Append

Public Comment

Resp

Appendix C 


Public Comments and Responses
 

INTRODUCTION
 

This report summarizes public comments submitted on the Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of 

Giant Sequoias Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Mariposa Grove DEIS). The National Park 

Service (NPS) released the Mariposa Grove DEIS for public review from March 8, 2013, through 

May 7, 2013. 

PUBLIC COMMENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

The NPS analyzed all public comments received during the comment period. All letters, emails, faxes 

and public meeting comments were analyzed using a database developed by the NPS known as the 

Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) database. Letters were analyzed in stages, with 

review and assessment at each stage. First, staff read each letter to determine the discrete points 

expressed by the author, each of which is considered a “comment.” Next, each discrete comment 

was assigned a code associated with a particular resource topic or element of the plan. The coding 

process captured discrete comments, assigned them to specific topic areas, and stored them in a 

database where they could be quickly accessed using a variety of query and reporting tools. Staff 

derived the code categories from an analysis of the range of topics covered in relevant present and 

past planning documents, NPS legal guidance, and the comment letters themselves. Comments that 

discussed multiple issues (e.g., commercial operations and transportation) were coded to multiple 

topics if necessary. 

Comments were also reviewed as “in-scope” or “out-of-scope,” as well as “substantive” and “nonsubstantive.” In-scope comments were those that addressed the structure and findings of the 

Mariposa Grove DEIS, while out-of-scope comments included those comments addressing issues 

unrelated to the plan. Substantive comments are those that: 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS 

 Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of environmental analysis 

 Develop and evaluate reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the EIS 

 Cause changes to the proposal or alternatives 

 Suggest factual corrections 

Comments in favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives, or comments that only agree or 

disagree with NPS policy, were not considered substantive, according to NPS Management Policy. 

All comments are part of the administrative record for this project. 

After staff coded all individual substantive comments and grouped those of similar context together, 

they developed a unique “concern statement” to summarize the main points or common themes 

expressed. Concern statements were identified throughout the coding process and were derived 

from and supported by quotes from original letters. Concern statements are intended to help guide 

the reader to comments on the specific topics of interest and they do not replace the actual 

comments received from individuals. Rather, concern statements should be considered as one means 

of accessing information contained in original letters and the coded comment database. 

C-1 
 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

The concern statements were screened to determine whether further clarification is needed in the 

EIS, or whether modification of the proposed action is necessary. In the latter case, concerns were 

brought forward to park management for further deliberation. As a result of this deliberation, 

substantive comments led to changes in the Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Mariposa Grove FEIS). The NPS responses to the concern 

statements in this appendix detail these changes and/or points to sections of the FEIS for further 

information or clarification. Some responses provide background or relevant information that 

address the comment. Some responses explain why comments were considered but ultimately 

dismissed from further analysis. 

RESULTS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ANALYSIS 

During the 60-day public comment period, the park received 334 public comment correspondences 

concerning the Mariposa Grove plan. One comment letter was from a state agency, five were from 

organizations, one business, and the remainder originated from unaffiliated individuals, including 

form letters (see table below). The analysis of correspondence identified 356 discrete comments 

(excluding form letters), which generated 68 substantive concern statements. 

Agencies and Organizations That Sent Correspondence 

Federal and State Agencies California State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Organizations Extinction Witness 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

Yosemite/Mariposa County Tourism Bureau 

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) 

Yosemite Sierra Visitors Bureau 

Businesses Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. 

The majority of comments received during the public comment period were statements of support 

for Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) (271 correspondences), or statements of support for 

restoration efforts in Mariposa Grove (239 correspondences). Correspondence also reflected 

concern about access to the upper Grove area for specific users including people with disabilities, the 

elderly, or young children (24 correspondences). There were 17 correspondences that asked the 

NPS to consider alternatives to the current tram system in the upper Grove area. 

Number of Comments Received by Code 

Code Description 

Number of 

Correspondences That 

Include Specified Code 

MG0100 Alt 2 Support 271 

MG0106 General Support for Grove Restoration – No Alternative 

Specified 

239 

MG6350 Transportation – Tram Access to Upper Grove 26 

MG10100 Commercial Operations – Tram 21 

MG6100 Transportation – Circulation and Crowding 11 

MG0104 Alt 4 Support 10 

MG10200 Commercial Operations – Gift Shop 9 

MG6000 Transportation 8 

C-2 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Code Description 

Number of 

Correspondences That 

Include Specified Code 

MG0101 Alt 2 Oppose 8 

MG4000 Visitor Facilities 7 

MG8100 ADA – Parking/Access/Trails 7 

MG1010 Policy and Other Planning 6 

MG6600 Transportation – Parking – Other Options 6 

MG0001 EIS Document/Participation 6 

MG3000 Potential Impacts on Wetlands 5 

MG4100 Visitor Facilities – Restrooms/Septic System 5 

MG2100 Restoration/Stewardship – Giant Sequoia Habitat 5 

MG4400 Visitor Facilities – Trails 4 

MG7500 Socioeconomic or Cost Analysis 4 

MG6300 Transportation – Shuttles 4 

MG7000 Signage and Wayfinding 4 

MG0103 Alt 3 Oppose 4 

MG6500 Transportation – Parking Lot in the Lower Grove 3 

MG6400 Transportation – Parking Lot at the South Entrance 3 

MG2300 Restoration/Stewardship – Prescribed Burning 3 

MG2000 Restoration/Stewardship 2 

MG7010 Soundscape 2 

MG2200 Restoration/Stewardship – Techniques 2 

MG2400 Restoration/Stewardship – Cultural Resources 2 

MG7700 Cumulative Impacts 2 

MG3100 Potential Impacts on Wildlife/Habitat 2 

MG1000 Purpose and Need 2 

MG4500 Visitor Facilities – Communications 1 

MG8000 ADA Compliance 1 

MG4300 Visitor Facilities – Utility Lines 1 

MG0105 Alt 4 Oppose 1 

MG0102 Alt 3 Support 1 

MG0010 Alt 1 Support 1 

USING THIS REPORT 

This report presents the public concerns organized by topic, along with “representative quotes,” 

which are verbatim excerpts from individual public comment letters. These supporting quotes are 

followed by information as to whether the comment author was an individual, organization (with a 

general description of the organization type), agency, or American Indian tribe or group, and the 

assigned letter number. 

Concerns that were considered substantive include a response from the project team. Substantive 

concerns and responses are listed first under each topic, followed by non-substantive concerns. 

Responses are not provided for non-substantive concerns (e.g., comments that oppose the proposed 

action but do not provide a substantive rationale, comments that do not meet the requirements listed 

above). 

C-3 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Page left intentionally blank 


C-4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

MG0001 – EIS Document/Participation 

Concern ID: 46361 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should improve the EIS by reconciling differences 

between the executive summary and Chapter 3, strengthening the analysis of 

beneficial impacts, and clarifying the meaning of the No Action alternative. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 93 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321060 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: While comparing the impacts presented in the 

executive summary for each alternative with the impacts presented in 

Chapter 3, it seemed that the results didn’t align perfectly. This may be due to 

the fact that the impacts were being summarized, and therefore couldn’t 

capture the complexity of the results. If this is the case, please clarify in the ES 

[Executive Summary] of the FEIS. 

Corr. ID: 93 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321061 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The discussion of the significance of the impacts only 

discusses adverse impacts. There is no discussion, specifically, of “long-term 

major beneficial” impacts associated. Please clarify in FEIS. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321330 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The phrase “no action” is confusing as the NPS has 

taken and will take actions that affect access to the Mariposa Grove and 

facilities within the planning area to keep in compliance with various State 

and Federal laws (e.g. health and safety, historic preservation, etc.). So why 

not clarify what “no action” really means? 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321329 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Why not clarify that the public does not have to 

choose between the alternatives but can propose a hybrid alternative? 

Response: During the preparation of the FEIS, the document was edited and reviewed for clarity, 

readability, and consistency. Beneficial impacts are discussed by resource topic throughout 

Chapter 3, which includes assessment of the reduction of impermeable surfaces within the Grove as 

part of the restoration of giant sequoia habitat and improved hydrologic connectivity. Each resource 

area addressed in Chapter 3 includes a specific section on “Restoration-related Impacts.” 

Assessment of No Action alternative is a requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

In this context, “no action” typically means no action related to the undertaking that comprises the 

proposed project. Under the No Action Alternative, or Alternative 1 in the EIS document, 

compliance with regulatory requirements, current management strategies, and strategies in current 

and future adopted plans would be implemented, as described in Chapter 2. Routine maintenance 

and repairs that are standard practice, or monitoring and reporting required under other federal 

C-5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

regulatory frameworks, are examples of activities that would continue under the No Action 

Alternative. 

A Preferred Alternative is identified in Chapter 2 of the DEIS as Alternative 2, the South Entrance 

hub. However, the NPS would be able to select any one of the alternatives, or possibly a combination 

of alternatives based on the analysis of impacts, in order to select the course of action that best meets 

the purpose and need of the project while minimizing adverse impacts to the extent practicable. 

Concern ID: 46362 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should clarify how funding sources influenced the 

planning process. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 331 

Comment ID: 321340 

Representative Quote: What influence did the source for the funding of the 

proposed improvements in the Mariposa Grove have on the planning 

process? 

Response: The planning process for the restoration of Mariposa Grove is driven by NPS objectives 

established through the General Management Plan (GMP) for Yosemite National Park and 

subsequent NPS decisions. Implementation of the proposed improvements to the Mariposa Grove 

would be funded by a variety of sources including the NPS, the Federal Highways Administration, 

private donors, and grants pursued by NPS and/or via park partners. 

MG1000 – Purpose and Need 

Concern ID: 46336 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider maximizing or enabling public 

STATEMENT: recreational access to be the primary goal for its actions in Mariposa Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 92 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321058 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Yes conservation is one of the goals of the NPS, but I 

believe the bigger goal / mission of the NPS is to enable and not limit access: 

this is why we call it a park versus a federally protected forest. 

Response: The NPS developed the alternatives considered in the FEIS in accordance with public 

laws, treaties, proclamations, executive orders, regulations, and directives of the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The NPS Organic Act, passed by 

the U.S. Congress in 1916, provides fundamental management direction for all units of the National 

Park System. The Organic Act requires that NPS “shall promote and regulate the use of...national 

parks...by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said 

parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and the wildlife 

therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Fragile ecosystems such as that of the 

giant sequoia warrant special care if the groves are to survive and thrive. 

C-6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Congress amended the Organic Act with the 1970 General Authorities Act, which affirms that all of 

the nation’s parks—whether they include natural, cultural, or historic resources—are united under 

the mission, purpose, and protection of the Organic Act. The 1978 Redwood National Park 

Expansion Act also amended the Organic Act, re-affirming the mandate and directing the NPS to 

manage park lands in a manner that would not degrade park values. In addition, federal management 

decisions must be consistent with national laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. 

MG1010 – Policy and Other Planning 

Concern ID: 46273 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should clarify the relationship between the GMP, 

Yosemite Grant, and Mariposa Grove proposal concerning the retention of 

facilities, level of visitation, and reduction of private vehicles. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 110 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321193 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: After nearly 150 years since the Grove and Yosemite 

Valley were removed from the public domain and reserved for “public use, 

resort and recreation, inalienable for all time”, now the NPS is violating those 

express conditions of the Yosemite Grant and limiting the public’s access to 

this unique grove of trees. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321361 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I request that the NPS postpone a Record of 

Decision regarding the Mariposa Grove plan until the MRP has been adopted 

and the amendments to the GMP made public. When those actions have been 

accomplished, the NPS should release an addendum to the draft Mariposa 

Grove plan indicating how those actions will affect or not affect the various 

alternatives outlined in the draft Mariposa Grove DEIS. 

Response: A new section was added to Chapter 1 of the FEIS to address Interrelationships with 

Other Plans and Policies. A new appendix (Appendix A) details the amendments that would be made 

to the GMP if the preferred alternative is selected. 

C-7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG10100 – Commercial Operations – Tram 


Concern ID: 46277 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider alternatives to current tram 

STATEMENT: operations that would still allow access, including: 

- Wheelchair/scooter rental 

- Reduced tram service (limited hours) 

- Aerial tram (like a gondola) 

- Compressed natural gas vehicles 

- Repaved road 

- Electric vehicles 

- Horse and wagons 

- Golf carts 

- Narrower vehicles (less likely to impact trees or pedestrians) 

- More than one operator( to promote competition) 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 44 Organization: Yosemite Conservancy 

Comment ID: 320534 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Throughout the park, transportation is converting to 

electronic vehicles, which are much quieter. Why cannot the trams to the 

same? This would still allow people to visit, while drastically reducing noise. 

Why can the trams not run less frequently? Again, less noise, since that seems 

to be your primary concern. 

I urge you to come up with a constructive solution that takes all variables into 

consideration, and does not basically close Mariposa Grove to all but hardy 

hikers. 

Corr. ID: 85 Organization: Not specified 

Comment ID: 321035 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Suggestion: 

To limit the noise and distraction of the tram, I would like to suggest this new 

invention..... electric vehicles. No noise, no pollution, no problems. There are 

porous surfaces than could help with water permeation. If the roadbed is the 

problem, then consider a raised roadbed across critical terrain. 

Response: The NPS considered a range of access options to the upper Grove in the development of 

the alternatives. Prime considerations were the health and integrity of the trees and other ecological 

resources, site constraints such as the steepness of the grade, ways to maintain or improve the visitor 

experience, and safety. The NPS considered all of the suggestions identified in public comments. 

Access options not included in the final set of alternatives were not carried forward because of safety 

considerations due to the co-location of vehicles and pedestrians on the roadway (which would be 

narrowed as part of the restoration actions) or cost to purchase, operate, or maintain new vehicle 

types. Alternative 4 includes the option of less frequent tram service. 

C-8 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46278 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should consider the beneficial impacts of the tram 

STATEMENT: tour, including the interpretive value of the audio tour and the safety net that 

trams provide for visitors who require assistance descending from the upper 

Grove area. 

Representative Corr. ID: 3 Organization: Private Citizen 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 322033 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: The tram ride through the Mariposa Grove helped 

explain the Mariposa Grove to me in a way that otherwise, I would not have 

truly appreciated the Grove as much as I do now. 

If at all possible, please keep the tram. 

 Corr. ID: 43 Organization: Not Specified 

 Comment ID: 320533 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: As a tram driver/tour guide in the Mariposa grove I 

think you’re making a very big mistake by removing the tram tours. My 

passengers are always telling me how great they are, they can see so much 

more than if they were hiking, PLUS they get to learn about the history of the 

area. We take almost full loads every trip. What really needs to be done is to 

repave the tram road. That’s what passengers hate about the ride. It’s a giant 

pothole with a few smooth spots thrown in. Don’t deprive tourists the chance 

to see and learn about the most beautiful place in the world. 

 Corr. ID: 98 Organization: Not Specified 

 Comment ID: 322034 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: In the Mariposa Grove, the current arrangement was 

put in place, which I have found to be a reasonable situation. One can ride the 

tram. To see the view from Wawona Point, you can get out when the tram 

stops at the site of the fallen tunnel tree, and walk out to the Point and back. 

Then there is the very nice foot trail down through the forset to the Museum, 

which is the part of the grove that I have enjoyed the most. 

Response: The effect of the tram removal on the visitors who use it is acknowledged in Chapter 3 

under Sociocultural Resources: Visitor Experience and Recreation. The analysis was revised to 

recognize the various contributions of the tram service to the visitor experience, including the 

interpretive features of the tram tour and the one-way option for hikers. 

C-9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG10200 – Commercial Operations – Gift Shop 


Concern ID: 46376 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should continue to provide all or some of the 

services of the gift shop. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 88 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321045 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Also, by removing the operations(Kiosk and Gift 

Shop)unprepared visitors are totally without necessay items and information. 

The concession staff is very knowledgable and is there from 7am to 7pm daily 

at the peak of the summer season. We not only sell water and tours, we also 

call 911(bee stings, broken legs, low sugar, heart attacks, lost person, etc) and 

also give directions on how to see the Grove, Park or how to get to the Bay 

Area. 

Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks and 

Resorts 

Comment ID: 321126 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The gift shop supports visitor activities within the 

Grove by offering supplies that visitors may not have brought with them such 

as rain jackets for inclement weather or water and snacks. Given the heat, 

elevation and extensive trail system, it is appropriate for visitors to be able to 

purchase a drink or food before or after their trip to the Grove. Another 

benefit from the gift shop is that it provides a personal contact with visitors 

during the early and late weeks of the season before NPS staff is present.... 

The Grove and South Entrance are relatively isolated from other visitor 

services and it appears that retail and food/beverage offerings at a new visitor 

hub are an appropriate and necessary visitor service. All these factors should 

have been discussed in the analysis of the Plan and in the development of 

alternatives, yet they were not. 

Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks and 

Resorts 

Comment ID: 322036 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: In 2012 the gift shop sold over 29,000 beverages, 

31,000 ice cream bars, 29,000 postcards, 4,400 apparel items 1,700 books and 

297 maps in a 7-month period. These statistics suggest that basic beverage, 

snack and souvenir opportunities, as well as books and maps, are valued by 

many visitors to the Grove. The sales figures also suggest that a bookstore 

concept will not be sustainable as the retail volume will not support the 

staffing necessary to run the store. 

We believe the gift shop was not adequately described and evaluated in 

Chapter 3... 

Response: The EIS has been revised to affirm that visitor information, educational, and other sales 

items would be available at the South Entrance hub under Alternatives 2 and 4. Similar services 

would be provided at the Grizzly Giant hub under Alternative 3. 

C-10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG2000 – Restoration/Stewardship 


Concern ID: 46286 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should completely restore the upper Grove area, 

including removal of all communications equipment and facilities except for a 

trail. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 322027 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I propose moving the cabin from the Upper Grove to 

the Lower Grove or South Entrance to continue its use as a Museum or 

visitor contact station. The Museum site could be restored returning the site 

to meadow. I would recommend signing the area especially to point out the 

young and adolescent sequoias that grow near the cabin. 

Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 322028 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I recommend dismantling the Station and moving it 

as well to the South Entrance or Lower Grove once the tours are 

discontinued.... 

I recommend moving the communications equipment. Thus the road 

between the Grizzly Giant to the Upper Grove can revert to a pedestrian trail 

only and the Upper Grove could returned to Wilderness status. 

Response: Some administrative vehicular access must be provided to enable maintenance of the 

communication facilities at Wawona Point. The Wawona Point communications tower is a critical 

component of the park-wide communications network. The tower requires maintenance throughout 

the year, and must be accessible to service vehicles. The NPS reviewed alternative sites for tower 

relocation, but the only suitable locations were within Wilderness. Relocation costs would be 

prohibitive, possibly exceeding several million dollars. The NPS also considered alternative power 

supplies for the equipment and determined that new power transmission lines would cross 

designated wilderness, solar panels would be unreliable in the winter due to snow cover, and delivery 

of propane via other transportation modes (e.g., helicopter) during winter months would require 

extensive site preparation and would be expensive and unreliable during inclement weather. Because 

the communications tower and the current fueling system could not reasonably be relocated or 

replaced at this time, “full” restoration benefits at Wawona Point could not be realized. Should the 

telecommunications tower become obsolete due to technological advances, the NPS would consider 

removal of the equipment. The Museum is a historic building and will remain because of its 

association with the location of Galen Clark’s first cabin in the Grove. 

Concern ID: 46287 

CONCERN When necessary to remove large trees, the National Park Service should leave 

STATEMENT: them in the forest for trail closure, restoration, or habitat enhancement. 

Representative Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321189 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: I also think that removing large trees from the forest, 

as logs, as I saw happening at the upper grove in April is a mistake. The could 

be applied to the landscape as large woody debri for trail closure, riparian 

restoration, or general habitat enhancement. Also disturbing, are all the 

stumps along the outer loop trail, south of the upper grove. Perhaps managers 

could be less zealous about felling so-called hazard trees. If it is necessary to 

remove trees, they should be blasted or shaped to simulate natural 

mechanisms, and left tall enough (20'-50') to provide snag habitat. 

Response: Under the Mariposa Grove EIS, trees would be removed as a part of construction 

activities, particularly out of the Mariposa Grove at the South Entrance where the parking lot would 

be expanded. The NPS will explore sustainable options for trees that would be removed, including 

re-use of trees as site furnishings, trail delineators, and stockpile for future use. Trees would also be 

removed as part of efforts to reduce fuel loading and fire hazards in the Grove, per the Fire 

Management Plan. Trees could be mechanically thinned in restoration areas as well to meet fire 

management goals. 

MG2100 – Restoration/Stewardship – Giant Sequoia Habitat 

Concern ID: 46288 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should accelerate the realignment of the road at 

the entrance to the lower Grove area. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320589 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The proposal in the Preferred Alternative to realign 

the road at the entrance to the Lower Grove should be accelerated to reroute 

the road so that it does not cut through the ravine and does not pass close to 

the sequoias. 

Response: The timing of the road realignment at the entrance to the lower Grove area is contingent 

upon funding availability and the completion of the design and regulatory compliance activities. 

Concern ID: 46289 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider other options to the realignment 

STATEMENT: of the road at the entrance to the lower Grove area to avoid creating new 

impacts to the giant sequoias. 

Representative Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321016 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Realigning the road is not the only option for 

protecting the giant Sequoias from erosion in the drainage. Engineering an 

appropriate crossing and restoring the ravine would sufficiently protect the 

previously impacted Sequoias without introducing new impacts to Sequoias 

by realigning the road. 

The minimal benefit of the road realignment should be carefully compared 

with having such an impact on the Giant Sequoias. 

C-12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Response: A primary benefit of realigning the curve at the entrance to the Grove would be long-term 

protection of the giant sequoia growing along the ravine. Introduction of a straightened curve and a 

new engineered crossing would be intended to slow erosion in the ravine, where giant sequoia are 

rooted, and reduce soil compaction of the local root zone that is associated with vehicle traffic on the 

paved roadway. 

Concern ID: 46290 

CONCERN The National Park Service should not overstate the benefits of the removal of 

STATEMENT: paved roads to the giant sequoias. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Comment ID: 321022 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: While it is a step in the appropriate direction to 

convert a portion of the Upper Grove loop road to a trail, the Park should not 

overstate the benefit to the Giant Sequoia from this action. Having a hard 

packed trail, regardless of its width, is still going to impact the roots to some 

degree. Water will be better able to infiltrate the soil, but the structure and 

composition of a healthy forest soil will still be absent. It is certainly beneficial 

to remove the asphalt and allow the trees to continue to grow. However, only 

complete removal, decompaction and restoration of the road would fully 

relieve the roots of the Sequoia from the stress caused by having a hardened 

surface on top of them. 

Corr. ID: 104 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321136 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: If the Mariposa redwoods are anything like my 

redwood was, by now the roots have thoroughly adapted. Be removing the 

paved surface and realigning water flows, you will most likely incur hardship 

on the trees by forcing them to readjust to your modifications. 

Corr. ID: 110 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321195 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The issue of removing paved roads in the grove to 

improve infiltration of rainfall and snowmelt is misleading. The majority of 

the water that the trees have access to is underground water. If it were only 

rainfall and snowmelt, the trees would not have survived all these years. 

Response: Each alternative includes a mix of reduction of developed areas and new development, as 

described in Table 2-3. As discussed in Chapter 1 (page 1-7 of the DEIS), the primary purpose of the 

proposed actions in Mariposa Grove is to address the conditions that are contributing to stress on 

the giant sequoias, which includes the alteration of natural systems. The removal of pavement and 

narrowing of roads to be converted to pedestrian trails would support that aspect of the restoration. 

Limiting paved road and vehicle access also is compatible with the natural soundscape of the upper 

Grove area. The effects of pavement removal are described in Chapter 3 for many resource topics 

under the subheading for “Restoration-related Impacts.” 

C-13 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46463 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should consider the presence and assistance of 

STATEMENT: Delaware North concessioner employees as part of the strategy to minimize 

damage to the Mariposa Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 336 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321699 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: The importance of Delaware Norths large number of 

employees in the grove has been ignored. Plans to increase parking and help 

get more pedestrians into the grove, without uniformed employees (NPS or 

DNC) will be damaging to the trees and natural beauty. There is not enough 

N.P.S. coverage in any of the plans to prevent damage to the grove. We are 

constantly radioing Wawona rangers. Its already a problem getting someone 

up there to give the guest guidance. 

Response: It is acknowledged in Chapter 3 of the FEIS that concessioner employees support traffic 

management in Mariposa Grove and other visitor assistance. Under all the action alternatives, NPS 

will continue to provide for traffic management staffing as needed. 

MG2200 – Restoration/Stewardship – Techniques 

Concern ID: 46280 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider alternatives to some machinery 

and materials use, such as using excavators instead of bulldozers and skid 

steers, and using sustainable pavement instead of asphalt. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 57 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320556 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Bulldozers and skid steers both have fixed ripping 

implements attached to them (Archuleta and Baxter 2008). This can create 

the potential for the equipment to re-compact the soil surface that they have 

just treated when positioning to treat part of the area that was not reached 

during the previous pass (Archuleta and Baxter 2008). This could limit the 

effectiveness of the mechanical treatment by destroying soil macropores and 

therefore decreasing water movement, decreasing soil aeration, and 

restricting root growth (Archuleta and Baxter 2008). 

I would suggest that the NPS analyzes the potential of other heavy equipment 

types for this project. Excavators are now being used as multipurpose 

subsoiling machines. United States Forest Service personnel from the 

Umpqua National Forest have developed implements for excavators that 

allow these machines to accomplish multiple tasks (Archuleta and Baxter 

2008). These implements allow excavators to subsoil while spreading organic 

matter over the project site (Archuleta and Baxter 2008). Subsoiling followed 

by the addition of organic matter has been shown to drastically increase water 

infiltration and reduce erosion potential (Luce 1997). An excavator could also 

be used to contour areas of the project that require it (Lloyd et al. 2013). The 

use of an excavator with a multipurpose implement could decrease the time 

involved with restoring these areas, lessening the potential for these treated 

C-14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

areas to experience runoff, and increase belowground productivity 

(Archuleta and Baxter 2008, Lloyd et al. 2013, Luce 1997). 

Corr. ID: 105 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321144 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I think it is important to consider the environmental 

damage that asphalt and petroleum products cause to the natural ecosystem. 

Research sustainable pavement alternatives currently available for road and 

trail repair and consider replacing all asphalt surfaces with context sensitive 

pavement materials that will limit the visual impacts of trails, paths and roads. 

Response: The NPS welcomes suggestions for new and improved restoration techniques and 

methods, and will consider the recommendations in this comment letter as site-specific restoration is 

implemented. The NPS will use best management practices during construction and installation of 

new facilities. See Appendix E, Mitigation Measures, and Appendix D , Restoration Plan. 

MG2300 – Restoration/Stewardship – Prescribed Burning 

Concern ID: 46281 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should discuss fire in more detail in the EIS, 

specifically – Future multi-year schedule for prescribed burns, cooperative 

efforts for fuel treatment coordinated with the Forest Service, gap dynamics 

and prescribed fire in relation to giant sequoia establishment and growth, the 

significance of the fire return interval departure rating of 4, and the benefits 

of fire smoke. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 57 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320555 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Though some restoration activities such as wetland 

restoration, soil preparation and removal of infrastructure are discussed at 

length, fire is not....Although fire has now been reintroduced, these 

prescribed fires are still not meeting the historic return interval of 3 to 

15 years.... The multi-year prescribed fire schedule listed in appendix six of 

the Fire Management Plan only forecasts to 2009, more recent information 

on prescribed fire in the Mariposa Grove would be beneficial to the DEIS 

(NPS 2004). 

In Appendix C: restoration plan, the NPS states that conducting prescribed 

fires and fuel treatments outside of the Mariposa Grove is a priority (NPS 

2013). The appendix also mentions that some of the areas targeted for 

treatment include lands managed by the United States Forest Service (NPS 

2013). None of the alternatives mention any cooperative efforts to coordinate 

with the United States Forest Service to accomplish this priority. 

This DEIS seems to focus mainly on the restoration of wetland areas of the 

Mariposa Grove. Studies from Kings Canyon National Park, California have 

shown that tree height and continued growth after establishment is more 

dependent on light availability in burned areas than moisture (Shellhammer 

and Shellhammer 2006). Gap dynamics and prescribed fire use don’t seem to 

be sufficiently discussed in relation to giant sequoia establishment and 

growth within the DEIS. 

C-15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321348 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: What is the significance of a fire return interval 

departure (FRID) rating of 4? What are the scale parameters? What benefits 

can be achieved from forest fire smoke emissions? 

Response: The role of fire in ecological restoration is described in Chapter 1 as part of the goals and 

objectives for ecological restoration. Fire management activities are also discussed in Chapter 3, 

Natural Resources: Vegetation. The NPS concurs that gap dynamics and light availability are 

essential components of healthy ecosystems in the Mariposa Grove area. The FEIS defers to the 2004 

“Final Yosemite Fire Management Plan” and the “Operational Fire Management Plan” for more 

detailed and up-to-date descriptions of the interaction of fire and the specific communities in the 

south end of Yosemite (Appendix B). Appendix B also summarizes the U.S. Forest Service fuels 

reduction and forests rehabilitation projects in adjacent lands to Yosemite. 

MG2400 – Restoration/Stewardship – Cultural Resources 

Concern ID: 46939 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should carefully consider the use of the museum 

building as a historic structure to reduce deterioration and for visitors to 

ponder the setting that Galin Clark so much enjoyed. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320584 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: 3. What to do with Clark’s Cabin/Museum? The 

proposed usage to repurpose the building as a hiker’s shelter doesn’t make 

any sense. Left unsupervised it will be subject to vandalism or perhaps worse. 

The building itself is fragile (especially the roof) and if left unmaintained over 

time it will decay and become a nuisance eventually requiring its removal. I 

propose moving the cabin from the Upper Grove to the Lower Grove or 

South Entrance to continue its use as a Museum or visitor contact station. 

The Museum site could be restored returning the site to meadow. I would 

recommend signing the area especially to point out the young and adolescent 

sequoias that grow near the cabin. 

Corr. ID: 99 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321081 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The Mariposa Grove Museum is a great example of 

National Park Rustic Architecture. Also, the museum offers a historical 

connection with the grove that a contact center located at the entrance could 

not. Many photos have been taken of this historic structure along with fellow 

travelers that allows a more personal connection to the grove. If the building 

were repurposed, there is a great potential for delay which will likely lead to 

deterioration and eventual removal of the structure. 

Response: Under Alternative 2, the museum structure is proposed to remain in place, although the 

function of the building would change. The Mariposa Grove museum building has been individually 

listed in the National Register since 1978, and it is described as a contributing feature of the 

Mariposa Grove Historic District in Chapter 3 of the EIS (see DEIS page 3-95 through 3-99.) The 

potential impacts related to a change in function of the museum building are addressed on DEIS 

C-16 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

page 3-109. No physical alteration of the building is planned in order to preserve the integrity of the 

building. Any actions affecting the building would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The NPS would continue to maintain this 

structure to prevent deterioration, regardless of its use. 

Concern ID: 46954 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider a balance between accessibility 

and historic considerations. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 99 

Comment ID: 321077 

Representative Quote: Since there will be a new comfort station at the South 

Entrance Hub that would be ADA accessible, I would like to see any 

accessibility improvements to the current comfort station be abandoned. The 

current comfort station would then retain it’s historical look and significance 

to the area. 

Response: As discussed in the cultural resources section of Chapter 3 (beginning on page 3-93 of the 

DEIS), balancing cultural/historic resources, natural resources, and visitor use has long been the goal 

of management decisions in the Mariposa Grove. Future activities in Yosemite National Park must 

be in compliance with Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards for Federal Facilities (GSA 

2006), The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1995), 

Director’s Order 42: Accessibility for Visitors with Disabilities in National Park Service Programs and 

Services (NPS 2000a), and other applicable guidance. 

MG3000 – Potential Impacts on Wetlands 

Concern ID: 46284 

CONCERN The National Park Service should move trails, converted roads, and new 

STATEMENT: facilities outside of wetlands and stream corridors such as, the trail that cuts 

through the Rattlesnake Creek meadow and the facilities at the South 

Entrance. 

Representative Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321183 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Conversion of existing roads within a wetland and 

stream corridor to a raised accessible trail is counter productive to ecological 

restoration. Instead, a conventional accessible trail could be constructed 

outside of the wetland to the South or North at less cost and greater 

restorative effect. 

Response: Wetlands within the Mariposa Grove, South Entrance area, and other areas that are 

potentially affected by the actions proposed under the alternatives were mapped and reviewed (see 

Chapter 3, beginning page 3-50 of the DEIS). Throughout the process of developing the alternatives 

evaluated in this EIS, the goal was to avoid disturbance of wetlands. However, some impacts were 

determined to be unavoidable in order to accommodate visitation to the Mariposa Grove. In those 

cases, NPS identified additional mitigation measures that are outlined in Appendices E and F of the 

EIS. 

C-17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Concern ID: 46285
 

CONCERN The National Park Service should include the removal of parking, climate 

STATEMENT: change, the absence of fire, and the elimination of the water line leak in 

wetlands discussions in the EIS. 

Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321331 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: What percentage of wetland restoration would not 

be accomplished if the existing 115 space parking lot was not removed? What 

is this percentage related to? If climate change equates to a drying weather 

pattern, what is the likelihood that the wetlands are going to disappear 

anyway? What percentage of wetland loss is due to the absence of a frequent 

fire regime? What effect would the complete elimination of leaking water 

lines have on Grove health and on wetland areas? 

Response: Under Alternative 2, about 1.0 acre of wetlands would be restored as a result of ecological 

restoration activities in the lower Grove area and removal of trails and road narrowing in the upper 

Grove area. Climate change may have an effect on the ecosystem that cannot be quantified at this 

time; however, ecological restoration of giant sequoia habitat is intended to reduce stresses on the 

ecosystem that may make it more resilient and adaptive to change. 

As discussed in Chapter 3 (page 3-55 in the DEIS), there would be temporary minor adverse impacts 

in the lower Grove during removal of infrastructure and in the upper Grove during water line repair 

and/or replacement. The repair of leaking water pipes could have small local impacts on water tables, 

as it would eliminate unintended leakage. It is difficult to quantify or locate site-specific 

underground leaks in such a complex and large system, but overall, replacement of water lines could 

contribute to localized minor decreases in water levels, leading to restoration of natural water levels. 

Concern ID: 46570 

CONCERN The National Park Service should modify the South Entrance parking to 

STATEMENT: protect wetlands. 

Representative Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 322030 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: The configuration of the proposed parking area at 

the South Entrance Hub originally proposed a design that would have 

resulted in paved parking overlapping a 0.24- acre wetland. As Park planning 

staff has already agreed, this impact is entirely unnecessary as equivalent 

parking could be provided North of the wetland, closer to the Mariposa 

Grove Road, or other design modifications could avoid the wetland. 

Response: NPS has worked extensively with the design team to modify the layout for parking at the 

South Entrance hub to accommodate visitors and services while also minimizing impacts on 

wetlands and other sensitive resources under Alternatives 2 and 4. This area is subject to many 

constraints due to topography and environmental resource considerations. The most recent version 

of the design drawings (Figure 2-6) shows that the parking lot would not be constructed directly over 

the existing wetlands. While an improvement, the NPS does not want to overstate the beneficial 

impact of this revision, as the water supply to the wetland would likely be substantially removed, and 

C-18 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

there would not be a large buffer between the parking lot and the buffer. The impact analysis 

continues to acknowledge the loss of this wetland. 

MG3100 – Potential Impacts on Wildlife/Habitat 

Concern ID: 46292 

CONCERN The National Park Service should relocate the “South Entrance to Grove 

STATEMENT: Trail” to the shoulder of the Mariposa Grove Road to avoid impacts to fisher 

habitat. 

Representative Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321013 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: A reasonable alternative to constructing the trail in 

its proposed location would be to modify the main Mariposa Grove road to 

accommodate a walking and/or bike path along the shoulder to avoid a high 

degree of human disturbance into critical furbearer habitat. 

Response: Potential impacts on fisher habitat are addressed in Chapter 3, Natural Resources: 

Special-status Species. The location of the new trail would not be immediately adjacent to any 

known fisher dens. Wildlife biologists will be consulted prior to finalizing the design of the trail to 

ensure protection of fisher habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS wildlife biologists 

developed the mitigation measures in the EIS, as described in Appendix E These mitigation measures 

include direction that any new trail construction or re-alignment would occur during the nondenning season for fisher. The proposed trail between the South Entrance and the lower Grove 

would be located in a previously disturbed area since it follows an abandoned road alignment to the 

picnic area, and would parallel Mariposa Grove Road between the picnic area and the lower Grove 

area. Another reason to construct the trail is to avoid the inherit conflict between vehicles including 

shuttles and pedestrians walking along the road shoulder. In addition, walking along a trail that is 

separated from a road would enhance the hiker’s natural experience, especially when entering the 

Grove. 

Concern ID: 46293 

CONCERN The National Park Service should provide a wildlife underpass at the 

STATEMENT: wetlands near the South Entrance. 

Representative Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

321192 

Representative Quote: Provide wildlife underpass at wetlands south of Park 

entrance. 

Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the delineated wetland area in the vicinity 

of the South Entrance kiosks that are under construction in 2013. The design of the kiosks was 

developed and evaluated as part of a previous permitting/compliance effort, and was not 

reconsidered as part of this EIS analysis. A wildlife underpass is under construction as part of this 

adjacent project. 

C-19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG4000 – Visitor Facilities 


Concern ID: 46339 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider a high line (not a zip line) so that 

visitors can experience the top of the tree canopy. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 7 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320128 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Has anyone ever consider setting up a high line (not 

a zip line) in a big tree grove so that visitors can safely experience the trees at 

the top of the canopy? 

Response: A high line type of use was considered as one of many options through the planning 

phase during which the alternatives were developed. It was not included in the alternatives that were 

evaluated in the EIS since it does not meet the fundamental purpose of restoration of the giant 

sequoia habitat. 

Concern ID: 46340 

CONCERN The National Park Service should not eliminate stock use from the Grove. 

STATEMENT: 

Representative Corr. ID: 50 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320545 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Please do not eliminate stock use from the grove. 

Now that I’m older I enjoy so much riding from Fish Camp to Biledo 

through the grove. There are MANY other riders who feel the same way. We 

obey the rules and stay on the outer loop. 

Response: Existing equestrian trails would not be impacted by the project. 

Concern ID: 46341 

CONCERN The National Park Service should have more logs or benches for people with 

STATEMENT: mobility concerns and people who want to meditate among the giant trees. 

Representative Corr. ID: 85 Organization: Yosemite Conservancy 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321034 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: In the past, I have been able to take the tram to the 

top, and then, using canes, slowly walk down the trails among the grove. It 

renews the spirit to be able to stop and meditate amongst the old giants. (Can 

I suggest more logs or benches to sit upon and rest?) 

Response: Under the action alternatives, the design includes additional accessible trails are 

proposed in the lower Grove and Grizzly Giant areas that would allow visitors of all abilities the 

opportunity to enjoy the beauty and tranquility of Yosemite’s giant sequoia forest in a more peaceful 

setting than is available under current conditions. Final design will integrate benches or structures 

where people can rest. 

C-20 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46346 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should retain non-historic trails to help disperse 

STATEMENT: visitors and deter new trails from being created elsewhere, if impacts can be 

minimized. 

 Representative Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321188 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: Removing existing “non historic” trails from the 

grove may just lead to new trail forming elswhere. If their impacts can be 

minimized, those trails may help disperse visitors and provide better 

opportunites for solitude within the grove. 

Response: In accordance with the goal of restoring the giant sequoia, the NPS intends to encourage 

and enforce (through signage and park staff) that visitors stay on established trails. As part of the 

action alternatives, new and extended trails are contemplated that would expand the range of trail 

experiences, including additional accessible trails for those with mobility limitations, and/or 

improved solitude and soundscapes. 

 Concern ID: 46347 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should explain the difference between visitor 

STATEMENT: “typologies” and demographics. 

Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321351 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: How does visitor “typologies” differ from visitor 

demographics? 

Response: Visitor typologies, such as those described in Table 3-11, represent different types of 

visitor experiences in terms of the amount of time to be spent, mobility considerations, and preferred 

setting. Demographics would include the socioeconomic profiles of visitors rather than a type of 

visitor experience or setting. 

 Concern ID: 46352 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should clarify the need for the shooting practice 

STATEMENT: range. 

 Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321341 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: Regarding the shooting range, why can’t this facility 

be closed and rangers trained at nearby county facilities? 

Response: Actions related to a shooting practice range are not included in any of the alternatives 

evaluated in this EIS. 

C-21 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46368 

 CONCERN If the museum function is moved, then the National Park Service should use 

STATEMENT: the building as an overnight ski hut for cross-country skiers. 

Representative Corr. ID: 113 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321202 

 Representative Quote: If the museum function in the Upper Grove is moved 

to the lower Grove or South Gate, I suggest using the building as an overnight 

skihut for cross-country skiers. 

Response: The action alternatives include relocating the museum function but do not specify new 

uses beyond the requirement that any future use must be compatible with maintaining the historic 

attributes of the structure in accordance with applicable statutes and policy or agency guidance. 

Concern ID: 46369 

CONCERN The National Park Service should remove the water fountain at the museum 

STATEMENT: so the treatment station can be moved to the lower Grove area. 

Representative Corr. ID: 76 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320586 

Representative Quote: I also recommend removing the water fountain at 

the Museum. The proposal is silent on this; but it might be assumed since it 

discusses moving the water treatment unit and storage unit to the Lower 

Grove. The hikers can surely carry their own water. Signs can be posted at 

the trail head warning hikers that there is no water available in the Upper 

Grove. This assures that the treatment station can be moved downslope to 

the Lower Grove. If the water fountain stays, then the treatment facility must 

be maintained in the Upper Grove. 

Response: The two drinking fountains in the upper Grove area are a historic feature of the Grove 

dating to 1931, and are contributing elements to the Mariposa Grove Historic District (see Chapter 3, 

Cultural Resources: Historic Structures). Removal of the fountain would adversely affect the cultural 

landscape. Under Alternative 2, the water supply treatment unit and storage tank currently located 

along the loop road would be relocated to eliminate the need for maintenance vehicle access along 

the southern segment of the loop road. The NPS plans to install new chlorination and water tank at 

the comfort station under all alternatives. 

MG4100 – Visitor Facilities – Restrooms/Septic System 

Concern ID: 46294 

CONCERN The National Park Service should move the comfort station in the upper 

STATEMENT: Grove area to the lower Grove area or the South Entrance once the tram 

tours are discontinued. 

Representative Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320585 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-22 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: 4. Maintaining the Comfort Station in the Upper 

Grove is a waste of resources once the tram tours are discontinued. Hikers to 

the Upper Grove number in the few hundreds per day currently and not 

everyone uses the Comfort Station. The Comfort Station has the capacity to 

handle thousands of visits per day. I recommend dismantling the Station and 

moving it as well to the South Entrance or Lower Grove once the tours are 

discontinued. 

If a toilet is required in the Grove then keep the current vault toilet near the 

old hotel site and reroute trail to the current vault toilet. This allows for 

elimination of the trail that currently cuts through the Rattlesnake Creek 

meadow and facilitates complete restoration of the meadow. Rerouting the 

trail should be done regardless of the disposition of the Comfort Station and 

vault toilet. This can be accomplished by using the road/trail. 

Response: Under all action alternatives, the comfort station is retained since hikers or other visitors 

would be present in the upper Grove and may benefit from those existing facilities. The upper Grove 

area comfort station is a contributing element of the Mariposa Grove Historic District, and therefore 

relocation would adversely affect the District. 

Concern ID: 46295 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should locate the toilet facilities more centrally 

and conveniently as in Alternative 3, rather than concentrating them at one 

end of the Grove. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 61 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320564 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Alternative 3 locates most toilet facilities more 

centrally and conveniently, instead of concentrating them at one end of the 

Grove? 

Response: Each action alternative considers improvements to toilet facilities that would improve the 

amenities for visitors within the concept of each alternative. For example, Alternative 3 places the 

hub for visitor services at Grizzly Giant whereas Alternatives 2 and 4 place the hub at the South 

Entrance. However, under all alternatives there would be toilet facilities at the South Entrance, lower 

Grove, Grizzly Giant, and upper Grove. 

Concern ID: 46296 

CONCERN The National Park Service should analyze the leach field at the lower Grove 

STATEMENT: area to determine if it can accommodate restroom use by all the passengers 

from tour buses. 

Representative Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321018 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation 

C-23 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: Allowing tour buses under 40 feet to load and 

unload at the Lower Grove means that the restroom facilities at the Lower 

Grove will be the first opportunity for those passengers to have access to a 

restroom. Our Center is concerned that this may cause an unnecessary stress 

on the leach field in the Lower Grove. 

The Park should include in its analysis whether the leach field is designed to 

support this kind of capacity. If the leach field is not going to be able to keep 

up with the influx of passengers from the shorter tour buses, the Park should 

request that the shorter tour buses allow their passengers a restroom break at 

a facility with a greater capacity. 

Response: Since the DEIS was published, geotechnical and other investigations have been ongoing 

to continue to evaluate the feasibility of a leach field in the lower Grove and throughout the study 

area. The final selection of flush and/or vault fixtures would be contingent on the feasibility of the 

septic system and leach field based on the continuing investigation of site-specific conditions. The 

management of tour bus visitors would be contingent upon facility capacity and shuttle operations 

under Alternatives 2 and 4. This is clarified in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

Concern ID: 46297 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider the elimination of flush toilets, 

STATEMENT: especially in the Grove where there would be new leach fields or sewer lines. 

Representative Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321185 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I am also disturbed by the prospect of new leach 

fields or sewer lines in the grove, and wonder if alternatives to conventional 

or vault toilets have been fully considered. 

Corr. ID: 332 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321380 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: To alleviate water and sewage issues, why not 

eliminate flush toilets altogether in the entire project? 

Response: It was clarified in Chapter 2 of the FEIS that the final determination of flush or vault 

fixtures would be contingent on the feasibility of the septic system and leach field based on the 

continuing investigation of site-specific conditions. The range of options still includes installation of 

flush toilets, vault toilets, a set of opportunities for leach field sites, and an option to install a sewer 

line from the lower Grove to the South Entrance. The final determination of which types of fixtures 

would be based on results of the continuing geotechnical investigations and soil surveys and to 

ability to avoid or minimize impacts on archeological or other sensitive resources. 

C-24 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG4300 – Visitor Facilities – Utility lines 


Concern ID: 46299 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should evaluate if enough water will be available if 

a 2 inch slip lining is installed in the current 4 inch water supply line. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 32 Organization: Self 

Comment ID: 320520 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: This is in reference to Appendix C of the “Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement”, page C-24 & C-25 reference “Utilites”. 

The plan of action calls for slip lining the entire length of the water supply 

line, a 4 inch Cast Iron pipe, with 2” HDPE (plastic pipe). The concern with 

the 2 inch pipe is it suffiently sized to carry the amount of flow, volumne, 

necessary to supply the grove and the entrance station? 

For example: The flow rate of 100ft length of 2 inch pipe is approx. 18 

gallons. A 4 inch pipe of 100ft will carry 67 gallons. These rates are 

approximate and gathered from the Internet. Water usage, length of 

distribution lines, the affects of gravity, water storage, are other factors that 

determine pipe sizing. 

Response: The EIS does not include this level of design detail in the alternatives, and this decision 

would be under the purview of Yosemite National Park facilities and maintenance staff. Park staff 

will take this comment under advisement. 

MG4400 – Visitor Facilities – Trails 

Concern ID: 46942 

CONCERN The National Park Service should elevate pathways above hiking surfaces to 

STATEMENT: minimize off-path hiking. 

Representative Corr. ID: 41 Organization: BergmannDesign 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320531 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Pathways should all be elevated from the surface and 

off path hiking should be minimized. 

Response: As discussed in Chapter 3, day use activities would continue to cause vegetation impacts 

in the Mariposa Grove because of the level of visitor interest in and use of Mariposa Grove. 

Pedestrian traffic would include direct impacts on the trails from soil compaction, erosion, and root 

exposure that could affect the health of giant sequoia; but much of this can be minimized through 

clear trail delineation. Vandalism, such as stripping off bark from giant sequoia, could continue in 

high-use areas, but the impact would be minimized with proper fencing, educational programs and 

signage, and regular management and patrols of these areas. The addition of way-finding signs and 

improving visitor orientation could reduce off-trail use, indirectly improving plant community 

composition and structure. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, accessible trails that cross wetland areas in 

the lower Grove would be elevated on boardwalks in sensitive locations. 

C-25 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46946

 CONCERN The National Park Service should not develop a trail from the South Entrance to 

STATEMENT: the lower Grove area because there is not enough demand, the trail has 

numerous elevation gains and losses, and it goes through old growth forest. 

Representative Corr. ID: 89 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321046 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Hiking trail from South Entrance to picnic area and 

extenstion thereof to Lower Grove. I seriously doubt there is enough demand 

for this to warrant the expenditure of funds to do this and keep it maintained.... 

The existing trail from the South entrance is gnarly and has numerous elevation 

gains and losses.... It was also mentioned that this trail goes through old growth 

forest which should be protected instead of having a trail built through it. 

Response: The proposed trail from the South Entrance to the lower Grove under Alternatives 2 and 

4 would provide an alternative way to enter the Grove from the new hub besides the shuttle. 

Demand for such a trail would be expected to grow due to the relocation of the hub for 

transportation and visitor services to the South Entrance. New disturbance would be minimized due 

to locating the trail along an existing road alignment and adjacent to Mariposa Grove Road. 

Concern ID: 46948 

CONCERN The National Park Service should convert the lower portion of the upper 

STATEMENT: Grove area loop road to a hiking trail as long as all the other trails remain. 

Representative Corr. ID: 330 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321315 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I am in favor of converting the south portion of the 

upper Grove loop road to a hiking trail; but I want all of the other trails in the 

Upper Grove to stay. 

Response: Trail redundancy is being eliminated to restore sequoia habitat in Alternatives 2 and 4. 

 Concern ID: 46952

 CONCERN The National Park Service should publicize the hiking trail from Wawona to the 

STATEMENT: Mariposa Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 51 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320627 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Better information and path that is currently from the 

tunnel tree to Wawona. 6 miles is a lot for some, but there are a lot of people who 

don’t even know about that option. 

Response: Improved signage would be included under all action alternatives. The relocation of 

interpretive and visitor services to the main hub under all action alternatives would be expected to 

make information and park staff more accessible to visitors. 

C-26 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG4500 – Visitor Facilities – Communications 

Concern ID: 46950 

CONCERN The National Park Service should clarify whether there are other uses at the 

STATEMENT: communications facility at Wawona Point in addition to park administration, 

why it is considered a critical link when it was not available in previous years, 

and whether a larger fuel storage tank could reduce the number of fueling 

trips. 

Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321335 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Regarding the communications facility at Wawona 

Point, is the facility only for Park administration or does it serve for other 

wireless uses? What did the NPS do for radio communications in the 

previous 50 years? Why is it now considered a critical link? Since the facility 

has been “recently” installed is this not an example of what can take place 

under the so-called “No Action Alternative?” Can a larger fuel storage tank 

be installed to reduce the number of fueling trips? 

Response: The Wawona Point communications tower is a critical component of the park-wide 

communications network. The communications facility houses the radio networks, a repeater for 

concessioner use related to parkwide tours, and a cell tower. In addition to NPS functions, these 

facilities benefit park visitors by providing cellular phone service in the area. The tower requires 

maintenance throughout the year and must be accessible to service vehicles. The NPS reviewed 

alternative sites for tower relocation, and the potential locations would not be feasible, as they were 

located in Wilderness. Relocation costs would be prohibitive, possibly exceeding several million 

dollars. The NPS also considered alternative power supplies and determined that new power 

transmission lines would cross through Wilderness, solar panels would be unreliable in the winter 

due to snow cover, and delivery of propane via other transportation modes (e.g., helicopter) during 

winter months would require extensive site preparation and delivery would be expensive and 

unreliable during inclement weather. Should the telecommunications tower become obsolete due to 

technological advances, the NPS would consider removal of the equipment. 

MG6000 – Transportation 

Concern ID: 46302 

CONCERN The National Park Service should eliminate all vehicles within one mile of 

STATEMENT: the Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 41 Organization: BergmannDesign 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320530 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Vehicles should not be allowed within at least a mile 

of any of the groves. 

Response: In accordance with the Organic Act of 1916, NPS pursues a balance between restoration 

and protection of unique resources like Mariposa Grove and public access to experience these 

special areas. Alternatives 2 and 4 would limit private vehicular traffic into Mariposa Grove, by 

relocating the main transportation and visitor services hub to South Entrance and providing shuttle 

services and new trail connections between South Entrance and the Grove. NPS is not able to 

C-27 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

eliminate all vehicles within the Grove because park staff vehicles must access the Grove for 

maintenance and access by placarded vehicles provides additional access for visitors with limited 

mobility. In addition, the shuttle would not be operating during the off-season and shoulder seasons, 

and limited vehicular access would be permitted to the Grove during those times. 

Concern ID: 46305 

CONCERN The National Park Service should evaluate whether a shift to more shuttle 

STATEMENT: use and the road realignment would adversely affect the sense of arrival or a 

positive experience of the “first view” of the Grove. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 99 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321078 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: There are two aspects related to a person’s sense of 

arrival to the grove that I am concerned about. If you get on a shuttle at the 

South Entrance, how will you visually know you have arrived to the grove 

when you are in a crowded shuttle and not a private car? A visitor’s first view 

of the sequoias is currently the Sentinels, which gives one a hint of what is to 

come. How will the realignment of the road impact this first view? 

Corr. ID: 99 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321076 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I don’t want my first view of the park, as I drive up to 

the South Entrance Kiosks, to be a large parking lot and associated 

structures. I don’t want to feel like I am arriving at Disneyland. How well will 

the hub be screened from view along the 41? 

Response: Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the sense of arrival would be the same for many people 

arriving to the Grove because over 40 percent currently arrive by shuttle bus. The NPS considered 

the change in the sense of arrival for those who currently arrive in private vehicles (see Chapter 3; 

Visitor Experience). Having only one parking lot option will reduce the stress of arriving, and the 

shuttle will allow visitors the time and opportunity to “shift gears.” Upon arrival in the lower Grove 

area, the newly opened views of the lower Grove sequoias will enhance the visitors’ sense of arrival 

into a much larger sequoia grove experience. Related to the arrival sequence at South Entrance, the 

design will ensure that there is sufficient vegetative screening to avoid looking into a parking lot, 

whether through natural vegetation or by new planting to screen the parking area. 

Concern ID: 46307 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider the trade-offs between using 

STATEMENT: shuttles or private vehicles to get to the Grove in terms of congestion 

patterns. 

Representative Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

Quote(s): and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321131 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: There has been no determination of the number of 

people who bypass the Mariposa Grove and the addition of a parking area at 

the South Entrance is no guarantee of reduced crowds or traffic. The 

congestion may just occur at a single location and perhaps later in the day 

with the modest increase in parking places. 

C-28 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321334 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: If the NPS consolidates all parking at a new parking 

lot near the South Entrance, what is to keep people from parking at Wawona 

or elsewhere and riding a bus to the Mariposa Grove location? How do you 

accommodate the additional visitors from other parking lots? 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321345 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Where is the discussion about the weight impact on 

roadways of shuttle buses and tour buses versus private passenger vehicles? 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321346 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Where is the discussion on the fact that buses can 

bring more people per hour to the Mariposa Grove than private passenger 

vehicles? 

Where is the discussion on disbursed visitor arrival via private passenger 

vehicle versus concentrated visitor arrival via tour or shuttle bus? Bus 

passengers disgorge at one time at one location cars carry far fewer people 

and arrive and depart across a greater timeframe than buses. 

Response: This topic is addressed in Chapter 3, Visitor Experience. The options for transportation 

into Mariposa Grove were evaluated in terms of the capacity each would accommodate relative to 

existing conditions (see for example, Table 3-12). It is possible that some visitors would be turned 

away on peak visitation days under all alternatives, given the high demand to visit the Grove and 

physical constraints on parking capacity. Pulsing currently occurs during the peak times of the day 

when the lower Grove lot is full and the vast majority of visitors arrive on shuttles. The addition of 

trails in the lower Grove, new interpretive signs, and the three-quarter mile hike to the Grizzly Giant 

will disperse visitors and moderate any pulsing from shuttle deliveries. A key consideration with the 

arrival of many people at one time (for example, on a tour bus) is the adequacy of visitor facilities 

such as toilets. These issues were addressed in the design of the alternatives, to make sure plumbing 

fixtures and septic system feasibility correspond to possible visitation levels based on bus, shuttle, 

and parking capacities. In the future, the NPS may need to institute a permit reservation system for 

commercial tour buses, if future demand exceeds the capacity of the septic system or commercial bus 

parking space. 

Concern ID: 46310 

CONCERN The National Park Service should clarify how the design standard of 85% 

STATEMENT: peak visitation capacity is applied in the analysis to assess parking and other 

topics. 

Representative Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

Quote(s): and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321135 Organization Type: Business 

C-29 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: The Plan mentions a design standard at 85% of peak 

day visitation. It is unclear to us how this standard is being applied as it is 

necessary for certain plan elements (parking, for example), to be designed at 

100% of peak day attendance to achieve the 85% standard elsewhere. 

Response: The design of parking facilities and shuttle service is guided by factors including physical 

constraints, minimizing impacts on sensitive resources, and availability of funding. The NPS designs 

are intended to accommodate the 85th percentile of visitation. Table 3-12 was clarified to show 

estimates of how many visitors would be accommodated by mode of arrival on a day when visitation 

meets the 85th percentile under all alternatives. 

Concern ID: 46311 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should clarify the reasons for increased 

recreational vehicle parking, and the relationship between the size of the 

parking lot impact area. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321324 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Under the action alternatives it is proposed to 

increase RV parking to around 30 spaces. Please define what RV or oversized 

spaces are in relation to physical area impacted. Why the proposed 

increases? 

Response: RV and oversized parking spaces are provided in response to visitor demand. The spaces 

would consolidate the vehicles that currently park in Wawona, the South Entrance, and the lower 

Grove whose passengers want to go to the Grove. Oversized spaces can also be managed as flexible 

parking areas and can be used in other capacities as needed. 

 Concern ID: 46314

 CONCERN The National Park Service should consider effects on air quality from shifting 

STATEMENT: more visitors to shuttle buses from private vehicles. 

Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321355 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Air quality and noise associated with bus traffic appear 

understated. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321349 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Where is the evidence to substantiate the claim that 

replacing private passenger vehicle traffic with shuttle bus traffic on the access 

road from the South Entrance to the lower Grove would “substantially reduce 

vehicle emissions?” One fully loaded shuttle bus may displace about 15 cars 

(theoretically) but how many vehicles add up to the same emission and carbon 

footprint of one bus? Who decided that cars are bad and buses are good? What is 

the evidence to support that position? 

Response: This topic is addressed in Chapter 3, Air Quality and Climate Change. Under the 

preferred alternative, automobile and bus emissions would be moved to the South Entrance. Under 

C-30 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Alternative 2, privately owned vehicle use would be reduced substantially between the South 

Entrance Hub and the lower Grove as privately owned vehicle access to the grove during peak and 

shoulder seasons would be replaced by shuttle service from a new South Entrance Hub. 

Consequently, exhaust and dust emissions from visitor vehicles traveling on the South Entrance to 

lower Grove road segment would be replaced by shuttle bus emissions, which would substantially 

reduce vehicle emissions along this road segment. This would reduce the exposure of Grove visitors 

to exhaust and dust emissions. It is unknown which technology would be used for the shuttles so the 

amount of emissions reduced cannot yet be determined. 

MG6100 – Transportation – Circulation and Crowding 

Concern ID: 46319 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should not use roundabouts where pedestrians 

use intersections, to protect the safety of pedestrians. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 56 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320554 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I am not a big supporter of traffic circles where there 

is a potential for pedestrians. I have witnessed how impatient pedestrians 

attempt to cut across the center, rather than going around, resulting in 

hazardous situations. I like the intersection concept “F” better. The 

transitions appear to be cleaner, and take up less space. Pedestrians need 

only to watch for oncoming traffic from one direction source at a time. 

Response: Pedestrian safety would be considered in the design if a roundabout is selected for 

implementation. Possible mitigation to enhance pedestrian safety at the roundabout may include 

proper signage, fencing, and design of sidewalks to minimize the potential for conflicts. 

Concern ID: 46320 

CONCERN The National Park Service should compare the crowding effects of 

STATEMENT: Alternative 3, where visitors would distribute uphill and downhill, and 

Alternative 2, where visitors all begin from the lower Grove area. 

Representative Corr. ID: 61 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320561 

Representative Quote: Alternative 3 delivers customers to the Grizzly Giant 

area. This allows customers to distribute themselves uphill and downhill in 

the Grove for less concentration and a lower impact. Alternative 2 

concentrates everyone at the lower grove – which is contrary to both goals. 

Response: Crowding potential is assessed in Chapter 3, Visitor Experience. Visitor concentration 

would be affected by the layout of visitor facilities as well as capacity like parking. It is not known 

how visitors would disperse in Alternative 3 because the Grizzly Giant is perceived by many visitors 

as the primary destination in the Grove. As a result of parking so close to their destination, some may 

choose to not hike at all. However, it is likely that more visitors would hike to the upper Grove than 

current levels. This would lead to greater impacts to the resources in the less-impacted part of the 

Grove and would result in reduced opportunities for solitude and increased crowding in the upper 

Grove. 

C-31 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

 Concern ID: 46321 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should minimize impacts on giant sequoias when 

STATEMENT: determining locations for transit facilities in the lower Grove area. 

 Representative Corr. ID: 76 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 320588 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

 Representative Quote: In the Preferred Alternative the current tram 

ticketing and turnaround area is to be repurposed to a small transit hub. I 

recommend that the turn around area be restored since it contains a number 

of sequoias; and that the transit hub be constructed in the area currently 

occupied by the snack shack/office and current shuttle bus parking area. 

Response: The overall purpose of actions in Mariposa Grove is to restore and protect the giant 

sequoia habitat, and layouts for developed areas have been refined in order to minimize impacts on 

those habitats as well as archaeological resources, wetlands, and other sensitive resources. 

 Concern ID: 46323 

 CONCERN The National Park Service should evaluate potential impacts on traffic 

STATEMENT: congestion through analysis of parking capacity and traffic flow. 

 Representative Corr. ID: 89 

Quote(s): 

 Comment ID: 321048 

 Representative Quote: With the centralization at the South Entrance of traffic 

to the Grove, expanded hours will also be necessary in order to avoid 

congestion in the mornings. Currently the public parking lot in the Grove fills 

up by 9:00 a.m. in summer. With the elimination of public parking in the 

Grove, the start time for the shuttles should be no later than 7:30 a.m. during 

the peak season to better manage the flow of visitors into the Grove. 

 Corr. ID: 103 

 Comment ID: 321130 

 Representative Quote: During a typical day, 15-20 tour busses stop to access 

the Wawona shuttle. Numerous concessioner traffic attendants are also 

situated at the South Entrance parking, at the Grove and sometimes at 

Wawona. Adding this traffic control staff creates capacity in the various lots 

beyond their static parking capacity, which is not factored into the analysis. 

 Corr. ID: 331 

 Comment ID: 321325 

 Representative Quote: It is stated that the current fragmented parking causes 

“backtracking.” What is backtracking? How was this identified as a problem? 

Would this problem not also plague the proposed transit plans that the NPS 

wants to implement Park-wide, i.e. YARTS? 

 Corr. ID: 331 

 Comment ID: 321359 

C-32 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: The real issue is total capacity. If the current private 

vehicle access system is pushing crowding within the Mariposa Grove to 

unacceptable limits, the bus plan surely will make matters worse. Why was this 

not more fully analyzed in the Mariposa Grove DEIS? 

Response: The goal of the project is to serve the same number of visitors that currently arrive at the 

Grove on a typical busy summer day. A thorough analysis was completed to determine the 

appropriate number of parking spaces and level of shuttle services to accommodate existing 

visitation. In addition to improvements to existing circulation and parking layout, potential 

congestion will be addressed through traffic management strategies such as the use of traffic control 

staff at the intersection and in the parking lot. 

Congestion would also be alleviated by consolidating parking, which reduces backtracking. For 

clarification, an example of backtracking would include visitors coming from Yosemite Valley who 

arrived at the parking lot at the South Entrance, found the parking lots at the Grove and South 

Entrance were full, then had to travel back to Wawona to park and ride the shuttle to the Grove. 

Concern ID: 46324 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider congestion pricing if the 

implemented plan does not reduce traffic congestion. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 92 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321057 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: If it is too crowded, use congestion access pricing 

like they do on carpool lanes. This variable pricing can be adjusted seasonally 

as well as for holidays. 

Response: NPS policies would not allow for determining ease of access to park resources based on 

the ability to pay additional fees. 

Concern ID: 46729 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider the potential crowding issues that 

STATEMENT: would result from consolidating parking into one parking lot, funneling 

people into shuttle buses, and closing the tram in the upper Grove area. 

Representative Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

Quote(s): and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321108 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Today, more than half of the visitation to the upper 

Grove comes from tram passengers. If that service is not available, we would 

expect far fewer people to actually observe the entire Grove. This could 

result in crowding and congestion at lower Grove areas such as Grizzly 

Giant, possibly adversely affecting natural resources and visitor experience at 

this popular destination 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321337 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-33 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: Considering the impacts on visitation to the 

Tuolumne Grove when the NPS cut-off private vehicle access should that 

experience not have been disclosed in the Mariposa Grove DEIS? The NPS is 

to tailor their plans around protecting visitor experience. How does 

funneling Mariposa Grove visitors to a single parking lot by the South 

Entrance and funneling people into a shuttle bus not degrade visitor 

experience? 

Response: This topic is considered in Chapter 3, Visitor Experience. Potential congestion issues 

around hub locations may occur on high visitation days under all alternatives. Alternative 2 includes 

the possibility of a roundabout as needed to address persistent congestion issues. Currently, about 37 

percent of visitors to the Grove spend at least some time in the upper Grove. Most Mariposa Grove 

visitors reach the upper Grove by hiking (27 percent), while about 10 percent arrive on the 

commercial tram service. We do not expect an overall decline in visitation to the Mariposa Grove as 

visitors will have a range of options for arriving at the Grove, including taking a shuttle into the 

Grove, or hiking in, making this a different experience than that at the Tuolumne and Merced 

Groves. 

MG6300 – Transportation – Shuttles 

Concern ID: 46328 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should modify or enhance shuttle service with: 

-Twice-daily shuttle from Yosemite Valley to the Grove during summer 

months 

-Shuttles from Wawona at least once an hour that travel directly to the lower 

Grove area rather than stop for a transfer at South Entrance 

-Shuttle connections to North park parking 

-Longer shuttle service hours (sunrise to sunset). 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 330 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321319 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I am concerned about the reduction of shuttle 

service from Wawona.... Whatever shuttles there are from Wawona, they 

should fill-up remaining spaces on the shuttle at the South Entrance and then 

continue to the Grove.... Shuttle bus service should start much earlier than in 

the past (sunrise) and continue later that in the past. (sunset) 

Response: Final determination of the shuttle service operations would be determined at a later time 

based on available funding. 

MG6350 – Transportation – Tram Access to Upper Grove 

Concern ID: 46329 

CONCERN The National Park Service should provide additional access to the upper 

STATEMENT: Grove area for certain visitor populations including the elderly, people with 

disabilities, or families with young children. 

Representative Corr. ID: 3 Organization: Private Citizen 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320124 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-34 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: If at all possible, please keep the tram. 


For those of us who are older, and can’t hike as much as we used to -- the 


tram is wonderful -- and for disabled people, the tram is probably the only 


way for them to enjoy the majesty and splendor of the Grove. 


Corr. ID: 112 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321197 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: You are eliminating the opportunities of many 

peoples to experience this phenomenal grove. The fact that many in our 

society cannot walk to the top due to altitude, health, age or any other reason 

should not exclude them from this grove. Yes, the bottom part of the grove is 

outstandingly beautiful, but the upper portion should be seen also. 

Response: The overall experience in Mariposa Grove for less mobile visitors has been a key 

consideration throughout the development of the alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the 

tram would be discontinued. A wider range of experience would be provided at the lower Grove 

through the restoration of conditions in that area, the development of additional trails including 

accessible trails, and the modification of this area into a more natural setting with fewer mechanized 

noise and emissions. 

MG6400 – Transportation – Parking lot at the South Entrance 

Concern ID: 46342 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should configure the parking to promote 

circulation and access for different types of vehicles and to minimize impacts 

on wetlands. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 50 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320546 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I have also heard that you are considering turning 

the snowplay area parking lot into parking for the Mariposa Grove. If you do 

that I hope you will consider providing good parking for horse trailers up the 

road then. It is a safe place where us riders can park and then enjoy the 

National Forest trails. 

Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321132 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The parking configuration shown in the Plan will be 

limiting as there is only space for four tour busses, the lot shows a single 

entry/exit location and the stalls for motor homes are head-in only, which 

could create traffic circulation issues. 

Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321179 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-35 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: The South Entrance Hub for visitor parking and 

orientation seems the most logical, but I wonder if its shape or configuration 

can be modified to elliminate construction impacts over an existing wetland. 

Also, can the paved area be broken up to maintain more forest canopy for 

habitat and shaded parking. 

Response: Since the DEIS, further refinement to the layout of the South Entrance hub under 

Alternatives 2 and 4 occurred to optimize parking and avoid additional wetland areas. The revised 

layout is shown in the FEIS. 

Approximately three spaces will be provided for tour buses to use throughout the day. The spaces 

are anticipated to be along the road and not be within the parking lot, thus avoiding conflicts with 

other vehicles. The snow play area is on U.S. Forest Service lands (see Chapter 2 for Alternatives 

Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis). 

Concern ID: 46345 

CONCERN The National Park Service should provide additional parking in the lower 

STATEMENT: Grove area. 

Representative Corr. ID: 89 Organization: Not Specified 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321047 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Public parking in the Grove. The preferred 

alternative only allows 50 “seasonal” public parking spaces for use when the 

shuttles stop running for the season, and eliminates public parking in the 

Lower Grove the rest of the time. In addition to these “seasonal” spaces, 

additional year-round public parking in the Lower Grove area on a first 

come first serve basis could be made availalbe on the unpaved leach field of 

the bathrooms. I would like to see the feasibility of this option explored by 

the NPS. 

Corr. ID: 333 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321386 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The bureau supports adding the parking area at 

South Entrance. However, this should be additional to the existing parking 

in the lower grove. Shuttles can ferry visitors from the south entrance to the 

lower grove as in the past without the obvious traffic congestion in Wawona 

and the necessity of vehicles going back and forth from South Entrance. 

Response: Since the DEIS, the NPS has looked more closely at parking in the lower Grove under 

Alternatives 2 and 4. Although private vehicles that are not placarded would not be permitted to 

enter Mariposa Grove under those alternatives, entry would be allowed when the shuttle operation 

is not running. In the FEIS, the parking in the Grove when the shuttle is not operating was expanded 

under these alternatives to provide approximately 80 spaces in the lower Grove area and near the 

picnic area along Mariposa Grove Road. The final number of parking spaces would be determined 

during the final design stage. No changes were made to Alternative 3, since it would already provide 

year-round parking for private vehicles within the Grove unless the road is closed due to snow. 

During those times, visitors would need to walk from the South Entrance under any one of the action 

alternatives. 

C-36 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

MG6600 – Transportation – Parking – Other Options 


Concern ID: 46348 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider additional parking locations 

beyond what is proposed in the alternatives. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 73 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320578 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: How about a big parking lot in Wawona there is lots 

of flat ground in Wawona and you don’t have to clear out a lot of trees. 

Corr. ID: 90 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321055 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Put a parking lot outside YNP up the Snow Play 

Area Road. It’s a short walk to the Grizzley Giant. 

Corr. ID: 330 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321317 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I am very much AGAINST the designated bus 

parking spaces at Wawona. If more bus parking is needed, put it elsewhere. 

Please consider putting them at the Snow Play area or Tenaya Hotel or the 

old Fish Camp Gas station area or ANYPLACE between the South Entrance 

and Fish Camp. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321322 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Considering the diversity of the origination of 

visitors to the Mariposa Grove would not dispersed parking lots be a more 

effective approach to traffic management? Both the TRP and the MRP 

propose a network of large parking lots to intercept visitors 

Response: Since the DEIS, the NPS has considered opportunities to optimize parking while 

protecting sensitive resources. Locations were only considered within the study area, since NPS does 

not have jurisdiction outside of the park and other planning efforts are addressing other areas of the 

park. Alternatives 2 and 4 in the FEIS were refined to include a reconfigured parking area and 

additional spaces in the South Entrance and for off-season use in the lower Grove area and near the 

picnic area along Mariposa Grove Road. 

MG7000 – Signage and Wayfinding 

Concern ID: 46306 

CONCERN The National Park Service should improve signage in the Mariposa Grove. 

STATEMENT: 

Representative Corr. ID: 41 Organization: BergmannDesign 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 320532 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-37 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: There should be no food or drink allowed that 

cannot be carried out. Sufficient warning at the trailhead about there being 

no drinking fountains, trash cans, etc and everything that enters the grove 

must leave the grove. 

Corr. ID: 80 	 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321002 	Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Please have your signs asking people to NOT walk 

near the Sequoia’s base in more languages than English. We recently visited 

and the couple ahead of us seemed unaware of the signs as both went right 

up to the tree to take their picture touching the tree. They were not speaking 

English so probably did not understand the signage. 

Corr. ID: 103 	 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321112 	Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: We believe that improvements to trail way-finding, 

which were noted as a considerable visitor concern in public scoping, will 

help reduce incidents of tram-pedestrian conflicts as it will be easier for 

visitors to stay on the trails. Where trails cross the road, appropriate signage 

could help improve this situation and the reduction in tram service hours 

called for in Alternative 4 will further reduce the potential for adverse effects. 

Response: Under all action alternatives, signage would be improved in the Mariposa Grove. This is 

noted under the “Actions Common to All Action Alternatives” section of Chapter 2. 

Concern ID: 46313 

CONCERN The National Park Service should eliminate electronic signs. 

STATEMENT: 

Representative Corr. ID: 109 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321181 

Representative Quote: I also think that electronic signs should be 

elliminated, as they are ugly, unnecessary modern contrivance that do not 

add value to the visitor experience. 

Response: Specific signage has not been identified for Mariposa Grove at this time, however 

changeable message signs may be considered. Final determinations on signage would be include as 

part of final design activities and would be identified based on physical constraints and the objectives 

for signage improvements. 

Concern ID:	 46934 

CONCERN 	 The National Park Service should mention that the 2011 new audio 

STATEMENT: 	 equipment mitigates noise through use of headphones, and clarify the 

percent of noise impacts from the tram versus other noise generators in the 

Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

Quote(s): and Resorts 

C-38 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Comment ID: 321110 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The noise issues related to the trams’ audio 

equipment have been addressed by the replacement of audio equipment in 

late summer 2011. This means that the audio is played over headsets to each 

visitor aboard the tram, so noise pollution from the audio equipment has 

been mitigated. 

We believe noise issues related to the trams’ diesel engines are successfully 

mitigated in Alternative 4 with limits on operating hours and route. The 

Environmental Consequences discussed in Chapter 3 concluded the 

soundscapes were exactly the same for all three action alternatives, 

suggesting that the retention of a limited tram service under Alternative 4 

would have no measurable adverse impacts to the natural soundscape within 

the Grove as compared to the other alternatives. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321328 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: What percentage of soundscape impacts are 

associated with the commercial tram versus the gift store generator versus 

the parking lot at the lower Grove? 

Response: Revisions were made in the FEIS to acknowledge the impacts of vehicle type and use of 

headphones in mitigating noise potential from the tram. The other noise sources such as the 

generator and parking lot are currently concentrated in one location in the lower Grove area, unlike 

the commercial tram that traverses throughout the lower Grove and into the upper Grove. 

MG7500 – Socioeconomic or Cost Analysis 

Concern ID: 46330 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should include the yearly maintenance costs of 

operating shuttles, including labor, vehicle repair, and vehicle replacement in 

cost estimates cited in the plan. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 61 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 320563 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Alternative 3 significantly reduces the need for 

shuttle buses to the Grove. Shuttle busses would be a year-after year YNP 

expense in Alternative 2. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321354 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The operation and maintenance costs stated in the 

Mariposa Grove DEIS for the expanded shuttle bus system are grossly 

understated, and fail to adequately take into account labor costs, and 

increased infrastructure repair and replacement costs associated with the use 

of heavy vehicles. 

Response: The preliminary cost estimate associated with planning level information that is evaluated 

in the EIS is presented in Table 2-1. More detailed cost estimates would be developed in concert 

with final design activities. For planning purposes, the current funding, contractual agreement, and 

C-39 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

hourly rate were used as a basis for assumptions. For park owned 40-foot shuttles, current service 

hour rates were used as well as an amortization rate for park-owned vehicles ($600,000 per vehicle 

with a 10-year life span divided by annual hours of service). 

Concern ID: 46331 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should augment the EIS analysis to include 

consideration of socioeconomic impacts such as loss of jobs, impacts on 

small businesses that require vehicular access into the Grove, or park 

revenue lost due to the discontinuation of the tram, gift shop, or other 

concessioner activities. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 58 Organization: Yosemite Trails Pack Station 

Comment ID: 320557 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: For the last 48 years my family has been escorting 

small groups of the people to the Mariposa Grove. It’s about a 2 hour ride 

from our Pack Station and we stop and take short break just to the south east 

of the Grizzly Giant. We cater to many segments of the general public, many 

of whom have physical limitations and would not be able to make the trip 

other then riding in a car. 

I support the No Action Alternative. If on the other hand this option is taken 

off the table, I strongly request that our ability to access the Grizzly Giant not 

be diminished by the final plan. Our ability to provide access to the public 

would be severely curtailed and the financial consequences to our family run 

company would be catastrophic. 

Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321129 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The Plan fails to consider the loss of concessioner 

jobs and visitor spending that significantly affects concessioner revenues and 

Park fees. 

The concessioner operated services at the Grove generate revenues that 

annually provide the National Park Service approximately $1 90,000 in direct 

fees. Ninety percent of this revenue is retained in Yosemite National Park. 

Not only was this revenue stream not considered in a socioeconomic 

analysis, it was not considered in the cost of the alternatives or in the analysis 

of Park Operations.... We know that there are more than twenty jobs in the 

Grove relating to tram and retail services and that the visitor spending for the 

trams will not be replaced as this is a unique service. It is also obvious that the 

removal of the gift shop (replaced by a book store) will have similar adverse 

economic impacts. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321352 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: What is the socioeconomic impact of eliminating 

private vehicle access to the lower Grove parking area? How does this 

potentially impact the overall tourism market? 

C-40 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Response: A socioeconomic analysis for this purpose would evaluate potential impacts on the social 

environment, visitor populations, and the regional economy. The social and economic environments 

of the surrounding communities are primarily affected by changes in visitor levels, visitor spending, 

park and concessioner employment, and park and concessioner spending in the regional economy. 

Impacts on Yosemite National Park and the primary concessioner are addressed in the Mariposa 

Grove FEIS under Chapter 3, Park Operations. 

There would be no measureable changes expected in park-wide annual visitation (estimated 

3,951,393 people in 2011) as a result of the Mariposa Grove FEIS. The goal of the plan is to 

accommodate current visitor use levels. Concessioner employment associated with the tram, which 

is eliminated under Alternatives 2 and 4, is a nominal amount of employment and revenue generated 

within the park. The gift shop would be removed under all action alternatives. New visitor services at 

the South Entrance area (Alternative 2 or 4) or at Grizzly Giant (Alternative 3) would include visitor 

information, educational, and other sales items. Visitor convenience items would continue to be sold 

under a concession contract and it is anticipated that there would be little to no net employment 

change under the action alternatives. 

Overall, the project is expected to result in negligible impacts on the socioeconomic environment, 

visitor populations, and the regional economy. Similarly, the project is not expected to result in 

growth-inducing impacts either regionally or in nearby communities; this is a consideration under 

the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, socioeconomics was dismissed from further 

analysis. 

MG7700 – Cumulative Impacts 

Concern ID: 46334 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should evaluate cumulative impacts that address 

parkwide planning decisions as well as actions outside of the park 

boundaries. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321128 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The NPS has not adequately analyzed the 

cumulative effect on the visitor experience and recreation as a result of 

significant park wide reductions, removal and/or limitations on visitor 

services and recreational opportunities and that the removal of the gift shop 

and the tram tours only compounds this concern. 

We are concerned that these and the many other services discontinued for a 

large number of visitors who choose to partake in them will significantly 

adversely impact the visitor experience for the majority of visitors to 

Yosemite. We recommend that the NPS issue a supplemental document that 

describes the cumulative cost, how the plans will be funded, ADA impacts 

and the reduction in visitor services, experiences and recreation options. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321347 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-41 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: To what extent (in percentages) has the Grove’s 

health been compromised by the absence of fire versus impacted by people 

trammeling the area? To what degree has air quality and air emissions 

impacts from external to the Park affected the Grove’s health? 

Response: Additional discussion was added to the FEIS to address parkwide planning and the 

relationship of plans to pursue restoration efforts in Mariposa Grove with those efforts (see 

Chapter 1 and cumulative impacts discussions in Chapter 3). Concerns such as air quality and air 

emissions are a larger regional issue. This plan would have minimal impacts on the larger air quality 

issue. Concerning the Grove’s health, quantification of impacts from the absence of fire versus 

impacts from trammeling is a complex issue. Both have affected the Grove to various degrees. The 

NPS will continue to monitor the effects of fire and trammeling on the sequoias into the future. 

Concern ID: 46535 

CONCERN The National Park Service should provide additional cumulative analysis, 

STATEMENT: particularly in combination with the MRP and TRP. 

Representative Corr. ID: 103 Organization: Delaware North Companies Parks 

Quote(s): and Resorts 

Comment ID: 321133 Organization Type: Business 

Representative Quote: The Plan does not indicate how it ties to the MRP 

with respect to parking at Wawona or the continued use of shuttle service 

from inside the Merced River corridor. Further, there does not appear to be 

a comprehensive analysis of park-wide traffic circulation that would affect 

the Grove and South Entrance area. 

Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321356 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: The projected increase in tour bus activity seems to 

contradict NPS projections for this visitor group as reported in the TRP and 

MRP. There is no adopted integrated Park-wide transportation plan. 

Response: A discussion of the relationship between other planning efforts and the plan for 

restoration of the Mariposa Grove was added to Chapter 1 in the FEIS. The options proposed in the 

Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan are integrated into planning for 

the Mariposa Grove FEIS. For example, facility and shuttle operations are being designed to 

accommodate anticipated public transit operations outlined in the MRP. The NPS is also preparing a 

comprehensive management plan for the Tuolumne Wild and Scenic River that flows through 

Yosemite National Park. This plan will concur with the same general approach of the in-progress 

Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan. 

MG8000 – ADA Compliance 

Concern ID: 46355 

CONCERN The National Park Service should clarify what is meant by the term 


STATEMENT: “accessibility” and “placarded vehicle.”
 

Representative Corr. ID: 331 Organization: Not Specified
 

Quote(s):
 

Comment ID: 321332 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-42 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: What are “appropriately placarded” vehicles? Is 

there a difference between these and vehicles with accessibility placards? 

How is accessibility defined? 

Response: The term accessibility is used in the EIS to refer to facilities that provide access to 

mobility-impaired visitors in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It is used 

to refer to trails, parking space, and other facilities that would be able to accommodate wheelchairs 

or other requirements by less mobile visitors. Placarded vehicles refers to the handicapped parking 

passes that are typically displayed on rearview mirrors that indicate that the car’s passengers require 

accessible facilities. 

MG8100 – ADA – Parking/Access/Trails 

Concern ID: 46356 

CONCERN 

STATEMENT: 

The National Park Service should consider visitors of all ability levels. 

Representative 

Quote(s): 

Corr. ID: 108 Organization: Yosemite Advocates 

Comment ID: 321175 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: While we agree that the commercial tram operation 

should be discontinued, we nevertheless feel that there needs to be some 

provision for the continuation of handicapped access to the Upper Grove. 

Perhaps this could best be provided by permitting vehicles with a 

handicapped placard to travel on the service road, as is done on some of the 

restricted roads in Yosemite Valley. 

Response: This has been an important consideration of the NPS throughout the planning process. 

The objective is to balance restoration efforts associated with the removal of pavement and other 

human disturbance with the ability to provide a high quality visitor experience to visitors of all ages 

and ability levels. Under the action alternatives, this has typically resulted in expansion of accessible 

trails and improving the quality of the setting and experience in those areas, while also slowing 

degradation in more primitive areas in the upper Grove. 

Concern ID: 46357 

CONCERN The National Park Service should consider alternative means to provide 

STATEMENT: access for people with disabilities that does not allow placarded private 

vehicles into the Grove. 

Representative Corr. ID: 83 Organization: CSERC 

Quote(s): 

Comment ID: 321021 Organization Type: Conservation/Preservation 

Representative Quote: Our Center supports providing access to those who 

have limited mobility. However, we do not feel that it is necessary to allow 

those with placards to utilize their private vehicles in the Grove. 

Corr. ID: 99 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321079 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

C-43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses 

Representative Quote: The plan needs to provide some other alternative 

means for handicapped access. One possibility would be to allow private 

vehicles to drive on the service road. Another suggestion would be to have a 

small fleet of NEV’s (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) that the handicapped 

could use. 

Corr. ID: 104 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321139 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: I understand that after removing the tram road, you 

plan on creating a hardened dirt road from the Lower Grove to an area near 

the Grizzly Giant, which will accept handicapped (placard) drivers. Do you 

really prefer these types of drivers over park personnel operating a tram? 

Some of the placard drivers will absolutely interfere with hikers and other 

cars. First-timers will stop and gawk at every opportunity. You can plan on 

addressing a few car accidents per season (hopefully none involving 

redwoods). 

Corr. ID: 109 Organization: Not Specified 

Comment ID: 321182 Organization Type: Unaffiliated Individual 

Representative Quote: Alternative transportation for disabled visitors 

should be considered to Grizzly Giant, such as ADA compliant shuttles, 

instead of providing for placarded vehicles and parking. 

Response: Some visitors with disabilities may be able to ride the shuttle into Mariposa Grove. To 

address a variety of potential situations, the NPS is committed to providing some accessible parking 

within the Grove itself to enable greater access. The accessible parking within the Grove is linked to 

accessible trail connections. The short section of new road alignment below the Grizzly Giant would 

be signed to encourage visitors to use the pedestrian trail instead of the road so hikers and placarded 

vehicles would not be sharing the same space. Placarded vehicles would be required to park in 

designated spaces or pullouts along the way to avoid impacts to trees. 

C-44