|
|
|
|
Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campgrounds Improvement Project Yosemite National Park Finding of No Significant Impact The National Park Service is in the process of implementing the design and regulatory compliance phases of the projects outlined in the Yosemite Valley Plan . The primary purpose of this project is to provide detailed location, program, and design criteria for the Yosemite Valley Plan– approved actions in Curry Village and the east Yosemite Valley campground areas. The Yosemite Valley Plan does not provide specific design information for implementation of individual projects. The Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project provides the detailed planning and design to implement the concepts and actions developed by the Yosemite Valley Plan . The project defines the locations of new facilities and road configurations and provides more detailed plans for Curry Village and the campgrounds. All new development occurs within the approved zones identified by the Yosemite Valley Plan , with the exception of a portion of the parking area associated with the Upper Pines walk-in campground. This deviation from the Yosemite Valley Plan is proposed to eliminate a wetland impact and reduce tree removal impacts as discussed in greater detail on pages 1 - 14 and 1 - 15 of this document. The purpose of the project, as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan , is to contribute to the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan , including: • 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 , resulting in a net decrease of 188 parking spaces available for use by Curry Village visitors. 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. SELECTED ALTERNATIVE (PROPOSED ACTION) AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED OR ANALYZED This project directly tiers off of the Yosemite Valley Plan , which included specific actions to modify Curry Village and the east Yosemite Valley campgrounds that have been more fully defined in the action alternatives. The action alternatives addressed in the environmental assessment provide more detailed designs for the changes to Curry Village and the campgrounds outlined in the Yosemite Valley Plan . As a result of the review of potential environmental impacts of the project alternatives, Alternative 3 in the environmental assessment was identified as the environmentally preferred alternative and is addressed in this document as the Selected Alternative (Proposed Action). The No Action Alternative maintains the status quo in the project area. It provides a baseline from which to compare other alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to measure the environmental effects of those changes. Under this alternative, no dramatic or comprehensive changes would take place in the management of the project area. Private vehicles and buses would continue to be the primary modes of transportation into the area. A combination of scattered parking and formal and informal parking lots would continue. Campsites and lodging units would remain at current levels (i.e., the number remaining after the 1997 flood and its subsequent cleanup). 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. 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 . Amphitheater at Clark 's Bridge A new 460 - seat amphitheater is proposed to be constructed north of Clark 's Bridge. This element of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project would replace the existing amphitheater currently located at the Lower Pines campground that is to be removed as part of this project. The proposed site of the new amphitheater is currently occupied by a parking area associated with existing concessionaire stable facilities. Additional studies addressing the existing concessionaire stables as contributing elements of the Yosemite Valley Historic District and studies addressing potential sites for the relocation of stock operations are required prior to the finalization of park decisions concerning the potential removal of the stable facilities from this location. These decisions are needed before the proposed amphitheater could be developed at this location. All other elements of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project are independent of this project element, however, including the removal of the existing amphitheater from the Lower Pines Campground. Although the amphitheater would complement other elements of this alternative, it is not essential in order for the remaining elements of this alternative to be viable. If studies conducted as part of the stables relocation project determine that the existing stables will remain at their current location, an alternative site for the amphitheater will be identified at that time. Should this occur, appropriate NEPA review of the alternative amphitheater site would be conducted as a separate action. The currently proposed amphitheater would be reached via disabled - accessible paved trails. It would be sited on axis with Tenaya Canyon , which would allow a 360 - degree, unobstructed view of the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley . Campground -Serving Facilities The existing campground check station would be relocated along the realigned Curry Village Road, east of Curry Village . In addition to a small kiosk structure serving both incoming and exiting campers, a 2 , 000 to 2,400 - square - foot building would be constructed on the south side of Curry Village Road. This building would house a number of support functions, including a registration counter, a visitor reception area, an area for general park information, office space for two or three park staff, a storage area for maps and brochures, storage for campground housekeeping and maintenance supplies, and a public message board. A new dump station for recreational vehicles would be located on the north side of Curry Village Road , across from the new campground check station. This dump station would replace the existing Upper Pines dump station, which would be removed from the River Protection Overlay. Two bays would be provided, with dual vehicle access to each bay. Campground shower facilities would be incorporated into several campground restrooms as described in the campground discussion below. This project feature will result in increased operational costs and maintenance complexity as compared to Alternative 1 (which does not include shower facilities), and Alternative 3 (which includes a single, centralized shower facility). The new South Camp area would be developed with 10 group walk - in and 30 walk - in campsites. Thirty parking spaces would be built for the group campsites (three spaces per campsite), and 30 spaces would be built for the walk - in campsites (one space per campsite) in separate parking areas. The total area designated for this development in the Yosemite Valley Plan is somewhat limited, and the siting of individual campsites to avoid disturbance of existing wetlands results in a somewhat crowded arrangement of campsites in this area. A shuttle bus stop would be located along Happy Isles Loop Road at the new South Camp area. One restroom building and two restroom/shower buildings would be provided for the campers. One restroom/shower building and most of the walk-in campsites parking area would be located in the talus zone. The parking lot for the walk - in sites would cover an existing wetland. At Upper Pines Campground, 30 drive - in campsites would be added to the open area northwest of the existing drive - in loops, and 45 walk - in campsites would be added to the undeveloped area east of the existing campground access road (in addition to the 240 existing drive - in sites). A new parking area with 45 parking spaces (and three handicapped spaces) would be installed adjacent to the Upper Pines campground access road for walk-in campsite users. The existing dump station would be removed. A new restroom and new shower/restroom building would be constructed to serve the new drive - in campsites. Two restrooms would be built for the walk - in campsites. The 10 existing restrooms would be upgraded. Sixty drive - in campsites would continue to be provided at Lower Pines Campground by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay and reconfiguring the existing campground to accommodate these campsites. One restroom would be upgraded, and a restroom would be constructed within loop D at the northwest end of the campground. A new shower/restroom facility would be constructed within the first loop road ( Loop A). One campsite would be located in a wetland, and some campsites would remain within the 1997 flood extent. 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. 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 . Amphitheater at Clark 's Bridge A new 460 - seat amphitheater would be constructed north of Clark 's Bridge. This element of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project would replace the existing amphitheater currently located at the Lower Pines campground that is to be removed as part of this project. The proposed site of the new amphitheater is currently occupied by a parking area associated with existing concessionaire stable facilities. Additional studies addressing the existing concessionaire stables as contributing elements of the Yosemite Valley Historic District and studies addressing potential sites for the relocation of stock operations are required prior to the finalization of park decisions concerning the potential removal of the stable facilities from this location. These decisions are needed before the proposed amphitheater could be developed at this location. All other elements of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project are independent of this project element, however, including the removal of the existing amphitheater from the Lower Pines Campground. Although the amphitheater would complement other elements of this alternative, it is not essential in order for the remaining elements of this alternative to be viable. If studies conducted as part of the stables relocation project determine that the existing stables will remain at their current location, an alternative site for the amphitheater will be identified at that time. Should this occur, appropriate NEPA review of the alternative amphitheater site would be conducted as a separate action. The new amphitheater would be reached via disabled - accessible paved trails. It would be sited on axis with Tenaya Canyon , which would allow a 360 - degree, unobstructed view of the eastern portion of Yosemite Valley . The existing campground check station would be relocated along the realigned Curry Village Road, east of Curry Village . In addition to a small kiosk structure serving both incoming and exiting campers, a 2 , 000 to 2,400 - square - foot building would be constructed on the south side of Curry Village Road. This building would house a number of support functions, including a registration counter, a visitor reception area, an area for general park information, office space for two or three park staff, a storage area for maps and brochures, storage for campground housekeeping and maintenance supplies, and a public message board. A new recreational vehicle dump station would be located on the north side of Curry Village Road , across from the new campground check station. This dump station would replace the existing Upper Pines dump station, which would be removed from the River Protection Overlay. Two bays would be provided, with dual vehicle access to each bay. A new centralized shower/restroom facility would be constructed south of the campground check station between Curry Village and Happy Isles Loop Road to serve all of the campgrounds. The building would be integrated into the woodland setting, with maximum separation from the adjacent campsites and the new campground check station. This centralized shower facility would involve somewhat greater maintenance effort than Alternative 1 (which includes no shower facilities), and simplified maintenance as compared to Alternative 2 (which includes shower facilities at several campground restrooms). Campgrounds The new South Camp walk - in campground area would be developed with 10 group walk - in and 16 walk - in campsites. Parking for 46 vehicles (three spaces per group campsite and one space per walk - in campsite) would be provided. This reduction in the number of campsites as compared to the Yosemite Valley Plan specifications allows reduced crowding in the South Camp area and siting of facilities to avoid disturbance of wetlands (both important Yosemite Valley Plan goals). Additional campsites are proposed at the Upper Pines walk-in campground to offset this reduction, as described below. Three new restroom buildings would be provided for the South Camp walk - in campground. One restroom building would be located in the talus zone. No shower facilities would be provided, because campers would use the central shower facility. At Upper Pines Campground, 30 drive - in recreational vehicle campsites with electrical hookups would be added to the open area to the northwest of the existing drive - in loops, and 59 walk - in campsites would be added to the undeveloped area east of the existing campground access road (in addition to the 240 existing drive - in sites). This represents an increase above the number of walk-in campsites specified in the Yosemite Valley Plan to offset reductions in the South Camp area. All the proposed Upper Pines walk-in campsites would be located within the area designated for this use in the Yosemite Valley Plan , and campsite layouts have been developed to minimize crowding and avoid wetlands. A new parking area with 59 parking spaces (and three handicapped spaces) would be installed adjacent to the Upper Pines campground access road for walk-in campsite users. The existing recreational vehicle dump station would be removed. Two new restrooms would be constructed to serve the new recreational vehicle area, and two new restrooms would be constructed to serve the new walk-in campground. In the existing Upper Pines campground, nine existing restrooms would be demolished and replaced by ten new restrooms. One existing restroom in this area would be upgraded. No shower facilities would be provided at any of these restrooms, because campers would use the central shower facility. Sixty drive - in campsites, including 18 recreational vehicle campsites with electrical hookups, would be provided at Lower Pines Campground by removing campsites from the River Protection Overlay and reconfiguring the existing campground to accommodate these campsites. The existing pattern of development would be maintained; however, the removal of the existing amphitheater would create a common open space between the campground and the adjacent river corridor. Three restrooms would be removed and new restrooms would be constructed within the first, second, and third loop roads. No shower facilities would be provided, because campers would use the central shower facility. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed The following alternatives are not addressed in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment as they either do not meet the project's purpose and need, less environmentally damaging or less expensive solutions are available, the alternative would cause unacceptable environmental, cultural, or social impacts, or the alternative conflicts with the guidance and direction provided in the Merced River Plan or the Yosemite Valley Plan . Intermittent Removal of Tent Cabins This alternative was dismissed because it adversely affected the Curry Village Historic District. As an alternative concept for reaching the Yosemite Valley Plan goal of removing 253 of the 427 historic guest tent cabins, an approach of removing every other tent cabin was explored. While having the beneficial result of retaining the overall footprint of the tent cabin area, the reduction of the density of development would have completely altered the character of the streetscape in the area, and would have altered the integrity of the circulation pattern that contributes to the Yosemite Valley Historic District. Retention of Ice Rink in Present Location as Part of Recreation Facility This alternative was explored in the process of centralizing the Curry Village recreational facilities. Although the ice rink's present location takes advantage of major views across Stoneman Meadow, the Yosemite Valley Plan prescribed relocating the ice rink to its historic location north of the Meadow Deck. Thus, this alternative was dismissed because it did not meet the goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan . Utilization of Restroom at Lower Pines to Serve New Amphitheater This alternative was considered in an effort to keep all utilities on the south side of the Merced River . However, the distance from the restrooms to the amphitheater they would serve exceeded the National Park Service-supported policy of a two-minute maximum walking distance. Further, the dual usage by both campers and those attending amphitheater events would overburden the facility or require that it be expanded to a size out of context with the campground site. Finally, the existing concessionaire stable includes a restroom facility that could be upgraded to serve the amphitheater without the addition of new utilities on the north side of the river if a decision is reached to remove the stables. The use of the Lower Pines restrooms was dismissed because it would be a more expensive solution, having greater negative environmental and social impacts, and would be less supportive of the project's purpose and need. Reduced-Density Alternative Alternatives for South Camp, Lower Pines Campground, and Upper Pines Campground were developed that reduced the number of campsites. The purpose in reducing the number of campsites was to increase privacy by allowing for more space between sites, to limit tree removal by locating sites around existing trees, and to provide space for facility pads and parking for larger vehicles. The reduced-density alternative provided 6 group sites and 18 walk-in campsites for South Camp, and 51 drive-in campsites for Lower Pines. The six group sites at South Camp were sized for larger groups (between 25 and 35 people) and the walk-in sites were placed to minimize tree removal and grading, which would reduce ground disturbance and impacts associated with soil erosion and the removal of native vegetation. The number of drive-in sites at Lower Pines were reduced and sized to better accommodate larger vehicles and meet other requirements, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. At Upper Pines Campground, various alternatives were considered that reduced the overall density by removing drive-in sites and replacing them with walk-in sites, and by developing walk-in sites outside the designated development areas. These alternatives resulted in various combinations of sites, including one with 218 drive-in sites and 45 walk-in sites, for a total reduction of 52 drive-in sites. Another similar scheme resulted in 193 drive-in sites and 88 walk-in sites amounting to a reduction of 77 drive-in sites, but an increase of 41 walk-in sites. 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 numbers of campsites proposed by the alternatives addressed in the environmental assessment only partially offset the reduction of other types of overnight visitor accommodations in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley area, and further reductions could impair the ability to provide visitor access to the park. In addition, the reduced density alternative did not satisfy the numbers or types of campsites identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. Development in Yosemite Valley Plan Unclassified Zones Developing some areas in the unclassified zone was considered. In Upper Pines, alternatives were initially considered that sited 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. Locating campsites outside of the designated development zones 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. 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 this alternative 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. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying criteria identified in Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to each alternative considered. In accordance with the NEPA, the environmentally preferred alternative would best: ( 1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; ( 2 ) assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; ( 3 ) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; ( 4 ) preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintaining, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice; ( 5) achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and ( 6 ) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approaching the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. The National Park Service has considered all alternatives in this analysis in accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations (CEQ Regulations, Section 1505.2 ) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and has determined that the Selected Alternative, Alternative 3 , as presented in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment, is environmentally preferable based on its furtherance of the following National Environmental Policy Act goals and NHPA responsibilities as evaluated below. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 1 . “Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.” The Selected Alternative will best fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations by improving the visitor experience, including visitor safety, and restoring previously developed areas to natural conditions, while minimizing environmental impacts. The Selected Alternative reduces development in environmentally sensitive areas and improves lodging and other visitor services in Curry Village and the campgrounds in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan. Alternative 1 would not fulfill the responsibilities because the continuance of existing development patterns in the project area would continue to adversely affect sensitive environmental resources and expose visitors to hazardous conditions. Alternative 2 i s similar to the Selected Alternative, but would have more adverse impacts to sensitive biological resources associated with wetland disturbance in the South Camp area. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 2 . “Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” The Selected Alternative reduces development in environmentally sensitive areas, thereby allowing for the proposed restoration of these areas as identified in the Yosemite Valley Plan. The Selected Alternative has been designed to minimize adverse effects on scenic and natural resources during construction, through consolidating development within the core Curry Village and campground area and removing the road through Stoneman Meadow. The Selected Alternative is expected to reduce the potential for future visitor related impacts on highly valued resources by locating visitor facilities and trails in less environmentally sensitive areas. Alternative 1 would maintain the existing configuration of facilities in environmentally sensitive areas, with high potential for adverse future impacts on the surroundings. Alternative 2 would be the same as the Selected Alternative. Both action alternatives improve the aesthetic quality of the project area. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 3 . “Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.” The Selected Alternative would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment by reducing development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as rivers and creekbeds, floodplains, and wet meadows. The removal of campgrounds from the River Protection Overlay, restoration of Curry Orchard, and avoidance of wetlands would reduce impacts to these resources. The removal of tent cabins from the talus zone would increase visitor safety. Both action alternatives would locate campsites in the floodplain. Alternative 1 would result in the continued degradation of the environment and risk to safety due to continued presence of visitor facilities in environmentally sensitive areas. Alternative 2 is similar to the Selected Alternative but would locate the nonessential facilities (parking lot and restroom with shower facilities) in the talus zone. This would expose park visitors to increased risk as compared to the Selected Alternative, which would only locate one restroom with no showers in the talus zone. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 4 . “Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintaining, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice.” The Selected Alternative (Alternative 3 ) is designed to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas, including cultural and historic resources. The Curry Village and campground plans would minimize new development in culturally sensitive areas, such as Stoneman Meadow and along the Merced River , while maintaining the historic fabric of the Curry Village Historic District. In addition, the National Park Service will comply with the terms of the Programmatic Agreement to mitigate impacts to historic and archeological resources. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would apply these measures, and are expected to reduce impacts to historic, cultural, and natural resources to less than significant levels. Both action alternatives also promote diversity and individual choice by maintaining a broad range of accommodation types and cost categories. This includes cabin-style lodging accommodations in mid-price categories, economy cabins, low-cost rustic tent cabins, recreational vehicle campsites, drive-in campsites, and walk-in campsites. In addition to offering a range of lodging types and costs, campground design associated with both action alternatives specifically addressed an increasing demand for camping accommodations for large family groups. Design features that specifically address this include group sites at South Camp, connected campsites at the new Upper Pines Recreational Vehicle loop, and connected multiple campsite "buddy sites" that could be used to accommodate larger family groups in the Upper Pines walk-in campground. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 5 . “Achieve a balance between population and resources use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.” The Selected Alternative is designed to ensure a high quality visitor experience and safety, while reducing the potential for future impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. There would be a balance between population and resource, permitting a high standard of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities. This would be accomplished by reducing the number of overnight accommodations and associated parking in Curry Village , implementation of a campground design intended to accommodate visitor access without unnecessary crowding, removal of existing campsites and associated facilities from the River Protection Overlay, and removal of existing campsites and roadways from wetland areas. Alternative 1 would result in more potential adverse effects to park resources due to the continued presence of visitor serving facilities in the River Protection Overlay and wetland areas. Alternative 2 is similar to the Selected Alternative with respect to visitor amenities and resource impacts, but would result in substantial crowding in the South Camp area. • NEPA Section 101 Requirement 6 . “Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approaching the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.” The Selected Alternative would enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources by reducing visitor serving facilities in environmentally sensitive areas and improving services to developed areas. Construction contracts will include provisions encouraging the use of renewable and recycled materials. In addition, trash collection facilities associated with proposed new development will include segregated recycling containers to facilitate guest participation in the resource recycling goals expressed by this requirement. Alternative 1 would retain visitor serving facilities in environmentally sensitive areas. Alternative 2 is similar to the Selected Alternative. In conclusion, upon full consideration of the elements of Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Selected Alternative represents the environmentally preferable alternative for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project. After review of potential resource and visitor impacts and developing mitigation for impacts to natural and cultural resources, the Selected Alternative would provide the greatest balance between improving visitor amenities, while minimizing impacts to sensitive environmental resources. The Selected Alternative would provide improved visitor amenities and facilities, a high - quality visitor experience, and contribute to effective park operations, while minimizing impacts to sensitive environmental resources. WHY THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Alternative 3 (the Selected Alternative) would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and result in the most benefit. It would reduce risk to life and property by removing occupied structures from the talus zone, by improving hydrology through removal of campsites from the River Protection Overlay, and by reducing crowding, traffic and congestion. The reduction in traffic and congestion would improve air quality and the noise environment. Alternative 3 would create long - term beneficial impacts to wetlands and highly valued natural communities. Historic resources would be benefited by the construction of new visitor facilities, which would provide for less - intensive uses for historic resources. Scenic resources would be benefited by the consolidation of development within the core of the Curry Village and campground area and removal of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow. The Selected Alternative reduces the level of risk to life and property because of the overall decrease in the number of structures in the talus and rockfall shadow zone. The removal of 253 tent cabins from the talus and rockfall zones would move many visitors and park employees away from the steep granite cliffs, providing a beneficial impact to public safety. Essential facilities would also be located out of the talus and rockfall zones, in accordance with Yosemite Valley Geologic Hazard Guidelines . Construction activities associated with construction of new facilities and campsites would not be expected to trigger rockfalls. The Selected Alternative would remove campsites from the River Protection Overlay, consolidate development in already disturbed areas, and employ Best Management Practices which would beneficially impact soils. Construction, demolition, and vegetation removal activities would temporarily disturb soils within the designated development and redevelopment areas, but would not permanently disturb soils. The application of Best Management Practices would result in beneficial impacts on soil resources. The Selected Alternative would remove campsites from the River Protection Overlay, remove parking spaces from Curry Orchard, and remove the road through Stoneman Meadow, which would beneficially impact hydrology and floodplain values. Construction of campsites in the floodplain could increase erosion and sedimentation, but would be mitigated by the use of Best Management Practices. The increased amount of impervious surface in the campground areas would increase the potential sources of nonpoint pollution, which would be a minor adverse impact. Application of Best Management Practices would reduce impacts to negligible. The Selected Alternative would result in fill of approximately 0.015 acre of identified wetland areas, including 0 . 007 acre of isolated waters of which at least 0 . 002 acre is an artificial channel. This alternative would also result in short-term, minor construction impacts to wetlands. Removal of campsites in Lower Pines Campground, thereby allowing the subsequent restoration of this area, would more than offset the identified wetland loss associated with the Selected Alternative. This alternative also includes the removal of the section of Southside Drive across Stoneman Meadow, allowing the restoration of wetland habitat in that area. The location of a portion of the Upper Pines walk-in campground parking area slightly north of the Yosemite Valley Plan development zone identified for this feature allows the avoidance of wetland fill that would otherwise be required. This attention to the resource protection goals of the Yosemite Valley Plan is considered to be preferable to the adherence to the development zone and resulting wetland impact. The Selected Alternative would represent a net beneficial impact on wetland habitat and function. The Selected Alternative would temporarily impact vegetation during construction activities. Ponderosa pine and montane hardwood trees would be removed by development of South Camp and expansion of other campgrounds, but these trees would continue to be widespread and abundant in Yosemite Valley . Vegetation that would be removed for development of the Upper Pines walk-in campsites would also continue to be widespread in Yosemite Valley . A portion of the parking area associated with these campsites has been located slightly north of the Yosemite Valley Plan designated development zone to reduce the number of trees to be removed by installation of this feature. This recognizes the importance of resource protection as a Yosemite Valley Plan goal, and is considered appropriate. Removal of the road from Stoneman Meadow and campsites from Lower Pines and the subsequent restoration of these areas would somewhat offset the intensity of these impacts. The application of additional mitigation measures such as selectively removing vegetation to preserve the character of habitats, revegetating areas, salvaging vegetation, and implementing a monitoring plan would reduce the intensity of the adverse impact to moderate. The Selected Alternative would affect wildlife during construction, primarily due to noise and sight disturbance. Permanent loss of habitat due to new development would affect wildlife by reducing the amount of foraging, breeding, and resting areas available, as well as by conditioning wildlife to human food sources. Development would also fragment habitats and increase habitat disturbance, which would result in sight and noise disturbance as well as impede wildlife movement. However, removal of campsites in Lower Pines and tent cabins in Curry Village , as well as road realignment, would improve habitats, thus reducing the level of effect. The extent of habitat loss and disturbance to wildlife is not expected to change the diversity or abundance of wildlife in the project area. The Selected Alternative would result in construction impacts that would not likely adversely affect special - status species. Spotted owl, Cooper's hawk, peregrine falcon, western pond turtle, and special - status bats are expected to occur in the project area. Although the Selected Alternative would remove supporting habitat for special - status species, most of these species do not likely make more than occasional use of the project area, or are most likely to occur in small numbers. Additionally, in accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan , implementation of the alternative requires conformance with avoidance and protection measures, which would reduce the potential to harm or disturb special - status species or their habitat. Furthermore, habitat restoration in Curry Village and Lower Pines Campground would offset some loss of habitat, making impacts local, long term, minor and adverse. The Selected Alternative would generate short-term minor impacts to air quality during construction, which would be outweighed by the long-term improvement to air quality. The Selected Alternative would result in overall beneficial impacts associated primarily with the reduction in vehicle traffic and associated emissions due to the reduced parking, as well as the overall reduction in lodging facilities. The Selected Alternative would result in a local, short - term, minor adverse impact on the project area's noise environment associated with construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Limiting visitor use of the immediately adjacent campsites would reduce noise impacts during construction. The campground improvements, new amphitheater (if the existing stables are removed), and expanded visitor services in Curry Village would result in a local, long - term, minor to negligible adverse impact to the noise environment. The Selected Alternative could impact several archaeological resources, including potential direct impacts to five known sites and three suspected sites, as well as potential indirect disturbance of two additional known sites. In the Curry Village area, these sites include two known archeological resources, and two sites for which archeological deposits are suspected, but have yet to be recorded. The two known sites possess limited data potential, and therefore the impact would be local, permanent, and minor to moderate. Other ground - disturbing activities associated with redevelopment and development within Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds, possible relocation of the amphitheater, and extension of utilities would directly impact three sites with limited data potential, and possibly another for which archeological deposits have yet to be recorded. Increased visitor usage associated with campground development and redevelopment and possible relocation of the amphitheater would increase pedestrian traffic and the potential for unauthorized collection, increasing the potential for indirect impacts to two additional sites. Because the five directly affected identified sites possess limited data potential, these actions would result in a local, permanent, moderate, adverse impact to archeological resources. Mitigation involving the use of barriers or fencing to protect sensitive areas adjacent to staging areas, avoidance through project design and planning, and archeological testing, data recovery prior to ground disturbance or data recovery during monitoring of ground- disturbing activities would minimize these impacts. Where appropriate, archaeological investigations would be conducted in accordance with the 1999 PA to resolve the effects to no adverse effect, reducing the impacts to negligible to moderate. The Selected Alternative could impact an ethnographic gathering area associated with the renovation of Lower Pines Campground and removal of the amphitheater, which would be mitigated in consultation with American Indian groups. Any site - specific planning and compliance actions would be conducted in consultation with associated Native American Groups, to develop appropriate strategies to avoid or minimize potential effects to ethnographic resources. As part of mitigation, a tribal representative would participate in the site - staking and design phase of the project to identify particular sensitive areas. If avoidance of these areas is not prudent or feasible, the topsoil would be set aside and restored at the end of the project, thereby minimizing adverse impacts to sensitive ethnographic resources. As appropriate and to be determined in consultation with associated tribes, a tribal representative may monitor activities during construction to assist avoiding and minimizing impacts. Therefore, negligible impacts to ethnographic resources would occur as a result of this alternative. The Selected Alternative would introduce changes to the historic district that would be adverse and beneficial. Changes to historic circulation systems would create a minor, adverse impact, while removal of Southside Drive from Stoneman Meadow would have a beneficial impact. The removal of Curry Orchard and the 253 tent cabins would result in a moderate, adverse impact while the removal of employee housing from historic buildings and of all temporary employee housing would have a moderate, beneficial impact on the historic district. The removal of the temporary ice rink and its ancillary facilities would also have a beneficial impact on the district. The construction of the new registration building would have a moderate, adverse impact on the historic district, which will be mitigated by designing the building in accordance with the Architectural Character and Site Design Guidelines for Yosemite National Park . This project feature also results in a minor beneficial impact associated with the restoration of the historic post office building, currently used as the registration building. The introduction of additional new buildings for maintenance, housekeeping, and employee services would have a minor, adverse impact on the historic district. Taken as a whole, rehabilitation of historic buildings and structures in Curry Village and construction of new buildings would result in a permanent, minor to moderate, adverse impact on the historic district, when mitigated in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement and designed according to the Architectural Character and Site Design Guidelines for Yosemite National Park and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes . The Selected Alternative would improve scenic resources in the project area through the consolidation of development within the core Curry Village and campground area and removal of the road through Stoneman Meadow. The reduction in tent cabins in Curry Village would lessen the amount of development that could be seen from above the project area, and the redeveloped parking lot in Curry Orchard would provide screening, using a canopy of trees to block views of the parking lot from visitors looking into Yosemite Valley from Glacier Point. The amount of intrusion into Yosemite Valley scenery would be reduced, which would enhance the National Park Service A - scenic designation. The Selected Alternative would moderately impact utilities during installation of new connections and possible relocation of existing lines, and moderately affect utilities through the increased water and sewer demand. No expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities would be required in connection with the implementation of the Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative would also beneficially impact solid waste and recycling services because of the decrease in overnight accommodations in Curry Village . The Selected Alternative would beneficially impact traffic flow and congestion through the reconfiguration of existing roadways and parking spaces, and elimination of day use parking. Development of South Camp would increase vehicle trips to the area, resulting in a minor, adverse effect on traffic flow and congestion. Construction activities would result in temporary minor to moderate, adverse impacts on traffic circulation in the project area. The Selected Alternative would generally improve circulation and safety through the project area by reconfiguring the roadway system and eliminating day - visitor parking. The Selected Alternative would improve the quality of the visitor experience by increasing cabins - with - bath and provision of group campsites, recreational vehicle campsites and walk - in campsites, which would be a beneficial impact. If decisions concerning the removal 0 f the existing stable facilities allow the development of the new amphitheater, this facility would provide a larger facility for visitor participation in park programs and would be located in an area with dramatic views of Half Dome and other scenic features, which would beneficially impact the visitor experience. Improved visitor programs, including multi - user trail facilities and an enhanced natural environment experience for visitors, would beneficially impact the visitor experience. Construction activities would result in a short - term, minor, adverse impact to the visitor experience. The Selected Alternative is expected to have a negligible beneficial impact on the regional economy, and is not expected to result in growth inducing impacts. 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. The overall change in the visitor population would be negligible. 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 Selected Alternative would provide a beneficial impact to the regional economy during construction. The Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment analyzed cumulative impacts of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project, and in no case were cumulative impacts identified beyond those specifically addressed by the Yosemite Valley Plan . In addition, the Selected Alternative includes several project-specific mitigation measures that further reduce the contribution of this project to cumulative impacts, including some measures that were not identified when the Yosemite Valley Plan was prepared. No elements of precedence have been identified, and implementation of the Selected Alternative will comply with federal, state, and local environmental protection laws. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES Based on the analysis provided in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment, the National Park Service concludes that implementation of the Selected Alternative would have no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is ( 1 ) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Yosemite National Park; ( 2 ) key to the natural or cultural integrity of Yosemite National Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or ( 3 ) identified as a goal in the park's General Management Plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents. Consequently, implementation of the proposed action will not violate the National Park Service Organic Act. The Selected Alternative is consistent with the Merced River Plan elements of boundaries, classifications, outstandingly remarkable values, Section 7 determination process, the River Protection Overlay, and management zoning. As disclosed in the Environmental Assessment, the project will protect and enhance Outstandingly Remarkable Values of this recreational river segment. Examples of ORV enhancement projects include the removal of campsites and campground infrastructure out of the River Protection Overlay at the Lower Pines campground (which would facilitate restoration of riparian and wetland vegetation and contribute to the restoration of natural flood flows and river meandering, resulting in improved biological ORVs); the decrease in crowding among the lodging facilities and the improvement of remaining lodging facilities, the increased diversity of camping spaces, and new multi-use trails (which would enhance recreational opportunities); and the removal of Southside Drive through Stoneman Meadow (which would benefit the cultural landscape by restoring the open character of the meadow and benefit biological ORVs by allowing meadow restoration). The Selected Alternative does not include any water resources projects; therefore, a Section 7 determination is not needed for this project. The Selected Alternative will not impair the National Park Service's ability to address user capacities within the Merced River corridor. The goal of the user capacity mandate of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is to ensure that the types and levels of use within a river corridor are protective of the river's outstandingly remarkable values. The Selected Alternative will not result in changes in the types of use of the river corridor, but it will provide for more opportunities to experience the existing spectrum of recreational opportunities in the park (such as new walk-in camp sites, new group camp sites, new recreational vehicle campsites, and more economy scale hard-sided cabin accommodations. The Selected Alternative also will not lead to increases in the levels of day or overnight use of this segment of the river corridor. The Selected Alternative will reduce crowding by bringing about a net reduction in the number of overnight accommodations and parking spaces in the project area. Although the number of campsites would increase (from 318 to 415 ), the number of guest lodging rooms would decrease substantially (from 625 to 487 ), as would the number of Curry Village visitor parking spaces (from 675 to 487 ). Overall, there would be a net reduction of 41 overnight accommodations in the project area. The Selected Alternative is consistent with the Yosemite Valley Plan , which supports a daily visitation level in the valley ( 18 , 241 visitors) approximating that described in the General Management Plan . Implementation of the Yosemite Valley Plan will lead to a decrease in overnight use on a segment-wide basis because the Yosemite Valley Plan prescribes an overall reduction in lodging, employee housing, and the built environment, and it provides for restoration of highly valued resource areas in the Valley. The Selected Alternative also will not cause a segment-wide increase in day use of this segment of the river corridor, though a localized increase in the number of visitors accessing the river in the vicinity of the Upper Pines campground is likely. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the campground project to reduce local impacts. The Selected Alternative will also not impede established VERP parameters or the implementation of VERP indicators and standards. To ensure that implementation of the proposed project protects natural resources, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and the free-flowing condition of the Merced Wild and Scenic River, and that it avoids, minimizes and mitigates adverse effects to cultural resources, a consistent set of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Selected Alternative as listed in table 1 - 1 . The identified responsibilities on this table indicate our assessment of the appropriate parties to accomplish activities associated with the specific requirements, though Yosemite National Park retains the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of every measure listed in this table. These measures will be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the extent practicable. As such, the project shall avoid or minimize impacts to natural and cultural resources and be designed to work in harmony with the surroundings. The project shall reduce, minimize, or eliminate air and water nonpoint source pollution. The project shall be sustainable whenever practicable by recycling and reusing materials, minimizing materials, and minimizing energy consumption during the project. Table 1.1 - Mitigation Matrix (pdf link) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION The purpose of the scoping period is to identify issues and concerns related to the planning process and to identify the range of issues that will be addressed in the environmental analysis. Scoping for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Campground Improvements Project began in the fall of 2002 , when the National Park Service requested public comment and participation on the preparation of this environmental assessment. The formal public scoping period for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment b egan with a press release issued on September 20 , 2002 that described the intent of the project and solicited comments from the public through October 26 , 2002 . An open house was held at Yosemite National Park on October 23 , 2002 to solicit scoping comments. Information on the project purpose and need, as well as potential alternatives to be evaluated, was presented at the open house. In addition, the National Park Service posted a project fact sheet and project planning updates on the park's web site. The public was encouraged to submit scoping comments identifying key issues and potential alternatives that should be addressed in the environmental review for this project. A total of 46 persons submitted comments during the scoping period. Public scoping comments were analyzed in accordance with the Yosemite National Park comment analysis system, and public concerns were summarized for incorporation into the scope of investigations for the environmental assessment. Principal issues related to project design that were raised during the public comment period included: rockfall hazard and site planning to avoid siting new facilities in high hazard areas, incorporation of natural resource protection into site planning, maintenance of affordable visitor accommodations, retention of the rustic character of the cabin area, scenic impact of parking areas from Glacier Point, need for more available campsites, and recommended improvement of shower facilities for campers. These issues were specifically considered as project design details were developed, with the following results: • No new overnight accommodations are proposed within the mapped rockfall zone, and 253 tent cabins in this zone will be removed, • Natural resource protection measures include the use of free-span bridges to avoid placement of supports in stream channels, wetland restoration of currently disturbed areas, archaeological testing and evaluation prior to ground disturbance in sensitive areas, and several other measures as described in the mitigation section of this document, • An increase in the number of available economy cabin units and campgrounds (though a reduction of the number of rustic tent cabin accommodations is an unavoidable consequence of the need to reduce visitor exposure to rockfall hazards), • Application of rustic design guidelines in the design of all new cabins, restrooms and other structures, • Specification of a tree planting guideline to include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees to reduce the visibility of the redeveloped orchard parking area, • A net increase of 97 campsites, and • Development of a new central shower facility for campers in the East Yosemite Valley campgrounds. The Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment was released for a 30 -day public review period beginning September 11 , 2003 and closed October 11 , 2003 . A total of 664 copies of the environmental assessment were distributed to members of the public, libraries, and interested agencies, including 582 paper documents and 82 CDs. This distribution included 28 libraries throughout California and two out-of-state libraries. Comments received consisted of 57 letters and 3 public meeting comments from individuals. An analysis of the public comments received indicated a total of 255 discrete comments that were organized into 138 different concerns. Issues raised included park operations and general management issues, purpose and need for the action, NEPA compliance, alternatives, relationship to other planning efforts, length of public review period, protection of natural and cultural resources, access, visitor services, and visitor experience. None of the comments received introduced substantive new information, but some raised questions that required additional information to be included in the environmental assessment. This information is documented in the Environmental Assessment Errata that will be provided to all persons that commented on the EA. No major modifications to the Proposed Action were made as a result of comments, but project refinements were added that include: a revision to specify that a mixture of native evergreen and deciduous trees would be used in landscape plans for the new parking area to be developed in a portion of the existing Curry Orchard, and the inclusion of handicapped parking in the vicinity of the Curry Village grocery store to facilitate access by handicapped persons. Responses to the substantive comments and concerns are provided in Part 2 of the Errata Sheet document. The Errata Sheet will be distributed to all parties that received a copy of the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment with instructions that the Errata Sheet should be attached to the original Environmental Assessment to finalize that document. The National Park Service is coordinating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding wetland permitting for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements project. The National Park Service will submit a Section 404 wetland fill permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Curry Village and East Yosemite Campground Improvements Project for any project elements that require this permit, and this permit would be in place prior to construction of these project features. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The National Park Service is currently coordinating with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain required Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is serving as the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act review required for the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and this environmental assessment serves as the environmental review document for the California Environmental Quality Act process. The National Park Service may be required to submit a report of waste discharge, obtain waste discharge requirements, or an individual waver. No project implementation will occur until the appropriate permits or approvals are in place. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Endangered Species Act of 1973 , as amended ( 16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or critical habitat. The National Park Service requested a list of federally listed endangered and threatened species that may be present in the Yosemite Valley area in January 2003 . The species list was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on February 23 , 2003 , and was used as the basis for the special-status analysis in this environmental assessment (see Appendix C, Special Status Species Evaluation). On October 10 , 2003 , the National Park Service requested concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the environmental assessment's findings concerning special status species. On November 3 , 2003 , the National Park Service received the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence with these findings that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species. California State Historic Preservation Officer A Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service at Yosemite , the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding Planning, Design, Construction, Operations and Maintenance, Yosemite National Park , California was developed in consultation with Native American tribes having cultural association with Yosemite National Park and was executed in October 1999 . Pursuant to Article VI of the Programmatic Agreement, the review process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 , as amended, is being conducted in conjunction with this NEPA review process. The National Park Service has provided notice to the California State Historic Preservation Officer regarding this project and will continue consultation with them regarding avoidance and minimization of adverse effects to historic properties. A letter transmittal of the environmental assessment including a finding of “No Adverse Effect” was sent to the California State Historic Preservation Office on September 19 , 2003 in accordance with the 1999 Programmatic Agreement. This finding was accepted without comment. A summary of our approach to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is summarized below. • NHPA Section 106 Requirement. “ Take into account the effect of an undertaking on any historic properties, including districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, and resources to which associated Native Americans attach traditional cultural and religious significance.” The Selected Alternative would avoid, minimize, or resolve adverse effects to historic properties including archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, cultural landscapes and traditional resources considered significant to Native American groups associated with the park. Where practicable, final project design will be developed to avoid historic properties. In instances where avoidance is not practicable, adverse effects would be resolved to no adverse effect in accordance with Sections VII and VIII of the 1999 PA. Potential effect to archaeological sites would be mitigated by implementing archaeological testing and data recovery prior to construction, and by implementing construction monitoring as appropriate, in keeping with the Archaeological Synthesis and Research Design, Yosemite National Park (Hull and Moratto 1999 ) as specified in the 1999 PA. Effects to buildings, structures and patterns that contribute to the significance of Yosemite Valley Historic District or that are individually listed in the NRHP, would be mitigated to no adverse effect by conducting restoration and rehabilitation for reuse in accordance with The Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, and the Architectural Character and Site Design Guidelines for Yosemite National Park. Effects to the Yosemite Valley Historic District by removal of buildings and structures or alteration of circulation patterns will be resolved to no adverse effect by implementing Stipulation VIIIA. 1 (b) of the 1999 PA. Associated Native American representatives will participate in site staking and site planning to identify plants and other cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to avoid. If avoidance is not prudent or feasible, measures to resolve effects to no adverse effect will be developed in consultation with the tribes. A total of 13 cultural resource sites have been documented within the area of potential effect. Archeological resources within Curry Village and the east Yosemite Valley campgrounds are from the historic era as well as prehistoric occupations. All of the 13 cultural resource sites situated within the project area were nominated to and included on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978 , as contributing elements of the Yosemite Valley Archeological District. Many historic sites and structures within Yosemite Valley have been singled out for their significance and are either National Historic Landmarks or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historical resources in Yosemite National Park were identified and evaluated in 1979 in the Cultural Resources Management Plan (NPS 1979 ) and in the memorandum of agreement ( 1979 ) among the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and its accompanying correspondence. A subsequent Historic Resources Study (NPS 1987 ) and other project-specific reports identified and evaluated structures and sites not addressed in those earlier documents. The Draft National Register Nomination for the Yosemite Valley Historic District (NPS 2002 ) includes all the buildings of the Camp Curry ( Curry Village ) Historic District, listed in 1978 and amended in 1979 , as well as additional structures within Curry Village and several others outside Curry Village 's district boundary. The period of significance for the Yosemite Valley Historic District covers the period from 1855 to 1942 . The Camp Curry Historic District includes the Tresidder Residence, Mother Curry's Bungalow, the original registration building, several bungalow units, and 556 canvas tent cabins. The tent cabins constitute the most significant and intact tent cabin complex left in the National Park System. This district also retains a number of contributing features that reflect the original development of this area as a rustic lodging complex. Within Curry Village there are 111 contributing buildings and 561 contributing structures from the period of significance. There are also three contributing sites, two within Curry Village (the remains of the original LeConte Memorial Lodge and the Curry Orchard Parking Area), and one outside the Village boundary (Stoneman Meadow). In addition to compliance with the stipulations of the 1999 Programmatic Agreement, implementation of the proposed improvements would comply with the requirements set forth in Appendix E (Adverse Effects and Standard Mitigation Measures for Historical Properties) of the Yosemite Valley Plan . These requirements are included in the 1999 Programmatic Agreement between the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the “Resolution of Adverse Effects” associated with planning, construction, operations, and maintenance activities within Yosemite . National Park Service consultation with American Indian groups occurred throughout the development of the Yosemite Valley Plan . Yosemite National Park is consulting with American Indian tribes that have cultural associations with Yosemite Valley , including the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. (Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation), the Tuolumne Me-wuk Tribal Council, and the Mono Lake Indian Community on proposed actions under the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project. Information sharing and project planning included consultation sessions with the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation on August 1 , 2002 , October 24 , 2002 , November 26 , 2002 , February 27 , 2003 , April 24 , 2003 , June 26 , 2003 , August 6 , 2003 , October 2 , 2003 , October 28 , 2003 and December 8 , 2003 . The Mono Lake Paiute and Tuolumne Band of Me-wuk received public review copies of the draft environmental assessment for review. Consultation and partnering will continue with American Indian tribes throughout the planning and implementation of the project. Based on information contained in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment as summarized above, the nature of comments of agencies and the public, and the incorporation of the mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, it is the determination of the National Park Service that the Proposed Action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. No long-term adverse impacts to floodplains or wetlands would occur from the Proposed Action. Therefore, the National Park Service finds the Proposed Action to be acceptable under Executive Order 11988 for the protection of floodplains and Executive Order 11990 for the protection of wetlands. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality ( 40 CFR 1508 . 9 ), an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The Proposed Action as detailed in the Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley Campground Improvements Project Environmental Assessment may be implemented immediately.
|
|
| 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 |
|
