|
|
|
Environmental Assessment Errata and ERRATA PART 1 - EA TEXT CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS AND CLARIFICATION Pages 1 through 23 Pages 24 through 47 Errata Part 2 The environmental assessment was available for public review and comment for a 30 -day period from September 11, 2003 through October 11, 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 Preferred Alternative were made as a result of public comments on the environmental assessment. Changes to the environmental assessment are outlined below . The following information is provided to assist users with manipulation of map scales when using the electronic version of the environmental assessment. 1. Open the specified figure by double-clicking on the figure or selecting the figure and utilizing the drop down file/open option. 2 . Once the file is open click on file/print , which will open a window that enables selection of the paper size and orientation. For large scale printing we would suggest selecting tabloid ( 11 x 17 ) and orienting the paper as landscape to match the orientation used in the EA. 3. After determining the paper size and orientation click on properties. 4. Then click on advanced, which will open a window that contains a box called scaling. 5. Scaling increases the scale of the figure by indicating a scale above 100 percent, e.g., 140 percent. The enlarged figure can then be printed out. The following text revisions clarify the purpose and need for the proposed project. 1 . Page ES- 1 , change text as follows: The • Restore, protect, and enhance the resources of Yosemite Valley , • Provide opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences, • Reduce traffic congestion, and • Provide effective park operations to meet the mission of the National Park Service. Both action alternatives addressed by this decision document specifically address these goals. Both alternatives would allow resource restoration by removal of campgrounds and related facilities from the River Protection Overlay and removal of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow. Opportunities for high-quality resource-based visitor experiences would be enhanced by an increase in the number of available campsites in the East Valley area to a total of 415 (from a current total of 318 ). This includes the addition of walk-in campsites and Recreational Vehicle campsites to diversify the types of campsites available in this area. Visitor experience would be further enhanced by the removal of 253 tent cabins in the rockfall zone, and the addition of 108 new cabins-with-bath and conversion of 7 historic cabin accommodations to visitor use. Though these changes will result in a net decrease of 41 overnight visitor accommodations, the increased diversity of visitor accommodations, reduced crowding, and improved safety are expected to enhance visitor experience. Yosemite Valley Plan specifications regarding traffic circulation and parking are also incorporated into the proposed action alternatives, including the elimination of 47 day-use visitor parking spaces at the Curry Orchard and reduction of the number of Curry Village overnight parking spaces from 628 to 487 . In addition, the expansion of the Curry Village store to serve the needs of campers in addition to Curry Village guests will help reduce valley traffic. Park operations will be enhanced by the inclusion of a central campground check-in facility and improved Curry Village registration facilities. 2 . Page I- 3 , change text as follows: The • Restore, protect, and enhance the resources of Yosemite Valley , • Provide opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences, • Reduce traffic congestion, and • Provide effective park operations to meet the mission of the National Park Service. Both action alternatives addressed by this decision document specifically address these goals. Both alternatives would allow resource restoration by removal of campgrounds and related facilities from the River Protection Overlay and removal of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow. Opportunities for high-quality resource-based visitor experiences would be enhanced by an increase in the number of available campsites in the East Valley area to a total of 415 (from a current total of 318 ). This includes the addition of walk-in campsites and Recreational Vehicle campsites to diversify the types of campsites available in this area. Visitor experience would be further enhanced by the removal of 253 tent cabins in the rockfall zone, and the addition of 108 new cabins-with-bath and conversion of 7 historic cabin accommodations to visitor use. Though these changes will result in a net decrease of 41 overnight visitor accommodations, the increased diversity of visitor accommodations, reduced crowding, and improved safety are expected to enhance visitor experience. Yosemite Valley Plan specifications regarding traffic circulation and parking are also incorporated into the proposed action alternatives, including the elimination of 47 day-use visitor parking spaces at the Curry Orchard and reduction of the number of Curry Village overnight parking spaces from 628 to 487 . In addition, the expansion of the Curry Village store to serve the needs of campers in addition to Curry Village guests will help reduce valley traffic. Park operations will be enhanced by the inclusion of a central campground check-in facility and improved Curry Village registration facilities. The project would upgrade existing facilities and increase the number of campsites in the area to serve the increased visitor demand. The number of cabins-with-bath in Curry Village would also be increased. The project would implement the River Protection Overlay, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan , which would improve visitor safety by removing campsites from the floodplain and allow for the future ecological restoration of the vegetation along the Merced River . The following information is provided to clarify the differences between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 Comments addressing the environmental assessment indicated that some reviewers had difficulty distinguishing the principal differences between the two action alternatives. Though these alternatives are quite similar due to their adherence to the direction provided by the Yosemite Valley Plan , there are notable differences between these alternatives. The text revisions below are intended to more clearly present these differences, and do not represent any change to the alternatives presented in the draft environmental assessment. 1 . Page ES- 3 , change text as follows: Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would implement the changes to the project area envisioned in the Yosemite Valley Plan with strict adherence to the individual project elements outlined in that plan . Notable features of this alternative that differ from Alternative 3 include the remodeling of the existing registration building (the historic post office), strict conformance with Yosemite Valley Plan campsite numbers in South Camp, and redevelopment of several campground restrooms to include shower facilities. Both action alternatives provide the same number of lodging facilities, comparable visitor amenities, and the same total number of campsites. This would result in a net reduction of 138 visitor accommodations in the Curry Village area and a net increase of 97 campsites, for an overall reduction of 41 visitor accommodations associated with this alternative . Private vehicles and buses would continue to be the primary modes of transportation into the area, but the elimination of day - visitor parking would likely increase the percentage of transit use. Parking would be less scattered and would be located closer to the user (e.g., tent cabin, campsite). The number of cabins - with - bath would increase and the number of tent cabins would decrease under this alternative. Southside Drive would be closed in conformance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, making Curry Village Road the main access road to the campgrounds east of Curry Village and other parts of the east Yosemite Valley . The entrance roadway into Curry Village would be redesigned in a triangular entry pattern. Curry Village The existing registration building (the historic Curry Village post office) would continue to be used, and this facility would be remodeled to better serve guest needs. The grocery store would be expanded to accommodate its use as the principal store for Curry Village and campground guests . The ice rink would be removed. During winter months a new removable ice rink would be located on a portion of the Curry Orchard parking lot. The Mountain Shop would be located west of the new Curry Village entrance loop road. The fruit trees in the historic Curry Orchard would be removed. A portion of the parking area would be restored to natural conditions, and a portion would be developed as a parking area. The new parking area would be planted with a mixture of native deciduous and evergreen tree species. The tree canopy would be substantial enough to screen views from park visitors looking into the project area from Glacier Point. All employee housing and support facilities would be demolished, except for the historic Huff House, which would be restored to accommodate four guest lodging units. The historic bungalows would be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse as visitor lodging facilities, for a total of 25 rooms. A single-truck fire station would be constructed at the west end of Curry Village . 2 . Page ES- 4 , change text as follows: Selected Alternative: Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would implement the changes to the project area envisioned in the Yosemite Valley Plan with refinements that further complement the goals stated in that plan . Notable features of this alternative that differ from Alternative 2 include: the installation of a new registration building and remodeling of the existing registration building (the historic post office) to restore its historic character and provide additional visitor lounge facilities; overall conformity with Yosemite Valley Plan campsite numbers with fewer walk-in campsites in South Camp and more in the Upper Pines walk-in campground, and development of a single centralized campground shower facility. Both action alternatives provide the same number of lodging facilities, comparable visitor amenities, and the same total number of campsites. This would result in a net reduction of 138 visitor accommodations in the Curry Village area and a net increase of 97 campsites, for an overall reduction of 41 visitor accommodations associated with this alternative. Private vehicles and buses would continue to be the primary modes of transportation into the area, but the elimination of day - visitor parking would likely increase the percentage of transit use. Parking would be less scattered and would be located closer to the user (e.g., tent cabin, campsite). The number of cabins - with - bath would increase and the number of tent cabins would decrease under this alternative. Southside Drive would be closed in conformance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, making Curry Village Road the main access road to the campgrounds east of Curry Village and other parts of the east Yosemite Valley . The entrance roadway into Curry Village would be redesigned in a circular entry pattern. Curry Village A new registration building would be constructed to better serve the needs of Curry Village guests. This structure would be designed to be compatible with nearby structures. The existing registration building (the historic Curry Village post office) would be adapted to use as a visitor lounge, with some restoration of the historic character of this building associated with this effort. The grocery store would be expanded to accommodate its use as the principal store for Curry Village and campground guests. The ice rink would be removed. During winter months, a new removable ice rink would be located immediately north of the Meadow Deck, in a position that would capture the view of Half Dome. The Mountain Shop would be relocated to a new building east of its current location. The fruit trees in the historic Curry Orchard would be removed. A portion of the parking area would be restored to natural conditions, and a portion would be developed as a parking area. The new parking area would be planted with a mixture of native deciduous and evergreen tree species. The tree canopy would be substantial enough to screen views from park visitors looking into the project area from Glacier Point. All employee housing and support facilities would be demolished, except for the historic Huff House, which would be restored to accommodate four lodging units. All of the historic bungalows would be retained. A single - truck fire station would be constructed at the west end of Curry Village . 3 . Page II- 5 , change text as follows: Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would implement the changes to the project area envisioned in the Yosemite Valley Plan with strict adherence to the individual project elements outlined in that plan . 4 . Page II- 31 , change text as follows: Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 3 would also implement the changes to the project area envisioned in the Yosemite Valley Plan with refinements that further complement the goals stated in that plan . The following information is provided to clarify the background for the location of Recreational Vehicle campsites. The location of the new recreational vehicle campsites in Upper and Lower Pines campgrounds was selected as per the requirements of the Yosemite Valley Plan , which is based on the available land area that was not within the River Protection Overlay, wetland areas, talus line or other sensitive sites such as cultural resources. Additionally, the locations of new recreational vehicle campsites are intended to reduce costs and development impacts by maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and limit the redevelopment of existing campsites. To reduce the disturbance to nearby campers associated with recreational vehicle generator noise, the new recreational vehicle sites will have electrical hookups. Additionally, the new recreational vehicle campsites will be clustered close together in two specific areas and not interspersed throughout the tent sites. Although recreational vehicles may still use existing drive-in sites when the recreational vehicle sites are fully reserved, this development of sites specifically designed for recreational vehicles is expected to be preferentially used by recreational vehicle campers resulting in a reduced exposure of tent campers to recreational vehicle associated disturbances. The following EA figures have been revised to include the updated River Protection Overlay and the 1997 Flood Extent. The revised figures are attached at the end of the errata section. River Protection Overlay (RPO) information available when the draft environmental assessment was prepared was based on a general assessment of the RPO presented in the Yosemite Valley Plan . Since that document was issued, a site specific study of the RPO in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley campgrounds area was completed by Jones & Stokes, and was released in two reports in September 2003 and October 2003 . Illustrations included in the environmental assessment and the related analysis of potential impacts to the RPO have been updated to reflect this current information. Revised figures are included with this errata sheet, and include: Page II- 29 Figure II- 9 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 2 Page II- 31 Figure II- 10 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 2 Page II- 53 Figure II- 18 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 3 Page II- 55 Figure II- 19 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 3 In addition to the detailed figures listed above, a general presentation of the River Protection Overlay and 1997 flood extent was also added to the maps listed below. It should be noted that the scale of these maps does not allow precise locations of the boundaries of these areas, and the maps listed above (II- 9 , II- 10 , II- 18 , and II- 19 ) should be consulted for specific information concerning the location of project features in relation to the River Protection Overlay and 1997 flood extent. Page III- 3 Figure III- 1 Project Area Page III- 24 a (new page) Figure III- 3 a Jurisdictional Wetlands Page III- 49 Figure III- 5 NPS Scenic Rating Classification The Project's potential for growth inducing effects has been considered as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Page III- 5, Land Use, has been revised to include the following text at the end of the paragraph: The proposed action results in a net reduction in lodging in Curry Village , and the total campgrounds and lodging accommodations associated with the Yosemite Valley Plan do not result in a net increase to visitor accommodations. As a result, the proposed action would not be expected to foster long-term population growth, or result in construction of additional housing in the surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed action is not expected to have the potential to cause any growth inducing effects inside or outside park boundaries. 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. Page I- 7 , Regulation and Policies , the following sentence is added at 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. The following changes to the EA present refinements to the mitigation measures to more clearly present the actions that will be taken to reduce and mitigate adverse impacts 1 . Page II- 64 , change text as follows: An oil and hazardous substances spill prevention and response plan 2 . Page II- 66 , change text as follows: Map 3. Page II- 66 , change text as follows: Perform site - specific geologic and geotechnical analyses and investigations, including field exploration, as a part of final site design, to verify and modify, if necessary, the talus line and/or the rockfall zone lines, in order to determine where new facilities may be located. 4. Page II-68 , change text as follows: To the extent feasible, 5. Pages II- 68 and II- 69 , change text as follows: Bats – A qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys one year prior to construction, when feasible. , 6. Page II- 73 , change text as follows: Define parking area boundaries to prevent damage to meadows and other sensitive resource areas. Install a fence along the creek side of the Upper Pines walk-in campground parking area. 7. Page II- 73 , change text as follows: Integrate stormwater pollution control measures into parking lot design and construction, and maintain runoff control facilities as specified in an operational Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 8. Page II- 73 , change text as follows: Use lighting that is consistent with the Yosemite National Park lighting guidelines. In the absence of final guidelines, lighting designs will be allowed based on an acceptability review by 9. Page II- 73 , change text as follows: Design interior and exterior lighting to prevent glare and reduce escaped light. Luminaire lamps would not exceed 100 watts. The following text revision clarifies the reasoning associated with the decision to dismiss the reduced-density campground alternative without further consideration in the environmental assessment Page II- 62 , change the first whole paragraph on this page as follows: These alternatives did not satisfy Yosemite Valley Plan requirements regarding the number and type of campsites in east Yosemite Valley . The Yosemite Valley Plan removes campsites from highly valued resource areas in other sections of the Valley and from the River Protection Overlay to achieve unfragmented blocks of restored river corridor. Providing a variety of campsite types is intended to expand the range of camping experience in the Valley The following text revision clarifies the reasoning associated with the decision to dismiss alternatives involving the development of campsites in areas that were not classified for development in the Yosemite Valley Plan without further consideration in the environmental assessment Page II- 62 , change the section addressing development in Yosemite Valley Plan unclassified zones to read as follows: Developing some areas in the unclassified zone was considered . because of potential benefits to the overall visitor experience and the reduced amount of tree removal that would be required. In Upper Pines, alternatives were initially considered developed that sited the some walk-in sites outside of the development zones designated in the Yosemite Valley Plan. This scheme provided parking near the campsites in two smaller areas instead of concentrating parking in one larger lot . and reduced the number of trees that would need to be removed. Locating campsites outside of the designated development zones did not comply with the Yosemite Valley Plan. required two separate bridges across a tributary of the Merced River and would result in additional wetland impacts. Because this alternative would result in impacts that were considered avoidable and did not comply with the Yosemite Valley Plan , it was dismissed from further analysis . At South Camp, layouts were explored that located walk-in sites in an unclassified zone north of the proposed recreational vehicle dump station. This allowed for more separation of the group sites and a larger buffer between the walk-in sites and the proposed central shower facility. It also avoided wetlands in South Camp and reduced the amount of tree removal and clearing of native vegetation. Locating campsites in the unclassified zone in this area would result in impacts to wetlands in the area and did not comply with the Merced River Plan, which designated the area for day use only. Because thethis alternative layouts would result in impacts that were considered avoidable and did not comply with the Yosemite Valley Plan or the Merced River Plan, the alternative was dismissed from further analysis. The following changes to the EA incorporate the updated wetland delineation information for the project area. Wetland delineation information available when the draft environmental assessment was prepared was based on a preliminary assessment of wetlands areas presented in a 60 % wetlands delineation map prepared by Jones & Stokes. Since the draft environmental assessment was issued, an updated study of wetlands in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley campgrounds area was completed by Jones & Stokes, and was released in two reports in September 2003 and October 2003 . This information was used to update the Wetland Statement of Findings (Appendix E of the environmental assessment) that has been released along with this errata, and has also been used to revise the wetland analysis in the environmental assessment as described below. 1. Page ES- 4 , the last sentence of the first paragraph is deleted as follows: One restroom/shower building would be located in the talus zone. 2. Page ES- 4 , the last sentence of the fifth paragraph is revised as follows:
3. The following figures in Chapter II have been revised to include the updated wetlands information. These figures are attached at the end of the errata section. Page II- 25 Figure II- 8 South Camp Alternative 2 Page II- 27 Figure II- 9 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 2 Page II- 31 Figure II- 10 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 2 (page Page II- 51 Figure II- 17 South Camp Alternative 3 Page II- 53 Figure II- 18 Upper Pines Campground Alternative 3 Page II- 55 Figure II- 19 Lower Pines Campground Alternative 3 4. Page II- 68 , the following mitigation measures are added under Wetlands: • Install all bridge abutments and any protective materials outside the mapped wetland or watercourse area to eliminate fill in wetland areas. • Design all new culvert installations as bottomless culverts that completely span the mapped wetland area and allow the establishment of natural streambed conditions within the culvert. 5 . Page II- 93 , table II- 6 , Alternative 2 , Wetlands; the following text modification is necessary: Alternative 2 would result in local, short-term, minor, adverse construction impacts to wetlands. Removal of campsites in Lower Pines and the removal of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow would allow the restoration of 2 . 1 acres of wetland habitat. This would more than 6 . Page II- 93 , table II- 6 , Alternative 3 , Wetlands; the following text modification is necessary: Alternative 3 would result in local, short-term, minor, adverse construction impacts to wetlands. Removal of campsites in Lower Pines and the removal of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow would allow the restoration of 2 . 1 acres of wetland habitat. This would more than 7. Page III- 20 , the description of wetland types under the heading Yosemite Valley Wetlands has been revised as follows: • Riverine Intermittent Streambed. This wetland type consists of the smaller watercourses that flow in the winter, spring, and summer during periods of runoff and snow melt. The channels are typically bare, but the edges often support palustrine emergent vegetation. A total of 0.953 acre of this habitat was identified in the project area (Jones & Stokes 2003 a and 2003 b). • Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom. This wetland type is characterized by a low gradient and low water velocity, and by a substrate that consists mainly of gravel, sand, silt, and some clay. In addition, these wetlands have less than 30 percent vegetative cover and a water regime that is permanently, or semi-permanently flooded and intermittently exposed (Cowardin et al. 1979 ). A total of 3 . 808 acres of this habitat was identified in the project area (Jones & Stokes 2003 a and 2003 b). • Palustrine. The palustrine classification includes vegetated wetlands, but can also include nonvegetated wetlands that are less than 20 acres, less than 6 . 5 feet in the deepest part at low water, and do not have a wave-formed or bedrock shoreline. Palustrine wetlands can occur as isolated wetlands, on river floodplains, and along lake or pond shores. Palustrine wetland includes riparian corridors, marshes, and ponds. • Palustrine Emergent Wetland. This wetland type includes meadows, marshes, and vegetated ponds. Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes with an aerial coverage of at least 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979 ) that are usually present for most of the growing season. A total of 4 . 612 acres of this vegetation type was identified in the project area. • Palustrine Forested Wetland. These riparian forest habitats are regularly inundated by normal high-water flows or flood flows. The uppermost layer of vegetation consists of trees at least 20 feet tall with an aerial coverage of at least 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979 ). A total of 1 . 315 acres of this vegetation type was identified in the project area. • Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland. This wetland type includes an uppermost layer of vegetation dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall, such as small willows and shrubs with an aerial coverage of at least 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979 ). A total of 0 . 259 acre of this vegetation type was identified in the project area. The size, connectivity, and integrity of wetlands in the project area, particularly palustrine forest, palustrine scrub shrub, and riverine habitat, have been directly compromised by past development and visitor activities. 8. Page III- 21 , the first paragraph under Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Wetlands has been revised as follows: Wetlands in the project area were mapped by Jones & Stokes in 2002 and 2003 under contract to the National Park Service. The Cowardian classification method, based on habitat type, was used to determine the location of wetlands. 9. Page III- 21 , the following paragraph is added after Table III- 3 : Based on the information as mapped by Jones and Stokes ( 2003 a and 2003 b), identified wetlands within the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds planning area include 4.612 acres palustrine emergent wetlands, 0.259 acre palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, 1.315 acres palustrine forested wetlands, 0.184 acre riverine intermittent streambed, and 3.808 acres riverine lower perennial unconsolidated bottom. Based on a review of the project design documents and facility layouts, the wetland areas that are expected to be filled in connection with the proposed project include one 30 -foot long section of a 2 -foot wide drainage channel near one of the first five cabin-with-bath structures, one 75- foot long segment of a 3-foot wide drainage channel at the Alternative 3 site of the proposed Mountain Shop, and a total of 380 feet of 1 -foot wide drainage channel at the site of a new campground check station and recreational vehicle dump station These areas are all mapped as riverine intermittent streambed. Two of these areas (the drainage channel near the first five cabins-with-bath structures and the channel at the Mountain Shop site) are identified as isolated intrastate waters that are not hydraulically connected to navigable waters, do not contribute to the function or values of established wetland complexes, and are not considered subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. In addition, the drainage channel near the cabins-with-bath structures appears to be an artificial channel that is exempt from National Park Service compensation requirements. Existing disturbed areas within identified wetlands that would be restored by other park actions following removal of facilities planned as part of this project include 1 . 1 acres along Southside Drive and the Curry Orchard access road and 1 . 0 acre currently disturbed by existing campsites and campground roadways in Lower Pines Campground . 10 . Page III- 24 , the following figure is added to the wetlands affected environment description: • Figure III- 3 a Jurisdictional Wetlands 11. Pages IV- 79 to IV- 83 evaluating Alternative 2 – Wetland impacts are updated as follows: Analysis Alternative 2 would result in minor to moderate impacts to individual wetland and aquatic habitats. The removal of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow and removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay at Lower Pines Campground would enhance the Merced River Corridor and have a net beneficial impact on wetlands. Construction impacts to wetland and aquatic habitats would be related to temporary disturbances associated with the movement of heavy construction equipment. Total fill of identified wetland areas associated with Alternative 2 would be . 010 acre, including 0.002 acre of an artificial channel mapped as isolated waters. Restoration of approximately one acre of currently disturbed wetlands in Lower Pines campground and approximately 1 . 1 acres of wetlands area along Southside Drive would be enabled by this alternative. The overall result of this project would be a net beneficial impact on wetlands in the project area. Curry Village The wetlands at Curry Village consist of palustrine forest, palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub shrub, and riverine intermittent streambed. The Yosemite Valley Plan anticipated that new development and redevelopment in wetlands would occur at Curry Village ( Five cabins-with-bath structures are proposed as part of the first phase of the Curry Village and East Valley campgrounds project. One of these five cabins-with-bath structures is located immediately adjacent to a drainage channel. This cabin location was selected to minimize tree removal and would require the realignment of a 30 - foot section of the 2 - foot wide drainage channel. The drainage appears to be an artificial channel designed to handle sheet flow in this area, and no developed wetland vegetation is present in the area to be realigned. In addition, this channel is not connected to other wetlands, and the proposed realignment is not expected to adversely affect the function or values of natural wetlands in the general area. The total area affected is less than 0.002 acre (Jones & Stokes 2003 ). Because of the isolated nature of this wetland, its artificial nature, and its small size, this realignment is not believed to be subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and it is believed to be exempt from National Park Service compensation requirements in accordance with Procedural Manual 77.1: Wetlands Protection. Potential disturbance would also be associated with the installation of the new parking area for cabins-with-baths at Curry Village that is proposed as part of the first phase of project development. This parking area crosses a two - foot wide intermittent stream, which is expected to require installation of a 30 - feet long culvert to direct flows under the parking lot. This culvert will be designed as a bottomless culvert with at least a 30 - inch diameter to preserve the streambed conditions. By adhering to this design standard, this culvert installation does not constitute fill of this wetland. Flows would not be impeded from connecting to the Merced River . Indirect impacts associated with visitor access to other areas of the wetland are likely to be minor, since the area of effect is small. This would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to wetlands. Removal of Southside Drive from the intersection with Northside Drive to the Happy Isles Loop Road will allow the restoration of wetland habitat in the Stoneman Meadow area. The total area of wetland habitat currently occupied by the roadway to be removed is approximately 1 . 1 acres. The restoration of this area would enhance the functional capacity of existing wetlands in this area by reduced habitat fragmentation, as well as the addition of wetland habitat area. This habitat restoration represents a beneficial impact.
Amphitheater at Clark 's Bridge There are no wetlands at the amphitheater site. There would be no impacts to wetlands from construction and operation of the new amphitheater. Campground Check Station and Recreational Vehicle Dump Station A new campgrounds check - in station and recreational vehicle dump station is proposed as a later phase of the project. The alignment of the new access road to the campground check station and recreational vehicle dump station would cross a wetland in three locations and would be within this wetland for the turnaround in front of the building. The proposed buildings would not be located within the wetland designated as
South Camp Development of the South Camp campsites is planned for a later phase of the project. The wetlands at South Camp consist of palustrine emergent and riverine intermittent streambed. Alternative 2 would place the campground parking access road and a smaller pedestrian path in a wetland area. A portion of two of the group campsites would be placed on a smaller wetland at the south end of South Camp. Some of the wetlands at South Camp drain to tributaries that feed the Merced River . However, due to their distance from the river, sedimentation to the river would not be anticipated as a result of development within or near wetlands in South Camp. Construction of the campground is expected to occur as part of Phase 2 , following the installation of utilities. Construction and permanent impacts to wetlands would be similar to those described for the campground check station and dump facility. However, the functions and values of wetlands in South Camp are expected to be relatively high, because the wetlands are not directly surrounded by infrastructure. With the application of mitigation measures provided in Chapter II, construction impacts to wetlands would be local, short - term, minor, and adverse. Development of the campground parking facility would result in fill of a freshwater emergent wetland and would completely surround a second, smaller area of emergent wetland. Because this habitat type is scarce in Yosemite Valley , in the absence of the mitigation measures presented in this report and included in this project proposal, permanent impacts would be local, long term, moderate to major, and adverse. With the application of the mitigation measures discussed above, the level of intensity would be reduced to moderate. Upper Pines Campground Development of Upper Pines campground improvements is planned as part of the first phase of the project. The wetlands at Upper Pines Campground consist of palustrine forest, palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub shrub, and riverine intermittent streambed. Some of these wetlands drain to the Merced River through Lower Pines Campground, while others drain directly to the Merced River . Some of the riverine intermittent streambed wetlands drain the restored fen near Happy Isles. Several wetlands are located in development areas identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan . The proposed campground design incorporates design features to prevent permanent fill of wetlands in this area. The proposed walk - in Camp A and parking areas would be located adjacent to a large braided area of intermittent stream (figure II - 6 ). The service road and pedestrian path would cross this wetland in two locations, requiring installation of New drive-in campsites ( Loop A) would be added at the north end of the Upper Pines campground, and restroom facility improvements are planned for new campsites. The only identified facilities in wetland areas associated with the new drive-in campsite area are two crossings of the roadside drainage channel adjacent to the Happy Isles Road . These crossings are associated with a service road access to the planned restroom in Loop A and a pedestrian path from the proposed Loop A campsites to a crossing of the Happy Isles Road . These crossings would be designed using bridge structures or bottomless culverts that completely span the mapped wetland area to prevent fill within the wetland area. Construction activities would also include maintenance and repair to existing utility infrastructure in Upper Pines Campground, which are within existing utility corridors. Due to the proximity of proposed development, human visitation to the wetlands would likely increase, which would result in some trampling of vegetation and erosion of streambanks, potentially increasing sedimentation into a large area of wetland habitat. However, given that there would be no direct fill of these wetlands; prior to mitigation the impacts would be local, long term, moderate, and adverse. The application of the mitigation measures as described for Curry Village would reduce the intensity of this impact to minor. Lower Pines Campground Development of the Lower Pines campground modifications and related wetlands restoration are planned in connection with a later phase of the project. The wetlands at Lower Pines Campground include palustrine scrub shrub and riverine intermittent streambed. These wetlands flow to the Merced River . Alternative 2 would remove existing campsites and access roads in the River Protection Overlay. The redevelopment of Lower Pines Campground under Alternative 2 would avoid all wetland areas and enhance the Merced River corridor through the removal of built features adjacent to the river, potentially expanding the wetlands adjacent to the campsites being removed. The area of existing disturbed wetlands in Lower Pines affected by existing campsites planned for permanent removal as part of this project is approximately 1 . 0 acre. Removal of existing campsites from wetland habitat would have a local, long - term, moderate, beneficial impact to wetlands.
Summary of Alternative 2 Impacts. Alternative 2 would result in fill of approximately 0.010 acre, including 0.002 acre of artificial channel mapped as isolated waters. In addition to this long-term impact, construction activities would result in local, short - term, minor, adverse Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to wetlands based on an analysis of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in Yosemite Valley were discussed for Alternative 1 and are summarized below. Wetland and riparian systems of the Merced River corridor have been substantially altered by development and visitor activities. These changes have negatively influenced the size, form, and function of wetlands and the plants, wildlife, and aquatic species that inhabit them. Cumulative beneficial effects on wetlands include wetland restoration, rehabilitation projects, and ecosystem management. Cumulative adverse effects would be related to increased facilities, regional growth, and visitor demand such as those proposed by this project. Reasonably foreseeable future actions within Yosemite Valley are considered to have an overall beneficial effect on wetlands. For example, the Merced River Plan protects river - related natural resources through the application of management elements. Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan would result in a net gain of wetlands in Yosemite Valley through actions described under Alternative 1 . Some Yosemite Valley Plan projects, such as construction of a replacement footbridge at the Happy Isles area and construction of a vehicle bridge across Yosemite Creek near Yosemite Lodge, have the potential to adversely affect local wetlands. These projects would be designed to ensure the long - term protection of wetlands consistent with the Merced River Plan, the Clean Water Act, and Executive Order 11990 : Protection of Wetlands. Cumulative actions would have a local, long - term, major, beneficial cumulative effect on wetlands within Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts. The adverse effects to wetlands under Alternative 2 would be overshadowed by the beneficial effects of the cumulative projects, and thus the magnitude of the cumulative impact would not change. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in combination with Alternative 2 would have a net long - term, major, beneficial effect on wetlands in Yosemite Valley due to wetland restoration efforts. Impairment Development under Alternative 2 would not impair overall aquatic resources in Yosemite Valley . Minimal loss would occur, and these losses or other alterations to wetlands would not affect the larger aquatic systems in the local or regional setting. Alternative 2 would not impair wetland resources of the park for future generations. 12. Pages IV- 157 to IV- 162 evaluating Alternative 3 – Wetlands is revised as follows: Analysis Alternative 3 would result in minor to moderate impacts to wetland and aquatic habitats. The removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay at Lower Pines Campground and removal of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow would enhance the Merced River Corridor and have a net beneficial impact on wetlands. Construction impacts to wetland and aquatic habitats would be related to temporary disturbances associated with the movement of construction heavy equipment. Curry Village The wetlands at Curry Village consist of palustrine forest, palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub shrub, and riverine intermittent streambed. The Yosemite Valley Plan anticipated that new development and redevelopment in wetlands would occur at Curry Village ( in near maple-dominated drainages), and that wetland avoidance would be maximized. The five cabins-with-baths located south of the parking area, the new parking area associated with these cabins, and the relocated Mountain Shop would affect identified wetlands in Curry Village . Five cabins-with-bath structures are proposed as part of the first phase of the Curry Village and East Valley campgrounds project under Alternative 3 . One of these five cabins-with-bath structures is located immediately adjacent to a drainage channel, selected to minimize tree removal, which will require the realignment of a 30 -foot section of the 2 -foot wide drainage channel. The drainage appears to be an artificial channel designed to handle sheet flow in this area, and no developed wetland vegetation is present in the area to be realigned. In addition, this channel is not connected to other wetlands, and the proposed realignment is not expected to adversely affect the function or values of natural wetlands in the general area. The total area affected would be less than 0.002 acre. Because of the isolated nature of this wetland, its artificial nature, and its small size, this realignment is not believed to be subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and it is believed to be exempt from National Park Service compensation requirements in accordance with Procedural Manual 77.1: Wetlands Protection. The relocation of the Mountain Shop in Alternative 3 would affect Potential disturbance would also be associated with the installation of the new parking area for cabins-with-baths at Curry Village that is proposed as part of the first phase of project development under Alternative 3 . This parking area crosses a two-foot wide intermittent stream, which is expected to require installation of a 30 -feet long culvert to direct flows under the parking lot. This culvert will be designed as a bottomless culvert with at least a 30 -inch diameter to preserve the streambed conditions. By adhering to this design standard, this culvert installation does not constitute fill of this wetland. Flows would not be impeded from connecting to the Merced River . Indirect impacts associated with visitor access to other areas of the wetland are likely to be minor, since the area of effect is small. This would result in a local, long-term, minor, adverse impact to wetlands. Removal of Southside Drive from the intersection with Northside Drive to the Happy Isles Loop Road will allow the restoration of wetland habitat in the Stoneman Meadow area. The total area of wetland habitat currently occupied by the roadway to be removed is approximately 1 . 1 acres. The restoration of this area would enhance the functional capacity of existing wetlands in this area by reduced habitat fragmentation, as well as the addition of wetland habitat area. This habitat restoration represents a beneficial impact. Construction would occur intermittently over a 20 -year period. Infrastructure improvements would be completed in the early phases, followed by construction of lodging units and other visitor-serving facilities. Construction impacts could include temporary diversion of flows during installation of the culvert and paving of the parking lot. Construction activities associated with utility and roadway maintenance also could affect wetlands in Curry Village . Siltation of wetlands during grading activities in areas adjacent to the stream corridor could also occur. The application of mitigation measures described in Chapter II , specifically those related to the protection of wetland areas, minimization of disturbance areas, and control of runoff to prevent downstream contamination and sedimentation, would reduce the potential adverse impacts to wetlands. With the application of mitigation measures, construction impacts would be local, short term, minor, and adverse. Amphitheater at Clark 's Bridge There are no wetlands at the amphitheater site. There would be no impacts to wetlands from construction and operation of the new amphitheater. Campground Check Station and Recreational Vehicle Dump Station The alignment of the new access road to the campground check station and recreational vehicle dump station would cross a wetland in three locations and would be within this wetland for the turnaround in front of the building. The proposed buildings would not be located within the wetland designated as R 4 SB or riverine intermittent streambed, but it is likely that this drainage would be modified in connection with facility construction. The total wetland area expected to be modified by the installation of this facility would be less than 0.009 acre. This modification will be subject to mitigation measures specified in Chapter II to prevent adverse effects on downstream wetland habitat and function. Potential construction impacts include temporary diversion of stream flow and siltation of wetlands during grading and other earth-moving activities
Central Shower/Restroom Facility There are no wetlands at the central shower/restroom site. There would be no impacts to wetlands from construction and operation of the new central shower/restroom facility. South Camp Construction of the campground is expected to occur at a later phase in the project. The wetlands at South Camp consist of palustrine emergent and riverine intermittent streambed. Alternative 3 would avoid wetlands by tightly clustering the parking area adjacent to the informal parking in contrast to Alternative 2 . Additionally, the number of walk-in campsites associated with Alternative 3 represents a slight reduction in numbers (offset by an increase in the number of walk in campsites at Upper Pines) to accommodate campsite layout Potential construction impacts include temporary diversion of stream flow and siltation of wetlands during grading and other earthmoving activities. The application of mitigation measures discussed above, specifically those related to the protection of wetland areas, minimization of disturbance areas, and control of runoff to prevent downstream contamination and sedimentation, would reduce the potential adverse impacts to wetlands. If such impacts occur, they are anticipated to be local, short term, minor, and adverse Upper Pines Campground Development of the Upper Pines campground improvements is planned as part of the first phase of the project. The wetlands at Upper Pines Campground consist of palustrine forest, palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub shrub, and riverine intermittent streambed. Some of these wetlands drain to the Merced River through Lower Pines Campground, while others drain directly to the Merced River . Some of the riverine intermittent streambed wetlands drain the restored fen near Happy Isles. Several wetlands are located in development areas identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan . The proposed campground design has incorporated design features to prevent permanent fill of wetlands in this area. The proposed walk-in Camp A and parking areas would be located adjacent to a large braided area of intermittent stream (figure II- 6 ). The service road and pedestrian path would cross this wetland in two locations, requiring installation of A recreational vehicle loop would be added at the north end of the Upper Pines Campground, and restroom facility improvements would be planned throughout the existing drive-in campground area. The only identified facility in wetland areas associated with the Upper Pines drive-in campsite area is one crossing of the roadside drainage channel adjacent to the Happy Isles Road . This crossing is associated with a pedestrian path from the proposed recreational vehicle loop to a crossing of the Happy Isles Road . This crossing would be designed using a bridge structure or bottomless culvert that completely spans the mapped wetland area to prevent fill within the wetland area. Potential construction impacts would include sedimentation of wetlands and waters during grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities. Additional temporary impacts could include intrusion of construction personnel and equipment into wetlands surrounding the project footprint. Construction would include measures to allow for maximum protection of the wetland area, therefore, if these impacts occur, they are anticipated to be local, short term, minor, and adverse. Construction activities would also include maintenance and repair to existing utility infrastructure in Upper Pines Campground, which are within existing utility corridors. These C c onstruction activities would include grading and trenching, resulting in a short-term, negligible impact to wetland resources. Construction impacts c w ould be mitigated by minimizing the area disturbed and preventing runoff from entering wetlands during construction as described for Curry Village . Due to the proximity of proposed development, human visitation to the wetlands would likely increase, which would result in some trampling of vegetation and erosion of streambanks, potentially increasing sedimentation into a large area of wetland habitat. The area of effect would likely be greater than the area of effect for Alternative 2 since the campground area would be larger, and would border more of the intermittent stream. However, given that there would be no direct fill of these wetlands, the impacts would be local, long term, moderate, and adverse, in the absence of mitigation measures presented in this report and included in this project proposal. The application of the mitigation measures provided for Curry Village would reduce the intensity of this impact to minor.
|
| Finding of No Significant Impact (main) - Letter from the Superintendent - Finding of No Significant Impact (table of contents) - Finding of No Significant Impact (document) - Wetland Statement of Findings - Floodplain Statement of Findings - Environmental Assessment Errata and Response to Substantive Comments |
