River Plan did not provide for the prompt implementation of measurable limits to address user capacity.  However, the Court found that the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework was an acceptable method to address user capacity, and ordered the National Park Service to either implement VERP indicators and standards immediately or develop interim measures.  The Court did not prevent the National Park Service from conducting actions in the river corridor in the meantime.

As explained in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment and this Summary of Public Comment and Response, this project will not lead to an increase in the number of users in the river corridor.  The utility improvements identified in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan are designed based on the level of facilities and visitor use identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which reduces visitor and employee accommodations in the Valley.  In designing the utility system improvements, total visitor use, including overnight and day use visitors was assumed to be 18,241, as identified by the General Management Plan and the Yosemite Valley Plan.  Because this project will not cause an increase in visitor use of the Valley, the National Park Service does not believe that this project needs to be delayed. 

This project will also enable the National Park Service to address wastewater system repairs to conform to the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.  It would be irresponsible for the National Park Service to delay implementation of these needed repairs.  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan will enable the National Park Service to complete these repairs in an efficient manner by removing or abandoning scattered utility infrastructure and creating consolidated corridors to serve existing and proposed facilities.

34.       Public Concern:  The National Park Service should provide public access to all East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment supporting documents.

“You [the park Superintendent], or those in your employ have refused to allow the documents and plans for this system to be copied and distributed to the public citing national security.  Those in charge of the project are in fact keeping this information from the public in violation of the FOYA. Since when, does the plans, for a sewer system in a National Park affect national security?  This is simply a ploy to keep these projects from public scrutiny.  Such actions are patently illegal. That this has not been done is a violation of NEPA, as far as I can tell. It is also a violation of the public's right to know how its money is being spent.” (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-2)

Response:   This concern questions the park's compliance with NEPA in regard to disclosure of technical utilities-related information.  The CEQ provides guidance on NEPA implementation in a document called 40 Most Asked Questions.  This document states that an environmental assessment "should not contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered.  Rather, it should contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted." 

The environmental assessment provides sufficient detailed information on the proposed action for an evaluation of the environmental effects of the project.  The environmental assessment describes the types of utilities in each corridor, other utility infrastructure proposed (lift stations and transformers), locations of utility corridors, corridor widths, and construction activities.  The detailed technical documents that support the information provided in the environmental assessment were made available for review upon request.

35.       Public Concern:  The National Park Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan.

“I was first confused by the fact that I was reading an environmental assessment that discloses several major adverse impacts…. I was always under the impression that NEPA requires preparation of an environmental impact statement for any action that would have major adverse impacts.  I know that the one instance when an environmental assessment can state major impacts is if those effects have been previously disclosed in an environmental impact statement (i.e., a tiered document).  Although the purpose and need for this action states that the need for this plan was identified during development of the Yosemite Valley Plan, this action does not appear to be included in the Yosemite Valley Plan …for which an environmental impact statement has been prepared.  Even though in many instances mitigation is provided that would reduce the magnitude of the impacts, NEPA would still require preparation of an environmental impact statement and not an environmental assessment.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-1)

“The Environmental Assessment (EA) of the east Yosemite Valley Utilities Plan … describes a massive years long construction project in Yosemite Valley.  A project of this size will have significant major impacts to the Valleys natural resources for years to come.  Such a massive undertaking … must include significant public involvement, input and review during the planning process as allowed for in an Environmental Impact Statement EIS. A decision document expected this fall should set aside this EA and initiate a full EIS process involving public involvement throughout the planning period.  During an EIS review, design capacity, a major question and issue needs to be addressed to prevent unlimited future public accommodations in Yosemite Valley.”  (Individual, El Dorado Hills, CA, Comment #8-1)

“Owing to the inadequacy of the EA, to the fact that much information which is necessary to properly evaluate the proposal, and to the lack of disclosures required under NEPA, I request that a full EIS be completed for this proposed project.  There is no question whatever that the scope of the project is significant, therefore a full EIS should be done.  Merely issuing a FONSI would constitute a grievous insult to the public interest.”  (Individual, Comment #9-1)

Response:  NEPA requires federal agencies to review any proposed major actions, to evaluate the environmental effects of those actions, and to take these effects into consideration during decision making.  NEPA requires an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared if an agency finds that a proposed action would have significant environmental effects.  NEPA does not define what a “significant environmental effect” is, but does note that assessment of effects should take into account the context, duration, and intensity of an effect. 

As described in Chapter 4 of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan, the National Park Service evaluates the significance of environmental effects by considering the context, duration, and intensity of effects. Thus, the intensity of an effect (minor, moderate, major) is not the only fact used in determining whether an impact is significant and not all major impacts are considered significant. Other factors taken into consideration are the scarcity of the resource being affected, its sensitivity to disturbance, its resilience, and other factors. The National Park Service also considers the potential for mitigation to reduce the effects. Short-term construction-related effects that are considered to be major, such as construction noise effects, are typically not considered to be significant effects by the National Park Service due to their temporary nature. 

Based on the analysis of environmental effects documented in the environmental assessment, the National Park Service has found that there is no significant impact. Short-term adverse effects have been mitigated to the extent possible. Long-term effects are either beneficial, or where adverse, have been mitigated to minor or moderate levels. 

NEPA does not require an Environmental Impact Statement based upon the size or dollar value of an action.

36.       Public Concern: The National Park Service should provide adequate disclosure of information on this project as required by NEPA.

“At an Open House at the Yosemite Village East Auditorium on July 30th, 2003 I was told … to contact …. [the] Utilities Project Manager...to obtain copies of two documents listed in the Bibliography of the EA.  After I contacted him, …[he said] that I would need to request the documents through the Superintendent's office, which I subsequently did by e-mail on August 5th.  No response to the request was received, however.  My conversations with a representative of the Yosemite Environmental Office at the Open House also revealed a lack of information about existing utilities in the EA after he volunteered to produce "his copy" of the EA and together we found little of what I asked him about in it.  In fact, there was not even a single copy of the EA on hand at the Open House.  Other members of the public-at-large who might have attended might have been led to believe that the only information the Park Service had produced on this proposal was the one placard on display at a table.  Considering the size of the project, this is a violation of the public trust.” (Individual, Comment #9-2)  

“While we appreciate the efforts you have made to respond to our questions at the Open Houses, the fact remains that this information [about Yosemite Valley carrying capacity relative to current, project, and system design capacity, where road widening would occur, alternative fuel supplies for sewer pumps, and why night operations might be necessary, and if used, what effect they would have on wildlife] should be readily available to the general public through an open NEPA process. Its availability should not be limited to those who have the time, energy, and knowledge to ferret it out.  We think the law requires the former approach, not the latter.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #15-8)  

Response:  NEPA requires that an environmental assessment provide sufficient information on a project to allow for an evaluation of the environmental effects of a project.  NEPA does not require technical engineering information or detailed cost information be provided in an environmental assessment, though detailed supporting technical materials and additional review time were made available upon request.  In fact, the CEQ in its 40 Most Asked Questions document states that an environmental assessment "should not contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered.  Rather, it should contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and a list of agencies and persons consulted."  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment provides sufficiently detailed information on the project to allow for evaluation of the environmental effects of the project.

 

65.       Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have had full disclosure of the details of mitigation measure development and implementation.

“I was also disheartened to find that so many of the mitigation measures said that a plan would be prepared at some later date but failed to state who would develop the plan, when it would be developed, who would review it, who would implement it, and what would happen if it didn’t work (any repercussions)”.  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-3)

Response:  NEPA does not require that mitigation measures that call for plans be fully prepared and included as part of an environmental assessment.  There must be sufficient information on the mitigation measure to allow for a review of its potential to address environmental effects.  The mitigation measures included in the environmental assessment sufficiently address the elements or goals of the measures to allow for an evaluation of their effectiveness.  Many of the mitigation measures cannot be developed in detail until design details for the project are complete.  The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) includes some additional information on mitigation measures, including responsible parties and timing for each measure.

 

37.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this project.

“A full EIR is required for the East Valley Utilities Improvement Plan.”  (Individual, Merced, CA, Comment #18-7)

Response:  As a federal agency, the National Park Service is not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on park projects. EIRs are documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which applies only to state and local agencies in California. (Please also see the response to Public Concern 35 regarding requirements for Environmental Impact Statements under NEPA.) 

 

38.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should stop work on this project until full compliance with NEPA is assured.

“I am protesting the development of a sewer system in Yosemite Valley that is being built without adequate review and without consideration for preserving the conditions necessary for a healthy environment in the valley. … I am requesting that you stop all work on the project until full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act is assured.  The complete project is unnecessary and will cost far more than a much more modest and effective project would cost.”  (Individual, Paso Robles, CA, Comment #20-1)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment has been developed in compliance with NEPA and applicable park policies.  The environmental assessment provides information on the project, alternatives, and environmental effects for each alternative.  Adoption of the FONSI by the National Park Service finalizes the park compliance with NEPA.  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan will not be implemented prior to a FONSI being adopted.

 

 

67.       Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have covered more adequately the effects of construction of new, and removal of old, utilities infrastructure.

“The width of one road's pavement is shown as 24', wider than the existing pavement, ... Nor is consideration of the number of trees removed to accommodate such widening, including the shoulders, and the resulting impacts included in the report.”  (Individual, Merced, CA, Comment #18-3)

“Pipe bursting, the technique advertised to have a minimal effect on areas to be restored such as the meadows by breaking up sewer pipes in situ, will still require “excavation of manholes at entrance and exit (10x10x10) and possibly intermediate areas due to pipe condition.”  (Individual, Comment #19-10)

“The most advertised selling point of Alternative 2, then, that of meadow restoration, even itself comes at a price.  And most of those impacts, including the extra approximately $66 million it will cost to relocate the rest of the utilities infrastructure and the excavation of significant new areas of the Valley in order to install new forcemains, are not discussed at all or not discussed adequately in the Utilities EA.”  (Individual, Comment 19-11)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment adequately describes the effects of construction of the new utility corridors and removal of existing utilities in meadow areas.  The tables in Chapter IV specifically break out the effects from construction of new utility corridors and repairs to existing utilities, as well as the effects from removal of utilities.

 

50.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan should not disturb the River Protection Overlay or Outstandingly Remarkable Values in the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

“It is inappropriate to bulldoze and further disturb the river zone along Southside Dr. and other areas in Yosemite Valley.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-6)

“[D]oesn’t the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and your River Protection Overlay state that existing facilities can be replaced or relocated only when they do not directly or adversely affect your Outstandingly Remarkable Values?”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-10)

Response: The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment (pages V-1 through V-3) addresses the conformance of the project with the Merced River Plan.  The proposed project is in compliance with the Merced River Plan classifications, the river protection overlay, and the management zoning categories.  The selected alternative reduces the number of utility crossings in the Merced River, allows for removal of utilities in areas identified for ecological restoration along the river, and implementation is expected to allow the National Park Service to protect and enhance the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

 

51.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have fully disclosed the direct and cumulative effects of the project on the Merced Wild and Scenic River and its Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

“There is no adequate discussion of how this increase [support facilities supplied by the utilities upgrade] would affect...the Merced Wild and Scenic River Zone, and would cause new and cumulative impacts to the Merced River Wild and Scenic River outstandingly remarkable values and corridor.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-4)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment (pages V-1 through V-3) addresses the conformance of the project with the Merced River Plan.  The selected alternative is in compliance with the Merced River Plan river classifications, the river protection overlay, and the management zoning categories.  The selected alternative reduces the number of utility crossings in the Merced River, allows for removal of utilities in areas identified for ecological restoration along the river, and implementation is expected to allow the National Park Service to protect and enhance the river’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

 

64.        Public Concern:  Yosemite National Park should address renewable resources, cleaner fuels, and conservation in its utility planning.

“Utility infrastructure should be planned that will use renewable sources of energy wherever possible." (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #17-6)

“…the proposal would use diesel engines for back-up power at the sewer lift stations.  Apparently these would be fired up at least weekly to ensure availability in case of need.  And, in the event of power outage, the standby generators could run for prolonged periods.  Apparently the EA did not discuss alternative fueled power sources.  Given the known hazards of diesel fueled engines, why was there no discussion of alternatives?  Propane seems like an obvious possibility; …”  (Conservation Organization, #15-6)

“Where is a discussion of alternate energy sources and conservation of energy..”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-16)

“Photovoltaic power is also the best form of power with which to provide electricity for transportation infrastructure. …Utility infrastructure should be planned that will use renewable sources of energy wherever possible as well as provide flexibility in both power generation and the location of the utilities themselves in case of the above. …For the Valley's future, planning must be farsighted and conservation oriented, …”  (Individual, Comment #19-19)

Response:  Conservation measures were considered in development of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan, and specifically, propane backup generators were considered.  The propane generator technology is currently not sufficient to support the size generators required by this project.  The park will require the diesel generators to have the best available emissions reduction technology.  The use of photovoltaic cells to provide backup power is not technically feasible at this time due to the power requirements of the wastewater system.  In addition, the size and appearance of solar panel arrays that would be required would adversely affect the park's scenic resources and cultural landscape.   Finally, gravity sewers will continue to be used to the extent technically possible throughout the Valley. 

ALTERNATIVES

8.         Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have better described the scope and breadth of Alternative 2.

“Virtually the only information contained in the two documents from the bibliography below that I could find in the Utilities EA consists of Appendix D....  This is merely a list of 42 rehab projects, nineteen (19) of which involve "capacity increase."  I am not aware and it is unclear at present how many of these projects are underway, are already completed or whether these are the projects referred to in the Utilities EA where it describes on p. II-30 under the column titled Alternative 2 "plus $10 million for wastewater repairs required."  The material in Appendix D by no means describes the scope and breadth of the proposals in Alternative 2.  The Utilities EA should properly have included more of what is covered in the two documents below listed in its bibliography. [Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2002, 2003.] Providing details of this sort to the lay public is essential if there is to be any hope that people will understand the impacts of a project of this size and considerable significance.  The Utilities EA is deficient in doing so and, as a result, fails to make the minimally adequate disclosures required under NEPA.”  (Individual, Comment #19-1)

Response:  The Council on Environmental Quality provides guidance on this issue in its 40 Most Asked Questions document and states that an environmental assessment "should not contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered.  Rather, it should contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted."  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan provided sufficient information on the project to allow for a review of the potential environmental effects.  Construction of utility corridors and other utility facilities (transformers, lift stations) are sufficiently described in the environmental assessment both in the text descriptions in Chapter II, the summary in Table 2-1, and the figures in Chapter II (Figures II-1 through II-30).  The detailed engineering information in background technical reports is not required to provide an understanding of the scope and breadth of the project, which is adequately described in the sections cited above.

 

11.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have clarified whether the Mitigation Measures Common to all Action Alternatives also would be applied to the No Action Alternative.

“Another concern was that mitigation appears to be applied to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.  Although Alternative 1 could have described the type of actions you are now implementing to protect resources and that you would continue to implement during repair and maintenance activities, the project description for this alternative is mute on this point.  Rather, the analysis for Alternative 1 seems to state that the Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives would be applied to Alternative 1 (No Action) as well. [refer to the analysis for Alternative 1 and Table II-2, e.g., impacts to soils, impacts on special status species]”.  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-2)

Response:  The Errata Sheet clarifies that the mitigation measures do apply to Alternative 1 by changing the heading on Page II-20 to “Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives.”  

Alternative 1 consists of continuing current park management practices, rather than removing facilities from areas identified for ecological restoration and rerouting facilities to provide service to facilities proposed in the YVP.  Continuing current park management practices would include repairs to existing wastewater facilities required under the Cleanup and Abatement Order from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. A No Action Alternative that does not include these repairs would not be reasonable.  Since actions associated with Alternative 1 do include construction activity, mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the effects of this alternative.

17.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have described a true "No Action" alternative without the $10 million sewer rehabilitation.

“The "No Action Alternative" (Alt. 1) is misleading.  In fact, it would involve doing a $10 million rehabilitation of the Yosemite Valley sanitary sewer system.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #17-5)

Response:  The No Action Alternative reflects continuation of existing park management policies, including the continued use, maintenance, and repair of Yosemite Valley wastewater systems.  This alternative includes repairs of the wastewater system required under the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.   The No Action Alternative is intended to be a reasonable alternative.  It is not reasonable to assume that the park would continue to operate the utility systems and not complete the wastewater system repairs required by the Cleanup and Abatement Order.

 

20.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should not implement Alternative 2 as it is described in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment.

“Although I would love to see utilities consolidated as described in Alternative 2, I cannot in good conscience recommend this action if it is to be implemented as stated in this flawed document.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-9)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment adequately described the environmental consequences of the selected alternative and the mitigation measures incorporated into the project to minimize impacts to cultural and natural resources.  The selected alternative best meets the purpose and need for the project while protecting park resources and visitor experiences.

 

22.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan should propose a different route for the water and communication utility corridor between the Ahwahnee Hotel and the Rivers Campgrounds.

“..the proposed water and communication utility corridor between the Ahwahnee Hotel and the Rivers Campgrounds should be located elsewhere.  The NPS (Resources Mgmt) has gone to great length to remove other utilities (electric for one) and facilities (portion of Lower Pines CG) out of that same corridor due to sensitive resource values.  Why place these utilities in a corridor that will be difficult to access and maintain.  If a loop system is needed for water to the Ahwahnee, bite the bullet and make a bigger loop that avoids this river crossing and other important habitat.”  (Individual, Comment #13-1) 

Response:  This concern calls for the modification of the selected alternative in the environmental assessment.  The proposed water corridor is designed to provide a looped water system to The Ahwahnee Hotel.  The proposed corridor follows an existing utility corridor and a proposed paved path which would provide access to the utilities.  Alternative routes to access The Ahwahnee would require crossings of the Merced River and Tenaya Creek in areas that are subject to continuing stream bed and bank erosion, that would require a longer corridor that would cross through a very sensitive cultural resource area, and would result in leaving a utility corridor in North Pines, which is currently identified for ecological restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  Therefore, park management has determined that the alternative will not be modified in this area.

 

23.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have considered alternatives examining different numbers of pumps required to force sewage through segments of lines in Alternatives 2 and 3. 

“The increased number of pumps required to force sewage through segments of the lines in Alternative 2 (and 3) does not include ... consideration of alternatives.”  (Individual, Merced, CA, Comment #18-5)

“Based on examination of supporting documents to the environmental assessment package, TIE recommends [that]…seeming replacement of the extant gravity-facilitated system with lift stations opens questions as to emergency power.  There is substantial risk of increased emissions with use of traditional diesel generators.”  (Non-Governmental Organization, Merced, CA, Comment #21-2)

Response:  The existing wastewater collection and transportation system was designed to primarily use gravity to move wastewater through the east Valley to the Yosemite Creek Lift Station.  In order to remove the existing wastewater collection and transport lines from meadow areas identified for ecological restoration, the park will need to use wastewater forcemains to reroute wastewater flows along transportation routes where the grade is such that gravity flows are not feasible.  Pump requirements were developed based on engineering standards for the wastewater loads, existing grades, and system reliability and efficiency.   Gravity mains will continue to be used to the extent technically feasible within the Valley.

 

24.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utility Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have included a breakdown of the estimated costs of the individual utilities--water, sewer, power and communications.

“...the cost estimates on p. II-30 of the Utilities EA ... says "$53.9 million for East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvements, plus $10 million for wastewater repairs required; $11.9 million for utility removals and abandonment; continued ongoing utility maintenance and repair costs."  A breakdown of the estimated costs of the individual utilities - water, sewer system, power and communications - is not contained in the Utilities EA and was removed from the copy of the Integrated Utility Master Plan that I examined in the Research Library.”  (Individual, Comment #19-13)

Response:  This concern questions the accuracy and sufficiency of the cost information provided in the environmental assessment.  The cost information provided in the environmental assessment is sufficient to evaluate the socioeconomic effects of the project.  More detailed cost information is being withheld to ensure a fair bidding process for construction of the project.

 

25.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should slow down the rapid pace at which the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is being implemented.

“Contracts that are let for construction should recognize that the [pending] Ninth Circuit ruling [on the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan] could change everything.  Preferably, the extremely rapid pace at which [the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is]...being pressed should be slowed down.  It would increase the likelihood that the projects would actually benefit the visitor experience and protection of the natural resources, and at less cost to the taxpayer.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #15-4)

Response:  Refer to Response #32 for a discussion of the impact of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling on this Plan.  The National Park Service must address wastewater system repairs to conform with a Cleanup and Abatement Order from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.  It would be irresponsible of the National Park Service to delay implementation of these needed repairs.  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan will enable the National Park Service to complete these repairs in an efficient manner by removing or abandoning scattered utility infrastructure and creating consolidated corridors to serve existing and proposed facilities.

 

26.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have provided a justification for the expenditure of $53.9 million for the preferred alternative.

“It...appears that you are willing to spend $53.9 million for this project when the actual needs could be met for $11.9 million. How can you justify to the public this expenditure of funds when they are not needed?”  (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-7)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan removes utilities from areas identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan for ecological restoration and provides utility service to areas identified for development or redevelopment in the Yosemite Valley Plan, as well as completing required wastewater system upgrades to address condition and capacity problems with the existing wastewater system.  The No Action Alternative, with a projected cost of $11.9 million, includes only the required repairs to existing wastewater systems.  It does not meet the purpose and need for the project or support the implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan.  This issue is addressed sufficiently in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment.

 

27.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should consider a New Alternative that would allow the Two Rivers Campgrounds to have access to all the Utilities as well as the lower section of the Lower Pines Campground.

“The following comments and attached map will show the Councils design for the Main truck line for all 4 utilities in Alterative 2 and 3. This design will allow the Two Rivers Campground to have access to all the utilities as well as the lower section of Lower Pines Campground. Activation of these Campgrounds will meet the needs of the public for more campsites in Yosemite Valley and the V .E.R.P. directives for Park Service Goals.” 

The following comments are numbered to coincide with the attached map:  

1.) The proposed lift station is shown at this location (near Housekeeping Camp) in the proposed construction phase.(Alternative 2&3) . 

2.) The Councils design for the utilities is to pump the wastewater East to Stoneman Bridge. 

3.) After joining the main line, it would continue to be pumped down Northside Drive to the next lift pump station at the Tecoya Dorms. This same route win be: used for Communications, Electric, and Water utilities. . 

4.) This section will show the elimination of the 4 utility lines between Housekeeping Camp and Camp 6 via the South Side Drive (Alternative 2) and the utilities lines via South side Drive to Sentinel Bridge to North side Drive (Alternative 3) thus eliminating the major disturbance to virgin soil, riparian zones, native plant gathering habitats and cultural resource and archaeological sites. This is the type of disturbance that the council feels is unnecessary and avoidable. By routing all of the utilities from within the Housekeeping Camp area through Northside Drive corridor, it makes utilities available for Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds making them fully functional when placed back as camp sites to meet the public  requirements for campsites in Yosemite Valley. . 

5.) The utility corridor will follow the Resident 1 (Old Superintendent House) driveway to a location below the Residence where the existing utilities cross the river thus avoiding any impact upon the old growth and stands of healthy Black Oaks and the gathering sites for many other resources in the surrounding ecosystem.  

6.) The preferred alternative for the East Valley utilities is to minimize ground disturbance and to fol1ow existing roadway south of the Upper Pines Campground to the Happy Isles area along the existing water line route through Curry Village. With the absence of camping facilities at Indian Caves and Group Camp the need for a proposed pump station is eliminated.”  (Tribal Organization, Mariposa, CA, Comment #7-2)

Response:  This alternative would not be consistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan, which calls for removal of the Rivers campgrounds, removal of utilities from these areas, and the ecological restoration of these areas. This issue was decided by the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation.  Reanalysis of the appropriate level and location of campground facilities is beyond the scope of this document. 

WATER RESOURCES

12.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should ensure that the proposed upgrades to the wastewater system in Yosemite Valley are designed to prevent releases of sewage that could contaminate the Merced River.

“...I am very uncomfortable with the proximity to the Merced River of some of the sewage lines as proposed in the preferred alternative.  Given that the NPS's track record includes a massive sewage spill into the Merced River during which the NPS failed to notify those who draw their water supply from the river downstream that fecal contamination was moving from the NPS facility toward their drinking water sources, it is especially desirable to structure a system that prevents any possible breach of the sewer lines leading to contamination of the river.”  (Individual, Comment #10-4)

Response:  All of the alternatives in the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment include changes to the Valley wastewater system to address the capacity and condition problems which have led in the past to accidental discharges to the Merced River.

VEGETATION, WETLAND AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

4.         Public Concern:  The National Park Service should route utilities through previously disturbed areas and non-riparian zones.

“This Utility Improvement Plan will be the most destructive Project in Yosemite since the 1997 High Water Flood and it is the responsibility of all who love Yosemite to minimize the ground disturbance and rethink where the utilities should be placed without disturbing virgin soil and riparian zones.”  (Tribal Organization, Mariposa, CA, Comment #7-3)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan attempts to minimize effects to riparian areas and to areas that have not been previously disturbed, as well as impacts to wetlands, California Black Oaks, and cultural resources.  Over 90 percent of the proposed corridors are in existing or proposed transportation corridors or in existing utility corridors.  The few exceptions to this include some utility corridors near Residence One and the Ranger Y that were relocated into adjacent uplands to reduce effects on large California Black Oak trees, a highly valued resource; and the river crossing and Camp 6 corridor which was identified as the most technically feasible area to cross the Merced River, and connect the Curry Village area with the Yosemite Village area, without crossing through meadow areas identified for ecological restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

44.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have disclosed if there would be nighttime construction operations and, if so, what its effect would be.

A [internal NPS] memo concerning the Utility Master Plan EA, dated April 7, 2003 raises a question as to whether construction will occur at night.  A portion of the memo reads, "Discussion of construction period.  Nighttime operations may be required; don’t know for sure." ... conducting nighttime construction would cause undue stress ... to animals in and around the Valley whose normal haunts occur mainly during nighttime hours when natural quiet is the norm.”  (Individual, Comment #19-9)

“Something else that came out at the Open House was the fact that night time operations might be needed during construction.  If such operations were only for technical reasons, such as making connections during a low-flow period, it would be one thing.  But, considering the hectic pace at which development is being pushed, we are wondering whether night time operations might be resorted to in order to expedite construction.  If this were done, the potential for disturbance of wildlife is very large because of the much longer periods of time involved.  Discussion is needed, preferably culminating in a statement that night time operations will not be resorted to except as may be needed for purely technical reasons.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #15-7)

Response:  Some construction activities will be required to occur at night, when utility demands are at their lowest.  Nighttime construction activities will be limited to those activities technically required to occur at night, primarily 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 are expected to be minimal.

66.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have clarified the relationship between the intensity of impacts to wetlands and the amount of acreage affected.

“After reviewing the analysis I was...confused by the analysis of biological resource impacts.  For instance, the wetland analysis states that all alternatives would have short-term minor adverse impacts.  However, the Alternative 1 would have short-term impacts on a total of 3.82 acres of wetland while Alternative 2 would impact 26 acres of wetland in the short-term.  According to your impact criteria, I would assume that there is a perceptible difference between 3.82 and 26 acres and that the 26 acre impact would be more accurately described as moderate.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-5)

“After reviewing the analysis I was...confused by the analysis of biological resource impacts. ... Alternative 1 would impact 31 acres of vegetation, while Alternative 2 would affect 99 acres.  Again, both impact analyses state that the effects of both actions are minor - even when Alternative 2 would have over three times the effect of Alternative 1.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-5)

“Alternative 1 would impact 31 acres of wildlife habitat, while Alternative 2 would affect 116 acres.  Again, both impact analyses state that the effects of both actions are minor - even when Alternative 2 would have nearly four times the effect of Alternative 1.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-6)

Response:  As discussed on pages IV-7 through IV-12 of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan, the intensity of impacts to biological resources is not based solely on the acreage affected.  Impacts to vegetation (including wetlands) and wildlife also take into account the effects on the abundance, the continuity, and the integrity of the resource populations within the Valley.  Thus, whether 5 acres of wetlands are impacted or 25 acres are impacted, if the impact is localized within a relatively small area and does not impact the overall size, continuity, and integrity of wetlands in the Valley, the impact is considered minor.  Although Alternative 2 would affect 26 acres of wetlands in the short-term, 20 of these acres would have long-term beneficial effects from the removal of utility infrastructure in these areas. Finally, long-term benefits associated with removal of the utilities from areas identified for ecological restoration are expected to compensate for the short-term adverse effects from construction.

Similarly, the effects on vegetation and wildlife do not affect critical habitats and are not expected to adversely affect the overall viability of the vegetation or wildlife resource populations within the Valley.  And, as discussed above, the long-term benefits associated with removal of the utilities from areas identified for ecological restoration are expected to compensate for the short-term adverse effects from construction.  Alternative 1 does not include these types of beneficial effects to offset the adverse impacts resulting from retention and repair of dispersed utility infrastructure in environmentally sensitive areas.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

46.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should re-evaluate the effects to special status species.

“... the biological section states that there would be short-term effects to riparian and aquatic habitat but fails to recognize any affect to special status species.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-11)

“...I’m also leery of the analysis of effects to special status species. Some of the species indicated have relatively short lifespans and what may be a short-term impact on the human scale may have significant effects on multiple generations of a species. I would think that the entire analysis of special status species needs to be rethought.”  (Individual, San Francisco, CA, Comment #5-7)

Response:  Table C-2 in Appendix C has been revised in the Errata Sheet to reflect the short-term adverse effects to special-status species.  The analysis of effects on special status species was prepared by qualified biologists and has been reviewed and concurred with by the USFWS.  The information on special status species effects in the environmental assessment is considered to be sufficient.

Air Quality

47.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should not allow the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan to increase air pollution in Yosemite Valley.

“Widening Valley roads to accommodate bigger buses and motor homes would appear to contravene the Park's Class I airshed status…The Class I airshed status under Federal law allows only a small additional amount of pollution.  This is, therefore, unacceptable…..According to the Yosemite  Valley Plan, these additional diesel buses will have at least moderately negative effects on levels of nitrogen oxides, or NOx.  This understates the  truth, which is that many of the diesel buses in question emit illegally high levels of NOx ... The Utilities plan will not solve this problem, it will aid and abet it.”  (Individual, Comment #9-5)

“Your plan calls for the use of diesel engines for the pumping stations.  However, the valley already exceeds federal air quality standards.  How can you justify adding more pollution to the valley air than already exists?”  (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-6)

Response:  This project will not result in widening Valley roads and is not expected to affect transportation modes.  As described on page IV-110 of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan, the project does include additional lift stations with electric pumps.  These pumps will require backup diesel generators to ensure continued operation of the system in the event of a power failure.  These diesel backup generators will be run for only a short time period each week for testing, and will be required to incorporate the best available emission control technology for diesel generators.  The effects to air quality in the region are expected to be negligible.

48.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have provided full disclosure of the increased air emissions related to the use of more diesel equipment for construction and operations.

“Another issue of great concern with respect to Alternative 2 is the greater impact upon air quality it will have... Alternative 2, being approximately 6 ½ times larger in terms of costs, will mean that construction activities will be occurring in more areas of the Valley, and that as a consequence more diesel equipment will be operating during the construction phases and bigger diesel generators will be used to power the larger lift stations of the completed sewer system.  The completed [sewer] system comprised of a lot more forcemains that at present will likely also have greater power requirements.”  (Individual, Comment #19-12)

“The increased number of pumps required to force sewage through segments of the lines in Alternative 2 (and 3) does not include an evaluation of air quality impacts of more diesel engines in Yosemite Valley.”  (Individual, Merced, CA, Comment #18-4)

Response:  The information provided on air quality effects in the environmental assessment is sufficient.  The environmental assessment discusses air emissions from diesel construction equipment and from diesel backup generators at the lift stations.  As described on page IV-110 of the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan, the selected alternative does include additional lift stations with electric pumps.  These pumps will require backup diesel generators to ensure continued operation of the system in the event of a power failure.  These diesel backup generators will be run for only a short time period each week for testing, and will be required to incorporate the best available emission control technology for diesel generators.  The effects to air quality in the region are expected to be negligible.

Visitor Experience

10.        Public Concern:  The National Park Service should complete a visitor carrying capacity study to determine utility capacity requirements.

“Our primary concern all along has been whether the capacities to which the various utilities will be constructed will be appropriate.  This determination logically would start from a plan which has defined the level of use which can be sustained without impairing either the visitor experience or the natural resources.

But such a plan does not exist.  The 1980 General Management Plan made a start on addressing the concept of carrying capacity, but that effort was nullified by the 2000 Valley Plan.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #11-1)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is designed to remedy existing deficiencies in east Valley utility infrastructure and create consolidated utility corridors to serve existing and planned facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  The proposed utility improvements are designed based on the visitor levels and facilities specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which reduced visitor and employee accommodations in the Valley.  In developing the Utilities Improvement Plan, the engineers assumed a daily visitor use level of 18,241 including overnight and day-use visitors.  This is the same daily visitor use level identified in the 1980 General Management Plan. 

Most of the proposed improvements address upgrading and modernizing utility equipment and facilities to meet currently accepted engineering standards for safety and reliability.  The proposed utility improvements do not increase the overall capacity of the utility systems.  For example, the Valley wastewater system is limited by the capacity of the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant; this project does not propose to increase this limit.  It will, however, address Valley wastewater collection system deficiencies required to be addressed under the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.  Similarly, the capacity of the drinking water system, which includes the park’s three groundwater wells and the water storage tank, will not change.  The changes to the water system will address fire flow and other safety standards not currently addressed by the existing water distribution system.    

The comment also refers to the 1980 General Management Plan’s discussion of a visitor use level of 18,241 for the Valley.  The Yosemite Valley Plan incorporates this number as the expected level of visitor use in the Valley.  Engineering design for the utility systems assumed this level of daily visitor use as the design capacity for the utility systems.  In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the National Park Service will also adopt measurable limits on visitor use and proceed with implementing the VERP framework to ensure protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River.

 

29.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have addressed Yosemite Valley carrying capacity.

“...I asked about the capacities of the utilities and road widths in Yosemite Valley.... [Park staff responded], in general, [by saying] "design capacities were determined by land use allowances in the Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP)."  However, the YVP does not contain any numerical values on this.  Therefore, there is no basis for the public to make any inferences as to what the intent of the National Park Service is with respect to maintaining existing levels of capacity or increasing the capacities of the utilities and presumably, also the roads in the Valley.”  (Individual, Comment #19-5)

“It appears that you have ignored the dictates of the Merced River Plan by failing to address user capacity noted in the 1980 master plan.”  (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-5)

Response:  As described in Response #10 above, this project is designed to remedy existing deficiencies in east Valley utility infrastructure and create consolidated utility corridors to serve existing and planned facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  The Yosemite Valley Plan calls for a reduction in the accommodation of visitors and employees in the Valley.  The utility improvements identified in this plan are designed to meet the expected total daily Valley visitor use of 18,241, including both overnight and day-use visitors. 

The comment also refers to the 1980 General Management Plan’s discussion of a visitor use level of 18,241for the Valley.  The Yosemite Valley Plan incorporates this number as the expected level of visitor use in the Valley.  In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the National Park Service will also adopt measurable limits on visitor use and proceed with implementing the VERP framework to ensure protection of Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Merced River.

 

53.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan should ensure construction activity is during daytime whenever possible to reduce adverse effects of nighttime construction on visitor experience.

“A [internal NPS] memo concerning the Utility Master Plan EA, dated April 7, 2003 raises a question as to whether construction will occur at night.  A portion of the memo reads, "Discussion of construction period.  Nighttime operations may be required; don’t know for sure." ...  conducting nighttime construction would have deleterious effects upon the visitor experience by its negative impacts on air quality and natural quiet.”  (Individual, Comment #19-8)

Response:  Some construction activities will be required to occur at night, when utility demands are at their lowest.  Nighttime construction activities would include those activities technically required to occur at night (during low utility usage periods), including 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.

61.        Public Concern:  The EA should address the capacity of the wastewater system.

“..it is clear that the drafters of the Utility Plan EA had something in mind, because there are explicit drawings in the document showing proposed diameters of various sewer lines throughout the project area.  Since such detailed plans would have to have originated with some particular capacity level in mind, the question arises as to what that capacity is.

We have gone back and forth through the document repeatedly looking for the capacity information, but have finally concluded that it is not there.“ (Conservation Organization, Comment #11-2)

“The way in which you calculated the proposed [sewer] capacity was explained in terms of the Valley Plan, and what that Plan calls for by way of overnight accommodations.   What you did not comment on (we failed to ask the question), was how you took day-use into account.  As visitor use continues to shift from overnight to day-use, that becomes more significant.  And, as we pointed out in our earlier comments, the Valley Plan does not even address the issue of day-user capacity.  (Conservation Organization, Comment #15-3)

1.  How many gallons per minute (gpm) can be moved by the present sewer system?

2. How many gpm could be moved by the proposed system?

3. Aside from capacity, what are the actual flows?”  (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-3)

“Most egregious is the NPS's absolute silence on the most important issue in any proposed alteration and up-grading of utilities infrastructure:  how many people is this "improvement plan" designed to serve?  Until the NPS includes that information in the documents provided to the public, any public review and comment period is a facade, constructed not for public participation, but for the empty disposal of statutory requirements. 

The capacity of the sewer lines is not clearly indicated. Analysis of the needed capacity in terms of visitor numbers and projected usage may indicate an even larger capacity in some parts of the system.”  (Individual, Merced, CA, Comment #18-1)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment is intended to ensure adequate utilities for east Valley facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  The utility improvements identified are based on visitor use levels and facilities specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which calls for a reduction in visitor and employee accommodations in the Valley.  The proposed utility improvements, including wastewater improvements, are designed based on an expected level of visitor use in the Valley of 18,241 including both overnight and day use visitors.  This is consistent with the level of Valley visitor use identified in the 1980 General Management Plan.  The appropriate level of development in the Valley was decided by the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation. Reanalysis of visitor use levels is beyond the scope of this document.

The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is not intended to increase overall utility capacities, but to address existing utility system deficiencies and to relocate utility systems to reduce environmental impacts and provide utility service to facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The capacity of the Valley wastewater system is limited by the permitted capacity of the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant (1 mgd), the Yosemite Creek Lift Station forcemain, and the interceptor line that transports wastewater from the Valley to the treatment plant.  The capacities of these facilities will remain unchanged.  The planning capacity for the collection and transmission system within the Valley was based on existing flows by wastewater basin and projected changes in flows by wastewater basin associated with changes identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Access

2.         Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan should not provide infrastructure for a vast increase in numbers of visitors, visitor facilities, and employee support facilities.

“It [the East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement EA] would provide underlying infrastructure for a vast increase in numbers of visitors, visitor facilities, and employee support facilities. We disagree with this.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-2)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan does not provide for an increase in the number of visitors, visitor facilities, and employee support facilities.  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment is intended to ensure adequate utilities for east Valley facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  Utility capacities have been based on services specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, and do not provide for increased visitor capacities above Yosemite Valley Plan levels. The Yosemite Valley Plan identifies an expected level of visitor use in the Valley of 18,241 including both overnight and day use visitors.  The utility systems addressed in the plan were engineered with a design capacity for 18,241 daily visitors. This is consistent with the level of Valley visitor use identified in the 1980 General Management Plan.  The appropriate level of development in the Valley was decided by the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation. Reanalysis of visitor use levels is beyond the scope of this document.

Transportation

1.         Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan should not widen roads in Yosemite Valley.

“The Utility plan indicates widening of roads throughout East Yosemite Valley through linkage to trench digging and other construction related to the Utility Plan. The improvement of utilities and the repair of utilities should not be linked to nor used as an excuse to widen roads in Yosemite Valley.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-14)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan does not propose to widen roads in Yosemite Valley.  Roads will be replaced in their existing location and width after utilities are installed below them.  This is clarified in the Errata Sheet and the FONSI.

 

55.        Public Concern:  Yosemite National Park should not increase infrastructure to facilitate increasing the bus system for increased tourists.

“Facilitation of an increasing bus system to accommodate an undisclosed and apparently undetermined amount of tourists enticed into the park through marketing of amenities should not be a basis on which to increase infrastructure including cables.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-13)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment is intended to ensure adequate utilities for east Valley facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

Utility capacities have been based on the facilities and visitor use levels specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which calls for a reduction of employee and visitor accommodations within the Valley.  In designing the utility systems, total visitor use, including overnight and day-use visitors, was assumed to be 18,241, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan and the 1980 General Management Plan.  Although the upgraded utilities will serve all visitors, including those arriving by bus, the upgraded facilities will not lead to an unlimited number of visitors entering the Valley.  As state previously, the utility systems were designed to accommodate a total of 18,241 daily visitors.

The appropriate level of development in the Valley and issues regarding Valley transportation systems were decided by the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation. Reanalysis of these issues is beyond the scope of this document.

 

56.        Public Concern:  Yosemite National Park should retain existing road widths in Yosemite Valley.

“Is the widening of South Side Drive…being done to provide a communications utility line that is really needed, or is it being done to eventually accommodate larger motor homes and buses over 40' in length?  In recent years the Park Service has been placing boulders at close intervals to prevent vehicles from parking on the shoulder of Valley roads. ...  Is there any real need to widen roads such as this one if vehicular traffic is expected to decrease in number under the Yosemite Valley Plan?  This appears to be a contradiction of that intent.”  (Individual, Comment #9-6)

“Are the proposed utility improvements based on widening roads such as South Side Drive merely being done to accommodate a future for Yosemite Valley which includes a lot more diesel buses rather than the possibility of electrified public transit?  Based on the scant information provided in the Utilities EA, it does not appear to provide sufficient justification to spend $75.8 million to construct the proposed utility improvements for the Valley's future.  Forms of electrified public transit such as light rail would occupy only half the right of way of existing Valley roads, for instance.”  (Individual, Comment #9-4)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan does not propose to widen roads in Yosemite Valley.  Roads will be replaced in their existing location and width after utilities are installed below them.  This is clarified in the Errata Sheet and the FONSI.

 

57.        Public Concern:  The EA should clearly identify the project’s effect on road widths in the Valley.

“4. It appears that you may be widening some roads to accommodate this proposed system.  You show on you plans that the roads are all the same width.  However my general knowledge of the valley is that the roads are not all the same width, and you will in fact be widening some roadways.  You will be doing this at the expense of some flora. …”  (Individual, Harbor City, CA, Comment #16-4)

“... I made specific reference to the fact that the road prisms are all drawn to the dimension 26'-0" in Figures II-27 and II-28, “Proposed Utility Corridor Cross-Sections.”  I asked why the roads had all been drawn to the same dimension when this was not an existing condition.  I later found, upon examining the supporting documents in the Research Library, that these diagrams of the road prisms showing the approximate location of the proposed consolidated utilities underneath, were excerpted from the YVIMUP.  [The]Utilities Project Manager … said at the August 27th Open House that the Valley's roads are of varying widths and that the intent of Alternative 2 is to restore them to their present widths upon completing the utility consolidations.” (Individual, Comment #19-14)

“… One cannot understand the scope and dimension of the proposed Alternative 2 without knowing anything about the existing utilities and the roads under which the new utilities are to be relocated.  "Was road widening to be part of the project?", I then asked.  [Park staff] responded that the information in the Utilities EA describing the dimensions of the road prisms was incorrect.  It was apparent at the July 30th Open House that the public would have had to assume that widening the roads might indeed be part of the scope of Alternative 2 because no other written information was provided upon which to base assumptions about what the proposal included with respect to the dimensions of the roads upon completion of the utilities consolidation.  (Individual, Comment #19-7)

Response:  This project does not propose to widen roads in Yosemite Valley.  Roads will be replaced in their existing location and width after utilities are installed below them.  This is clarified in the Errata Sheet and the FONSI.

58.        Public Concern:  The FONSI should clearly identify that trenching along roads will be confined to the existing paved area and that new pavement will not extend beyond the area covered by existing pavement.

“The matter of road width is critical.  Prior to the Open House, executive staff of the Park stated that all trenching along road rights of way would be confined to the existing paved area, and new pavement would not extend beyond the area covered by existing pavement.  This needs to be put down in writing, as it is one of the major concerns we have encountered, and the EA is misleading.” (Conservation Organization, Comment #15-5)

Response:  This project does not propose to widen roads in Yosemite Valley.  Roads will be replaced in their existing location and width after utilities are installed below them.  This is clarified in the Errata sheet and the FONSI.

Park Operations

33.        Public Concern:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan Environmental Assessment should have defined the actual infrastructure needs of Yosemite Valley.

“...[T]he existence of a Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP) calling for greater infrastructure generally, does not obviate the need for any plan claiming to tier from it to not specify what the utility needs actually are. We do not condone the creation of underlying infrastructure to support an undisclosed new generation of impacts outlined but never analyzed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.” (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-7)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is intended to ensure adequate utilities for east Valley facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  Utility capacities have been based on facilities specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which calls for a reduction in visitor and employee accommodations in the Valley.  The utility improvements and upgrades were designed for an expected daily use of 18,241visitors, including overnight and day use visitors.  This is consistent with the level of Valley visitor use identified in the 1980 General Management Plan. 

The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan evaluates utility needs based on an assessment of existing utility usage, existing utility deficiencies, and projected demands associated with facilities proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan.  The improvements are not designed to increase the number of visitors, but to improve utility systems to meet current engineering standards for safety and reliability, and to relocate utilities from environmentally sensitive areas into roadways and other developed areas.

The existing Valley wastewater collection and transmission system has significant capacity and condition problems at current facility levels.  The park is required to address these deficiencies under the Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.  The overall capacity of the Valley wastewater system is limited by the permitted capacity of the El Portal Wastewater Treatment Plant (1 mgd), the Yosemite Creek Lift Station forcemain, and the interceptor line that transports wastewater from the Valley to the treatment plant.  The capacities of these facilities will remain unchanged.  The planning capacity for the collection and transmission system within the Valley was based on existing flows by wastewater basin and projected changes in flows by wastewater basin associated with changes identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

60.        Public Concern:  Yosemite National Park should not provide cable lines to accommodate NPS or concessionaire administration in Yosemite Valley.

“We do not agree with increased infrastructure in Yosemite Valley. This plan appears to accommodate trenches for new cable... If cable lines are being constructed to accommodate NPS or concessionaire administration in Yosemite Valley, that is also inappropriate. NPS administration and offices are supposed to be moved to El Portal. The concessionaire offices are supposed to be moved to the Central Valley.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-12)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan is intended to ensure adequate utilities for east Valley facilities identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan, which calls for a reduction in park administration facilities in the Valley.  The communications improvements included in the Utilities Improvement Plan are designed to provide up to date voice and data communications capabilities for existing and proposed facilities.  Utilities and other park maintenance functions increasingly rely on real-time data for monitoring the systems and identifying any problems as they occur.  Improvements in communications capabilities are intended to improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of Valley utilities and other park operations.

The appropriate level of development in the Valley was decided by the approved Yosemite Valley Plan after considerable public involvement and management deliberation. Reanalysis of these development levels is beyond the scope of this document.

 

62.        Public Concern:  Yosemite National Park should concentrate on necessary and appropriate management, maintenance, and repair of the existing wastewater system in Yosemite Valley.

“The Friends of Yosemite Valley has been asking for necessary and appropriate maintenance in Yosemite Valley, especially repair, maintenance, and monitoring of the sewage systems.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-1)

“If a spill occurs, it will not be a disastrous raw sewage spill as occurred during the NPS test of the sewer line in July of 2000 in which 200,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Merced River. This spill continued for hours because, according to a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board report, NPS decision makers decided to not post an employee at the manhole near the El Portal Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). In addition, if there had been an employee on duty throughout the night at the Plant, they would have been able to stop the spill.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-9)

“Instead of spending millions of dollars on new development, it appears important to post employees at the WWTP on 24 hours shifts and take care of the existing infrastructure.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-10)

Response:  Repair and maintenance of the existing system was evaluated in Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative.  This alternative was sufficiently evaluated in the environmental assessment.  This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project.  It does not remove utilities from the areas identified for ecological restoration or provide efficient utility service to areas proposed for development or redevelopment in the Yosemite Valley Plan.

 

63.        Public Comment:  The EA should address whether the project will increase electromagnetic emission in the east Valley.

“We see nowhere in this EA a discussion of the impacts of increasing electromagnetic emissions in the East Valley through this plan.”  (Conservation Organization, Comment #12-15)

Response:  The East Yosemite Valley Utilities Improvement Plan will not substantially change the public’s exposure to electromagnetic fields in the Valley.  This project is designed to ensure efficient service to existing facilities and those proposed in the Yosemite Valley Plan, and to allow for the relocation of major electrical lines into consolidated corridors.  This project is not designed to accommodate increased visitor or employee use of the Valley river corridor.  The electrical distribution system will use shielded cables and be buried underground, which reduces electrical fields as compared to overhead lines.  This project also includes removal of four above ground electrical transformers and construction of six below ground electrical transformers that will be installed with metallic covers.  One new above ground pad mounted transformer will be located in the Curry Village employee housing area. The change in transformers is not expected to substantially change the public's exposure to electromagnetic fields in the Valley, particularly due to the limited extent of the magnetic field and the amount of time that any one person would be close to these facilities.

 

---