Append

Restoration 

       

  

         

   

   

 

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLANNING FOR THE RESTORATION 

OF THE 

MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS 

DIVISION OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE 

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK 

Written by

Monica Buhler and Sue Beatty

Reviewed by

Judi Weaser

D‐2
 

       

           

         

         

           

   

   

   

   

           

         

         

             

         

   

 

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction..........................................................................................................................D‐4
 

The Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias.................................................................................D‐5
 

The Need for Ecological Restoration .....................................................................................D‐6
 

Ecological Restoration Goals and Objectives ........................................................................D‐8
 

Best Management Practices and Resource Protection Zones................................................D‐9
 

General practices.................................................................................................................D‐10
 

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................D‐10
 

Soil conditions.....................................................................................................................D‐12
 

Surface topography.............................................................................................................D‐12
 

Site preparation...................................................................................................................D‐13
 

Revegetation .......................................................................................................................D‐13
 

Canopy gaps ........................................................................................................................D‐14
 

Ecological Restoration Actions Common to All....................................................................D‐14
 

Fire ...................................................................................................................................... D-15
 

Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... D-16
 

Wetlands............................................................................................................................. D-18
 

Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... D-19
 

The Grove Road and Culverts..............................................................................................D‐20
 

Removal/Reduction of Upper Loop Road ...........................................................................D‐20
 

Removal of Gift Shop and Parking areas.............................................................................D‐21
 

Trails....................................................................................................................................D‐22
 

Utilities ................................................................................................................................D‐22
 

Historic Dumps ................................................................................................................... D-23
 

Visitor Use........................................................................................................................... D-24
 

Monitoring and Long‐Term Maintenance and Management..............................................D‐24
 

Data Gaps ........................................................................................................................... D-26
 

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................D‐27
 

D‐3
 

       

                           

                         

                         

                     

                      

                     

                     

                       

                       

                         

                       

                               

                         

                   

                     

                       

                             

                         

                       

                         

                         

                         

                   

  

                         

                           

                         

     

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

INTRODUCTION 

This report presents an ecological restoration plan to support the Restoration of the Mariposa

Grove of Giant Sequoias Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Mariposa Grove Plan). It

provides a description of sites recommended for ecological restoration in the Mariposa Grove

area, incorporating the most recent natural resource condition assessments and analyses of

the Grove. This report also addresses cultural resources, American Indian consultations and

park infrastructure and operations. We also present best management practices and general

guidelines for ecological restoration and project implementation in the Mariposa Grove.

Several studies frequently cited in this document provide baseline information on hydrology,

vegetation, wildlife, visitor use and cultural resources that direct ecological restoration efforts

and priorities. Kuhn (2011) completed a landscape and population analysis of the giant

sequoias in the Mariposa Grove, providing quantitative and qualitative information about the

distribution and age class of all giant sequoias occurring in the grove. Kuhn and Roche (2011)

assessed hydrologic conditions in the grove and identified point source and landscape level

concerns, along with proposed mitigations. Buhler (2011) assessed current vegetation

conditions and distribution in the grove, fire history and other vegetation management.

Colwell (2010) completed a comprehensive plant survey that identified the occurrence and

distribution of sensitive plant species and non‐native plants, and compiled a plant list for the

area. Repath (2011) completed a wetland delineation to identify the spatial distribution and

condition of wetlands in the Mariposa Grove. Finally, Stock (2011) assessed wildlife

populations occurring in the Mariposa Grove, focusing on special status species. A cultural

resource summary completed by Bane (2011) provides information on cultural resources in the

grove, both historic and prehistoric. These studies help managers propose resource based and

informed recommendations on the most effective ecological restoration of the Mariposa

Grove.

Many of the proposed ecological restoration guidelines and actions are based on the

experience and success of the Giant Forest restoration in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National

Parks. This provides us with confidence that recommended restoration tools and methods are

likely to succeed.

D‐4
 

       

                             

                           

                               

                             

                               

                           

                         

                             

              

                             

                           

                            

                               

                

                           

                         

                  

                           

             

               

                             

                     

                   

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PLANNING FOR THE RESTORATION 

OF THE MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS 

By Monica Buhler and Sue Beatty 

THE MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS 

The Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias is one of the most significant natural and cultural

resources in Yosemite National Park. In 1864, Congress passed a bill granting the Yosemite

Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Big Trees to the State of California. President Lincoln signed

this innovative law, which required California to manage this new park for “public use, resort,

and recreation.” Protection of the grove was crucial in this time period as logging of other

giant sequoia groves was ongoing. There are three groves of giant sequoias in Yosemite

National Park: the Mariposa Grove, Merced Grove, and Tuolumne Grove. The Mariposa Grove

is the largest, containing 86% of the park’s mapped adult giant sequoias and estimated to

receive more than one million visitors annually.

Over the years, policies and programs aimed at protecting giant sequoia in the national parks

and forests of the Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite, have evolved from the protection of

individual trees to the preservation of entire groves. Understanding of the giant sequoia life

cycle and ecology is still evolving but several key points are important to consider for effective

restoration and management. (York et al. in press).

 Giant sequoias are relatively rare and only occur in disjunct groves on the western

slope of the Sierra Nevada, numbering 65 to 75 (depending on whether adjacent

groves are lumped or split) covering approximately 14,600 ha.

 Despite the difficulty of using giant sequoia wood, loggers cut 34% of the original

sequoia acreage between 1856 and the mid‐1950s.

 Trees may live as long as 3,200 years

 Past shifts in the distribution of giant sequoia groves are thought to be driven by

changes in climate. Today’s distribution appears to be constrained by cold

temperatures at upper elevations and insufficient water at lower elevations.

D‐5
 
       

                         

                             

                       

       

                         

                 

                       

                       

     

                     

                          

                             

                           

                               

                             

                                

                           

                             

                               

                     

                           

                       

                               

                           

                   

                         

                               

                               

                       

                         

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Giant sequoias typically occur in mixed conifer forests and may be the dominant

species in terms of basal area, but are relatively uncommon in terms of density of

individuals.

 Trees have several adaptations to fire (e.g. thick and non‐resinous bark, serotinous

cones, scorch‐resistant foliage, epicormic sprouting).

 Its life history strategy is a combination of pioneer (i.e. light seeds, rapid post‐

disturbance colonization, rapid growth) and late‐seral species (longevity, large size)

strategies. It is perhaps best classified as a “long‐lived pioneer, “ideal for

regenerating, recruiting, and persisting within the context of a low and moderate

severity fire regime.

Giant sequoia germination, establishment and persistence are largely driven by fire and

hydrology, and both of these processes are profoundly altered in the Mariposa Grove. Giant

sequoias are extraordinary records of fire history because of their resistance to rot, ability to

heal quickly from fire damage and extreme longevity. Swetnam et al. (1990) reconstructed a

1,438 year long fire history of the Mariposa Grove and found that frequency of fires ranged

from annually (although very patchy), to the longest fire‐free period of 15 years; with an

average range of every 5‐8 (6.5) years. Fire suppression policy beginning in the late 1800’s led

to an approximately 100 year fire‐free period, until prescribed burning began in 1971. The

absence of fire along with 40 years of prescribed burning has shaped current forest structure

in and around the grove, as well as the current number and distribution of younger giant

sequoias. Giant sequoia populations only occur where hydrologic conditions provide ample

surface and subsurface water to maintain moist, but not saturated, soils (Rundel 1962). Recent

assessments of hydrologic conditions in the Grove indicate that current infrastructure has

altered surface flow, water storage and soil conditions in the Mariposa Grove, which is likely to

affect the existing and future population of giant sequoias. The ecological restoration of fire

and hydrology should be the central focus to ensure success.

THE NEED FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 

Giant sequoia groves are sites of exceptional ecological importance and are therefore priorities

for ecological restoration. While the area of the Mariposa Grove is small (less than 900 acres)

over 20% of wildlife and plant species occurring in Yosemite National Park occur in or utilize

the grove. This report describes potential ecological restoration actions for currently impacted

areas in the Mariposa Grove area, including developed areas that require restoration if

D‐6
 
       

                           

           

                             

                           

                           

                         

                       

                         

                             

                             

                     

                     

                             

                

                         

                         

                         

                            

                         

                     

                 

                   

                     

                             

                             

                             

                       

                   

                           

                         

                           

                         

                       

                  

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

infrastructure is moved or removed, as well as undeveloped areas that have directly or

indirectly been altered by human activities.

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been

degraded, damaged or destroyed and is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the

recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability (SER 2004).

When preserving and restoring any ecosystem we often focus on reference conditions that

describe a range of ecosystem conditions (i.e. structure, composition and function) occurring

in a defined area for a particular time period prior to Euro‐American settlement (Stephenson

1999). This is problematic when so many unknowns seem to overwhelm the knowledge we do

have. However, we do have an extensive knowledge base that allows us to draw informed

conclusions about conditions and trends and can make recommendations to improve

conditions. The most successful ecological restoration focuses on key processes (particularly

fire and hydrology), and how to restore their function and to maximize the resilience and

resistance of an ecosystem (Stephenson 1999, Whisenant 1999).

Through ecological restoration in the Mariposa Grove, we strive to restore and maintain

natural processes, primarily fire and hydrology, which sustain the giant sequoia ecosystem and

provide conditions ideal for the perpetuation of native flora and fauna. Ecological restoration

is also needed to restore natural conditions if infrastructure is removed, updated, or relocated.

Important cultural resources are numerous in the Mariposa Grove area, including the adult

giant sequoias themselves and the following programmatic guidance and collaboration with

cultural resource staff will ensure protection during ecological restoration implementation.

Archeological sites are fragile, non‐renewable resources and contain important information

potential about past life ways and represent tangible heritage resources for park‐associated

American Indian peoples, as well as the visiting public. Where archeological sites are subject to

ongoing impacts through social trails or visitor use, these areas will be carefully assessed for

stabilization needs. Social trails will be removed and visitor use in these areas will be

discouraged, using techniques that retain the data potential of the resource while encouraging

native vegetation establishment and persistence. Where ecological restoration actions have

the potential to affect cultural resources, the actions will be designed to avoid impacts

wherever feasible. If avoidance is not possible, archeological site treatments such as controlled

testing, and data recovery excavations where necessary, will be employed to reduce the level

of impact and thereby avoid adverse effects. All treatments for pre‐contact archeological sites

will involve close consultation with park‐associated American Indian tribes and groups to

ensure these treatments incorporate native concerns, issues and perspectives.

D‐7
 
       

                         

                       

                           

                   

                 

                         

                         

            

                         

                              

                             

                           

                         

     

                   

                     

                     

                 

                           

                         

                           

                      

                 

               

               

                     

                         

             

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

This plan identifies both passive and active ecological restoration actions to restore natural

structure and processes as well as protecting cultural resources. Passive restoration actions

may include fencing and signing sensitive areas, which will halt human impacts and allow

natural processes to repair damage. Active restoration actions include removing infrastructure

(roads, asphalt, and underground utility lines), soil decompaction, revegetation, prescribed

burning, removing hydrologic impediments and removal of formal and informal trails out of

sensitive areas. These actions will accelerate ecosystem recovery and promote the health and

longevity of the giant sequoia population.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

The long‐term preservation of giant sequoias is dependent on mitigating and minimizing the

influences of human activities. In the past 40 years, managers across the Sierra Nevada have

sought to remove infrastructure (such as the large restoration project in the Giant Forest of

Sequoia National Park) and to restore the fire regime and hydrologic connectivity to giant

sequoia groves. This ecosystem approach is centered on three key management goals (Piirto

and Rogers 1999):

 Protect naturally occurring groves from human impacts (e.g. infrastructure, logging)

and disturbances outside a natural range of variability (i.e. stand replacing fire).

 Preserve the groves by allowing and promoting natural ecosystem processes to

prevail

 Actively restore impaired ecosystem functions, particularly fire and hydrology

The overarching goal of ecological restoration in the Mariposa Grove is to promote giant

sequoia germination and establishment and ensure the persistence and longevity of the giant

sequoia population. In order to achieve this goal, a combination of restoration actions will

provide the best avenue for achieving the following ecological restoration objectives:

 Protect, maintain and enhance environmental conditions and ecosystem function

required to sustain the population of giant sequoias

 Ensure germination and recruitment through frequent surface fires

 Create and maintain canopy gaps to facilitate giant sequoia germination and

recruitment

 Conduct prescribed burning outside of the Mariposa Grove to reduce the risk of

a catastrophic fire originating outside of the grove

D‐8
 
       

                   

             

                       

   

                 

                     

                  

       

                       

   

                       

                           

  

                     

                     

                 

                         

                         

                           

                     

                       

                     

                           

                           

                 

                         

                         

                  

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Protect individual trees and seedling habitat from structural damage sustained

by roads, trails, utilities and visitor trampling

 Protect, maintain and restore natural hydrologic function in the Mariposa Grove of

Giant Sequoias

 Remove or modify infrastructure that impacts sheet flow hydrology

 Where roads and trails remain, remove inside ditches, outslope cutbank areas

and replace or install culverts to facilitate surface flow

 Protect and restore wetlands

 Restore areas impacted by the removal, alteration or relocation of infrastructure to

natural conditions

	 Maintain and manage structure and composition of native vegetation within the range

of natural variability and so that if functions dynamically in a long‐term time frame (50‐

100 years)

	 Continue prescribed burning and modify as needed to reach target forest

conditions

 Minimize hazard tree removal to retain large snags for wildlife habitat

 Continue invasive plant removal in and around the grove

By removing infrastructure from groves, protecting the roots of giant sequoias from the

impacts of roads, trails, and foot traffic, removing impediments to natural surface and

subsurface water flow, and restoring a natural fire regime (augmented by prescribed fire as

necessary), we can effectively preserve, protect, and restore these unique ecosystems.

Management must also focus on understanding and managing for the effects of anthropogenic

factors such as air pollution and greenhouse gas driven climatic change.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND RESOURCE PROTECTION 

ZONES 

Multiple actions will be taken across all alternatives to protect and restore ecological processes

and the giant sequoia population. In order to minimize impacts to natural and cultural

resources when implementing project actions, several mitigations and best management

practices to ensure protection of resources in the grove during project implementation are

listed below. Many of these guidelines are based on the successful ecological restoration

project in Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park (USDI 1995).

D‐9
 
       

                          

                             

                           

                       

   

                             

                  

                       

                     

                 

                         

   

                

                   

                         

          

                               

               

                   

                         

                     

                 

         

                         

                              

                           

                         

                             

             

                         

                            

                           

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

GENERAL PRACTICES

	 Limit future impacts in the natural and cultural resource protection zones: 300 feet

from wetlands or streams, 50 feet from rare plant populations and 200 feet from adult

giant sequoias, 100 feet from juvenile and 50 feet from seedlings and saplings and

wildlife buffers. Current actions will occur in these zones to accomplish ecological

restoration goals.

	 All equipment used in the grove should have a low compaction factor and may include

excavator, dozer, backhoe, loader, skid steer and dump truck.

	 Ensure that local impact does not degrade the surrounding area, specifically giant

sequoia, wetland, or riparian ecosystems or any primary ecological processes, by

limiting size and development of staging and construction areas

	 Minimize any impacts to giant sequoias including the bole, roots, root zone and

seedling habitat

 Minimize impacts to hydrology and reduce erosion potential

 Minimize impacts to wetlands and processes (hydrology) that sustain them

 Minimize impacts to wildlife by monitoring and arranging (i.e. modify time of day,

season etc.) construction or maintenance activities

 Ensure that any soil used from outside of the Grove is checked for pathogens (e.g. root

rot) to limit the spread of tree diseases

 Ensure that all equipment and materials are weed seed free

 Protect rare or sensitive plant and animal species from direct and indirect impact

 Protect restoration areas from further impacts with fencing or appropriate deterrents

 Establish vegetation monitoring plots (both qualitative and quantitative) and photo‐

document project implementation and results

WILDLIFE

Based on all available anecdotal and scientific evidence, 78 amphibian, reptile, mammal, and

bird species occur in the Mariposa Grove and South Entrance project areas. Of these 78

species, 13 are special status species, including 7 bird species (northern goshawk, golden eagle,

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, great gray owl, California spotted owl, and olive‐sided flycatcher)

and 6 mammal species (pallid bat, spotted bat, western red bat, western mastiff bat, Sierra

Nevada mountain beaver, and Pacific fisher).

Snags are an essential habitat element for the majority of special status species documented

using the Mariposa Grove. Removal of snags may indirectly result in decreased rates of

reproduction and increased rates of mortality for fisher (USDA Forest Service 2001) and spotted

D‐10
 
       

                        

                     

                       

                       

                         

                 

                         

                            

                     

               

             

                     

   

                         

         

                       

                             

   

                         

                           

                         

            

                           

                          

                 

                     

                               

                     

                             

                            

                                

                           

                           

         

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

owls use cavities in snags for nesting and raising young. The following management

recommendations protect key habitat features for fisher, bats, and owls.

 Minimize hazard tree removal and protect and restore vegetation and wildlife habitat

	 Retain and recruit large diameter snags (Freel 1991, Buskirk and Powell 1994)

and large diameter (greater than 24” dbh) live conifer and oak trees with

decadence such as broken tops or cavities (Freel 1991).

	 Retain and recruit large woody debris, including large diameter (at least 15 in

dbh by 15 ft long) down logs (Freel 1991, Buskirk and Powell 1994) and

complex structure near the ground (e.g., down logs, large down branches,

root masses, live branches) (Buskirk and Powell 1994).

 If hazard tree removal cannot be avoided

 Remove snags only under consultation with the park biologist and park

forester.

 Prior to removal, a wildlife biologist will examine any trees and snags for

nesting, denning, or roosting wildlife

	 Avoid disturbing basal hollows (created by repeated fires), deep bark furrows, and

cavities and crevices of tree crowns important for bats and other wildlife (Pierson et al.

2006).

	 FISHER: Park biologists will continue to work closely with fisher researchers working in

and around the park to establish whether fisher are actively foraging or denning near

the project area, and may set additional protection measures as deemed necessary, to

avoid disturbance during construction or restoration‐related activities.

	 OWLS: Conduct surveys in the spring (beginning March 15) to determine if spotted owls

are nesting and foraging in the vicinity of the construction/restoration area. If owls are

present, construction project manager should work with biologist to determine

appropriate measures to avoid disturbance, such as no construction activities between

30 minutes before dusk and after dawn, and a 400 meter buffer of no disturbance (light

or noise) around nest trees from March 15 through August 31.

	 BATS: If a project targets any trees for removal during the winter, a biologist should

survey for roosting bats in the preceding fall (September and October). If the biologist

suspects hibernation in a tree, do not remove that tree until mid‐April to mid‐May. If a

project targets any trees for removal during the summer, a biologist should survey for

roosting bats within one‐week prior to removal to determine if a bat maternal colony

occurs in the tree.

D‐11
 
       

                         

                         

         

                             

                    

                             

                           

            

                         

                       

                            

                     

                       

         

                           

                         

           

                       

         

                    

                

                   

                         

                             

                           

                               

                 

                           

                 

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

	 WILDLIFE USE: In construction zones, carnivore cameras, owl and bird surveys, and bat

acoustic surveys will be installed as needed to inform proper mitigation actions that

would reduce impacts to wildlife.

SOIL CONDITIONS

Where soils are heavily compacted and are covered with asphalt, soil conditions may be such

that reestablishment of vegetation is unlikely without further treatment. Demetry (1997)

found that soil impacts most frequently observed in Giant Forest were soil compaction, loss of

organic matter, topsoil erosion and loss or alteration of natural soil structure. Soil compaction

was highest under pavement (Demetry 1997).

Soil conditions in restoration areas of the Mariposa Grove will be tested for compaction,

texture and chemical properties such as organic matter content and nitrogen, and

amendments or treatment will be applied accordingly. Listed below is a range of soil

treatments available to improve the potential for plant establishment, particularly giant

sequoias.

	 Measure depth of compaction with a penetrometer and decompact to that depth

(typically 6‐10 inches), (Demetry 1997)

	 Decompact soils by hand or with heavy equipment (dozer or skid steer with rippers)

under moderately moist conditions (may require 1 week of irrigation if work is

completed in late summer or fall)

	 Avoid large roots during decompaction; a rototiller or hand decompaction may be

more appropriate in these areas

 Add locally gathered duff to provide seeds and organic matter

 If available, add local native soil and topsoil

 If determined that soil conditions are not conducive to plant reestablishment,

amendments such as peat moss, kelp or other natural fertilizers may be used.

	 To provide nutrients to the soil, open up cones on adult giant sequioas and prepare

a seedbed, woody debris may be scattered and burned over the area. If woody

debris is not available for burning, fuel may be burned at a single location and the

ashes mixed into the topsoil of the restoraiton area

SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY

Depending on the degree of alteration in landform, a variety of recontouring and topography

restoration actions may be implemented and are listed below:

D‐12
 
       

                      

                         

  

                           

                             

   

                         

                           

                       

               

                       

                       

                 

                            

                           

                           

                      

                     

                           

             

                       

                       

                   

                               

                       

                            

                    

                          

                               

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

	 Regrade with existing soil: Where extensive recontouring to natural topography is

required (e.g. road cuts) we will attempt to accomplish this through re‐balancing cut

and fill.

	 Fill: Where additional material is needed, soils of the same type from the Mariposa

Grove area is preferable but may need to be imported from South Entrance or other

nearby locations

	 Topsoil retention: Wherever removal or compaction to topsoil will occur, the top 12

inches of soil will be salvaged, stockpiled and replaced on the surface. To preserve

microbial communities and limit erosion and the establishment of weeds, all soil piles

will be mulched or covered with erosion blankets

	 Final grade will be uneven to provide microhabitat for seed germination and
 

establishment
 

SITE PREPARATION

After decompacting soils, particularly on sloped areas, potential for erosion can be high.

Following is a list of available erosion control measures.

 Duff: Locally gathered litter and woody debris will be spread over disturbed areas for

erosion control as well as provide a source of seeds and organic matter.

 Rice straw: If sufficient quantities of duff are not available, rice straw mulch (relatively

inert and not a source of non‐native seeds) may be used.

	 Erosion control blankets and/or wattles: Erosion control blankets and/or wattles will

only be used on steep slopes (3:1 or greater) and in unprotected drainages. Coconut

fiber or rice straw will be used.

	 Stones, boulders, limbs and logs: In conjunction with any other erosion control

methods, these materials (gathered from adjacent areas) may be placed on the

surface to provide microclimate for plants and slow water flow.

REVEGETATION

There is a range of actions available to revegetate an area with native plants and a

combination will provide the most successful restoration. For any revegetation activities within

the grove, only locally gathered plant material will be used to retain genetic integrity.

 Natural regeneration: Rely on natural regeneration from adjacent seed sources and

duff

 Seed collection, seed increase and direct seeding: Plant the area with local native

seed. It may not be practical to collect enough seed for direct seeding of the acreage

D‐13
 
       

                     

                         

                           

                           

         

                         

                     

                           

                           

       

                             

                           

                           

                       

                               

                         

         

                         

                           

                         

                               

                             

                                 

                           

                

                         

                       

        

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

involved. Increasing seed can provide necessary quantities. This process requires three

years.

	 Seed or cutting collection and nursery propagation: Local native seeds and cuttings are

gathered and planted in a nursery setting to provide established plants for planting in

restoration areas. Plants are placed in a way to mimic natural distribution – not

landscaping. This requires 1‐3 years.

	 Plant salvage and transplanting: In cases where plants may be damaged or destroyed

when infrastructure is removed, repaired or relocated, plants can be salvaged and

replanted when the area is recontoured to more natural conditions, or in an adjacent

restoration site. Salvaged plants will be stored on site and protected with shade cloth

and irrigated as necessary.

	 Giant sequoias: nearly all restoration sites lie within the seed rain area of adult giant

sequoias so the need for propagating giant sequoias in a nursery setting and planting

these trees is not likely to be necessary for germination and recruitment. Rather, sites

will be prepared to facilitate germination including burning woody debris to provide

nutrients and a heat source to open cones on the trees. If seed dispersal does not

occur (e.g. adequate heat is not created), some hand spreading of locally collected

giant sequoia seeds may occur.

CANOPY GAPS

Canopy gaps are integral to successful giant sequoia recruitment. The Giant Forest Restoration

Project focused on creating and maintaining gaps as part of the restoration because according

to their assessments of existing recruitment and gaps, neither was adequate. However, based

on our assessment of the giant sequoia population in the Mariposa Grove, we found that many

gaps exist in the Mariposa Grove and recruitment is relatively high when compared to other

groves (Kuhn 2011). Based on this assessment, we will continue to rely on fire to create and

maintain these canopy gaps and capitalize on the gaps created by existing infrastructure (e.g.

parking areas) as areas for giant sequoia recruitment.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL 

Several restoration actions common to all action alternatives provide an avenue into restoring

processes and some structural components to giant sequoia ecosystem. These actions are

organized by topic below.

D‐14
 
       

                         

                             

                     

                         

                             

                     

                           

                                 

                         

                           

                     

                             

                         

                            

                         

                             

                         

                        

                         

                                 

                           

                       

                               

                                 

  

                           

                             

                             

                               

                             

                        

                              

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Prescribed burning and invasive plant removal are both on‐going activities occurring in the

grove and will continue. Invasive plant removal will follow the guidelines of the Invasive Plant

Management Plan. Prescribed burning for resource benefits will follow the Fire Management

Plan but prioritizing burning outside of the grove is key for effective restoration. Management

of the scenic values of the grove will be managed following the 2010 Scenic Vista Management

Plan.

FIRE

Frequent surface fires produce optimum conditions for giant sequoia reproduction and

persistence by: 1. removing thick layers of dead and downed woody debris; 2. providing

nutrients to the active seed by exposing bare mineral soil with a thin layer of ash; 3.

maintaining an open canopy and creating canopy gaps that provide sunlight exposure and

reduce competition; and, 4. heating the cones causing a release of large numbers of seeds

(USDI 2004). Prior to fire suppression policy, frequent fires regularly consumed accumulated

woody debris, a critical role in nutrient cycling, and burned smaller trees, maintaining a more

open forest and often creating canopy gaps from pockets of higher intensity fire (Hartesveldt

and Harvey 1967, Harvey et al. 1980). These canopy openings are required for successful

regeneration of shade intolerant species such as giant sequoia (Hartesveldt and Harvey 1967,

Harvey et al. 1980). In the absence of frequent fire, increased density of shade‐tolerant conifers

(primarily white fir and incense cedar) coupled with unprecedented levels of accumulated fuels

leave these forests susceptible to stand replacing fires (Webster and Halpern 2010).

While summarized plot data for the Mariposa Grove are not statistically conclusive, trends

indicate that prescribed fire is very effective at reducing density of trees less than 30 inches in

diameter while causing limited mortality in trees larger than 30 inches in diameter. However,

species composition data indicate a proportional increase in white fir, including larger trees,

while pine (sugar and ponderosa) is decreasing. This decline in large trees is occurring at a

landscape level in Yosemite National Park as well as across the Sierra Nevada range (Lutz et al.

2009).

Although we may be approaching target forest structural conditions (in terms of density) within

the boundaries of the Mariposa Grove, all forests surrounding the grove have not burned in

over 100 years and are far outside target conditions, leaving the grove vulnerable to high

intensity fires originating outside of the grove. We are uncertain if current burning is sufficient

to influence the resilience or likelihood that the giant sequoia grove will withstand a large,

landscape wildfire. Burning and/or fuel treatments around the Mariposa Grove are essential to

protect this important habitat and should be at the forefront of our objectives for restoration.

D‐15
 
       

                                 

                               

                                 

                 

                               

                     

                      

                         

  

                     

                     

              

                       

                         

                         

   

             

     

                         

                       

                       

                          

                           

                     

                           

                               

                             

                      

                       

                     

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

In continuing to manage fire in and around the Mariposa Grove, it is important to consider the

dynamic nature of fire as well as vegetation response and to emphasize that variation in fire

frequency, size and intensity, as well as looking at a landscape level, is key for restoring and

maintaining the giant sequoias in the Mariposa Grove.

Following is a list of proposed actions to restore and maintain fire as a primary disturbance

process.

 Conduct prescribed fire (adjusting season, intensity and frequency) to reach target

conditions outlined in the Yosemite Fire Management Plan focusing on heterogeneity

 Increase size of burn units to minimize hazard tree cutting and impacts from

line construction

 Create and maintain canopy gaps to facilitate giant sequoia and pine

recruitment

 Continue to monitor forest structure and modify fire prescription to promote

pine and giant sequoia germination and establishment

	 Maintain a mosaic forest structure that provides some dense canopy in the

vicinity of large trees for Pacific fisher habitat (Buskirk and Powell 1994) but

also opens up forest canopy and reduces the chance of large scale stand

replacing fire.

	 Retain forest structure with multi‐layered vegetation (vertical within‐stand

diversity), (Freel 1991).

	 Conduct prescribed fires or fuel treatments outside of grove and around the South

Entrance (requires collaboration with USFS) within five years of implementation of the

Mariposa Grove Restoration Plan to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire originating

outside of the grove. This is a priority for Yosemite’s Prescribed Fire Program. Rather

than restrict treatment to a particular area buffer, focus on the landscape level is

essential to protect the Mariposa Grove and any investment into restoration.

HYDROLOGY

As with most giant sequoia groves, in‐depth hydrologic studies in the Mariposa Grove are

lacking. Thus, we are unable to quantify changes to hydrologic conditions in the Grove and are

limited to the assessment of current conditions in relation to inferences on likely conditions in

the past and from hydrologic studies in other giant sequoia groves.

Existing studies in giant sequoia ecosystems suggest that optimal hydrologic conditions include

adequate soil‐moisture for recruitment of successive giant sequoia cohorts (Rundel 1972), seed

D‐16
 
       

                   

                        

                           

                           

                         

                  

                       

                     

                           

                         

                     

                               

                             

                       

                       

                           

                           

        

                             

                             

                             

                                 

                       

                           

                

                

                     

                           

       

                       

               

                     

                   

                   

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

germination (Weatherspoon 1986), and seedling survival and growth (Hartesveldt and Harvey

1967). Anderson (1995) qualified that available water was topographically driven, and giant

sequoias positioned in topographic lows would be less likely to experience drought stress due

to surface and shallow soil water inputs from catchment hillslopes. York et al. (in press)

described that changes in climatic water deficit—water balance and drought stress—may be as

important as altered fire regimes on giant sequoia ecosystems.

Hydrologic alterations in the Mariposa Grove include surface flow impacts, channelization, soil

compaction, and hardened surfaces. Channelization of surface runoff within the Grove

accelerates drainage and reduces the volume and timing of water available for infiltration, soil

moisture, and subsequent uptake by giant sequoias. In addition, the channelized flow can

transport chemical pollutants directly to aquatic ecosystems. Soil compaction affects hydrologic

conditions of the unsaturated zone by altering soil structure, at both the surface and within the

soil profile. Similar to the presence of hardscape features within the Grove, compaction of the

soil surface reduces infiltration rates and thereby augments surface runoff. Surface compaction

inhibits successful seed germination of giant sequoia seedlings (Hartesveldt et al. 1975,

Demetry 1997), and can alter soil structure and associated porosity. Thus, soil compaction may

affect the sustainability of the Grove by limiting water infiltration, seed germination, and root

development of giant sequoia.

The lower portion of the main Rattlesnake Creek channel (roughly 0.5 miles upstream from the

bridge crossing at the lower Grove parking area to the watershed outlet) is notably entrenched.

As there is not a defined headcut, the source of this anomaly remains undetermined. However,

both the outer loop trail and the water supply pipeline do cross this channel roughly 200 feet

downstream from the upper extent of the entrenched channel. Signs of recovery (streambank

and floodplain formation) were observed but rates of sediment accretion are likely low and

reconnections with the floodplain will likely take decades.

 Facilitate surface water infiltration into soil subsurface horizons

 Reduce soil compaction within the grove watershed, and especially within the

rooting zone of all existing giant sequoia trees and in areas of likely recruitment

(i.e., forest canopy gaps)

 Remove or redesign roadways and trail systems such that they are out‐sloped

eliminating the need for culverts and drainage ditches.

 Mulch denuded areas to reduce erosion potential and increase water holding

capacity

 Investigate Rattlesnake Creek channel entrenchment and replace or repair trail

crossing or other impediments to flow (may include a bridge)

D‐17
 
       

                               

                                

                           

                       

                     

                 

                             

                               

                           

                           

                           

         

                             

                           

                         

                           

                           

                               

                       

                         

                           

                         

                         

                               

                    

                         

               

                     

                 

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

WETLANDS

The Mariposa Grove and its wetlands are not only unique because of the presence of giant

sequoias but also because of the great diversity of habitats, plants and wildlife. Wetlands in the

Grove form an almost continuous, dendritic network and make up a significant portion (12.3%)

of the watershed. These wetlands provide important hydrologic support for the Merced

Watershed. Hydrologic functions provided by such wetlands include aquifer recharge, storm

runoff abatement, sediment retention, prevention of erosion through streambank stabilization,

and stream/river temperature moderation.

Mariposa Grove wetlands have very high biotic functions and values. This area contains a rich

mosaic of old growth forest (with trees of all age classes, standing snags and large downed

trees), streams and wetlands. These habitats support a great variety of plant and wildlife

species, including a number of special status species. Area wetlands have high native plant

productivity, cover, and diversity. In addition, several fens, which have a limited distribution in

the Sierra Nevada, are present.

Overlaying the position of giant sequoias in the Grove with delineated wetlands, roughly 82% of

giant sequoias are located within 200 feet of delineated wetlands (Kuhn 2011). This supports

conclusions by Halpin (1995) on the importance of topographic flow accumulation, and further

signifies the importance of soil water availability within the rooting zone for giant sequoia.

Roughly 0.42 miles of paved road surfaces are located within wetlands, as determined by

spatial overlay the of wetland extent on the road network within the Grove area. In these

locations, the compacted road prisms may influence wetland function within the Grove;

Forman and Alexander (1998) reported the hydroperiod (i.e., the timing and extent of

inundated and saturated conditions) of wetland habitats is amplified on upslope side of the

road and depressed downslope side. In other locations along the Grove Road, emergent

wetland communities have formed in drainage ditches at the base of road cut‐slopes. Wetland

formation in these areas is most likely due to the interception of shallow percolating soil water

by the compacted road prism and associated cut‐slopes (Wemple 1998).

In cases where roads, infrastructure or trails are removed and opportunities for wetland

restoration exist the following restoration action are proposed:

 Recontour to facilitate sheet flow, high groundwater levels and wetland plant
 

establishment
 

 Seed or plant with local native wetland plant species
 

D‐18
 
       

                     

     

                    

                 

                 

                         

                             

                                 

                               

                          

                               

                                 

                                 

                              

                                 

                               

                           

                                 

                               

                           

                       

                          

                       

                               

                             

                               

                         

                               

                            

                            

                     

                     

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Ensure that natural hydrologic conditions are present to sustain wetland hydrology

 Reduce erosion potential

 Refer to adjacent wetlands for plant species, functions and values

 Prevent and remove invasive plant species (specifically velvet grass)

 Install fencing or other deterrents to decrease human impacts

INFRASTRUCTURE

Although infrastructure in the Mariposa Grove today is significantly different from the past, it

still has profound impacts to ecosystem functions. Currently, there are just over ten miles (16.1

km) of trail and 5.21 miles (8.4km) of paved roads (includes grove road, road to Wawona Point

and the old road from Grizzly Giant toward Goat Meadow) that provide many access points in

the Mariposa Grove. In addition, the parking area and shuttle/tram transfer areas cover

approximately three acres in the lower portion of the grove. Buildings in the grove include the

museum, restrooms with flush toilets and a pit toilet in the upper grove; a cell tower, repeater,

and generators at Wawona Point; a vault toilet at the Grizzly Giant; and a bathroom, gift shop

and fueling station in the lower grove. Utilities to support this infrastructure include a water

line, sewer lines from the upper grove restrooms, a water tank in the middle grove and a

generator near the gift shop. It is also likely that many abandoned utility lines that once

supported the hotel and tent cabins in the upper grove remain. The impacts from construction

and use of roads, parking lots, trails, buildings, sewer systems, and water lines can have small to

large impacts on trees and may take years, decades, or centuries to potentially lead to tree

mortality. These impacts may weaken trees and contribute to tree death and failure by

introducing root rot, compacting soil, depleting organic matter, and increasing soil erosion

(Hartesveldt 1962, Demetry 1997). The Mariposa Grove Plan outlines several common to all

actions that will allow for some ecological restoration and are described below.

The grove road and parking area has the most profound impact on giant sequoias and other

natural resources in the Mariposa Grove. Sixty eight percent of adult giant sequoias are within

an estimated adult rooting zone distance (200 feet or 61meters) of the grove road (Kuhn 2011).

Direct observations such as cut roots, disturbed and compacted soils, bole damage, and altered

hydrology adjacent to the road lead to the conclusion that roads are likely having a negative

impact on giant sequoias. In addition, inadequate culverts, road cuts, and the impervious road

surface alter surface water flow and connectively to subsurface water (Entrix 2007). The road

causes fragmentation of wetlands and many plant communities (including giant sequoia forest)

in numerous places and eliminates potential giant sequoia seedling habitat.

D‐19
 
       

       

                       

                             

                             

                     

                             

                                 

                           

                       

                           

                           

                       

                       

                             

         

                         

       

                         

   

                  

                   

                       

                    

                       

                         

             

         

         

                               

                         

                         

                                   

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

THE GROVE ROAD AND CULVERTS

Entrix (2007) delineated and assessed the existing road drainage network and reported

conditions for sixty‐three culverts within the drainage area of the Grove. The function of the

majority of these culverts (41 of 63 observed culverts; or 65%) was either diminished or

compromised entirely due to inadequate capacity, incorrect orientation, or by the accumulation

of sediment and debris (Entrix 2007). In addition, runoff from an area totaling 88.5 acres,

roughly 12 percent of the Grove drainage area, is intercepted and rerouted out of the of the

Grove drainage area, and is no longer available for uptake by giant sequoia trees.

In order to improve the hydrologic conditions, additional, larger and better‐placed culverts

could mitigate many of the observed impacts. Once culverts are enhanced and replaced, work

to restore the contours adjacent to existing culverts would help reduce the impacts and

likelihood of further downcutting, channeling and ponding. The surface, width and other

components of the road will vary between alternatives but culvert replacement and

improvements are common to all. To mitigate the road and culvert impacts on hydrology the

following restoration actions are proposed:

 Install larger (wider), at grade, better placed, additional culverts to facilitate sheet flow

rather than channelized flow

 Remove inside ditches and out‐slope hillside above the road to facilitate sheet flow

 Narrow road

 Fill in ditches associated with culverts with native soil

 Apply woody debris, native mulch, and plant material (willows using hydrodrilling

techniques) to divert and disperse runoff, reduce erosion, promote deposition and limit

scour

 If appropriate, place rocks to disperse outflow energy and prevent downcutting

 Recontour slope and landform to natural conditions where possible to encourage sheet

flow

 Revegetate with native species (plant or seed) to slow water velocity, reduce erosion

and encourage sheet flow and sediment deposition

 Protect and document cultural resources

REMOVAL/REDUCTION OF UPPER LOOP ROAD

The removal or reduction of the north and west sections the upper Grove Loop road will

reduce the extent of impervious surfaces, allow for recontouring topography to more natural

conditions and provide potential giant sequoia seedling habitat. This work would occur when

soils are moist and water table is lower, in mid‐summer to fall over a period of 12 weeks.

D‐20
 
       

                               

   

                     

             

                   

                       

               

         

           

       

             

                         

   

       

         

                     

               

               

           

                                 

                         

                       

                                   

                                       

           

                 

             

         

       

         

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Planting will occur in the fall and plants will be watered as needed. The following restoration

actions are recommended:

 Salvage any soil or vegetation impacted by asphalt or infrastructure removal

 Remove all asphalt and other non‐native material

 Decompact soils with equipment (skid steer or dozer with rippers)

 Recontour to natural slope topography and establish narrow trail where impacts to

hydrology are minimal (excavator, dozer, ski steer, loader)

 Amend soils based on soil assessments

 Mulch, seed and revegetate impacted area

 Plant any salvaged plants

 Collect and broadcast local native herbaceous seed

 Grow out native plants sparsely planted to mimic natural vegetation (not like a

landscaped park)

 water plants as necessary

 Protect and document cultural resources

 Protect restoration areas from further impacts with fencing or appropriate deterrents

 Establish vegetation monitoring plots and photo‐points (qualitative and quantitative)

 Install groundwater monitoring wells to assess subsurface water levels

REMOVAL OF GIFT SHOP AND PARKING AREAS

The removal and/or reduction of the extent of the parking area and the removal of the gift

shop and parking area will reduce the acreage of impervious surfaces, allow for recontouring

topography to more natural conditions and provide potential giant sequoia seedling habitat.

This work would occur when soils are moist but when water table is lower, in summer to fall

over a period of up to 12 weeks. Planting will occur in the fall and plants will be watered as

needed. The following restoration actions are recommended:

 Salvage any soil or vegetation impacted by infrastructure removal

 Remove all asphalt and other non‐native material

 Recontour to natural slope topography

 Decompact soils with equipment

 Amend soils based on soil assessments

D‐21
 
       

           

               

                           

   

       

         

                     

               

                                   

                         

                               

                                

                       

                             

                              

         

                       

                           

                         

                           

                         

                             

                           

                               

                           

                 

                

                         

                             

                         

                             

   

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Mulch, seed and re‐vegetate impacted area

 Collect, increase and broadcast local native herbaceous seed

 Grow out native plants and sparsely plant to mimic natural vegetation (not like a

landscaped park)

 Water plants as necessary

 Protect and document cultural resources

 Protect restoration areas from further impacts with fencing or appropriate deterrents

 Establish vegetation monitoring plots and photo‐points (qualitative and quantitative)

TRAILS 

Trails typically have less impact than roads although many trails in the grove are wide (up to 8

feet) and do impact hydrology, wetlands and giant sequoias. In addition, the high concentration

of trails in the grove requires maintenance and hazard tree management (for safety as well as

prescribed fire), thus impacting a large portion of the grove area. The current trail system and

lack of barriers around most adult trees allows for extensive direct human disturbances

(includes social trails) to many giant sequoias that can have a number of negative ecological

impacts. To mitigate trail impacts or remove sections of trail and restore to natural conditions,

the following actions are proposed:

 Replace two sections of trail with boardwalk to reduce impacts to wetlands

 Out‐slope the uphill side of trails and remove any inside ditches or impediments to

hydrology

 Install fence, plants or other barriers where necessary to maintain minimal trail width

 Remove remnant asphalt on the western portion of the Outer Loop Trail (in wilderness)

 Remove trail segments (nature trail, southern trail in upper loop road area and

redundant trail linking the grove road and outer loop trail west of the museum) and

restore to natural conditions. In wilderness areas, this work will be completed with hand

tools and in non‐wilderness areas, a skid steer or mini excavator may be used. This work

would occur in late summer or fall when conditions are dryer over 8 weeks.

 Remove the linear feature by recontouring natural slope topography

 Mulch and seed with local native plant species.

UTILITIES 

A pipeline from Biledo Spring, located in the adjacent Rainier watershed, provides domestic

drinking water for the Grove and South Entrance. Long‐term evaluation of the reliability of this

water supply is needed if augmented water demands are required to support additional

infrastructure (i.e., conversion from vault to flush restroom facilities) for the Grove or the South

Entrance Station.

D‐22
 
       

                           

                           

                                 

                             

                           

                               

                        

                        

                           

                               

                                

                                   

                  

                                   

                           

                         

  

                

                   

         

             

                     

                           

                             

                     

                             

                       

                           

                         

        

     

           

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Yosemite Utilities staff pressure tested these lines in January 2012 to determine the location

and volumes of water leaked from the aged infrastructure. From this assessment, the total

pipeline loss was estimated at 39,504 gallons per day (or 44.28 acre‐feet per year); all of this

loss occurs within the upper Grove area between the uppermost water tank and the Mariposa

Tree, and likely percolates into the upper Grove wetland. An additional 500‐1500 gallons per

day (0.6‐1.7 acre‐feet per year), depending upon level of use, leak into the wetland from water

percolation through the upper Grove leach field. Leaks reported by Hartesveldt (1962)

centered on the uppermost water tank, and were repaired by previous maintenance efforts.

Although this large amount of water likely augments groundwater levels and available water for

giant sequoias in the area, these long‐lived trees are unlikely to be adversely affected in the

long term by the repair of these leaks. Some young sapling giant sequoias established on the

water line may be adversely affected with the repair but we do not want to create or maintain

unsustainable (artificial) conditions for giant sequoias for long‐term management.

 Slipline the entire length of the pipe (4" Cast Iron) with a 2" HDPE (plastic) pipe to repair

the leak and minimize surface impacts. Where access to the line is necessary, use

currently impacted areas (e.g. roadbed) and avoid giant sequoia roots or rare plant

populations.

 Crush, fill (slurry), or remove all abandoned underground utilities

 Salvage any soil or vegetation impacted by repair or removal

 Recontour area to natural landform

 Decompact, mulch, seed and revegetate impacted area

 Monitor giant sequoias and wetland vegetation affected by the current leak

HISTORIC DUMPS

There are a number of historic dumpsites throughout the Mariposa Grove. In some cases,

evidence of the dump is apparent on the surface, which is characterized by compacted soils,

absence of vegetation and scattered metal and other debris. Depending on archeological

significance of these sites, some surface or subsurface debris will be removed and the area

restored to more natural conditions. To accomplish this, extensive documentation may be

required and we must ensure that no hazardous materials, such as asbestos, are present.

Cultural resource staff will recommend mitigations to ensure proper documentation of the site

prior to any removal.

 Document cultural resources

 Ensure that materials are not hazardous

D‐23
 
       

               

           

         

   

                   

                             

                       

                       

                         

                                 

                         

                         

                           

                               

                         

                             

                     

                       

                       

                         

                             

                     

                       

                         

                       

                       

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Depending on cultural resource documentation, remove surface (possibly

subsurface) debris and any non‐native material

	 Recontour area to natural topography

	 Decompact soils

	 Mulch, seed and/or plant the area to facilitate plant recovery

VISITOR USE

Trampling by foot traffic and the resulting soil compaction negatively affect the shallow roots of

giant sequoias (Hartesveldt 1962, Hartesveldt et al. 1975). Soil compaction decreases soil

porosity (which affects root respiration), decreases water storage, increases erosion of topsoil

(loss of organic matter and nutrients) and affects continued root growth (Hartesveldt 1962,

Demetry and Manly 2001). A decrease in root growth as well as actual physical damage to roots

decreases the trees ability to obtain nutrients and water, exacerbated by decreases in

mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial soil microbial populations unable to survive in compacted soils

(Demetry and Manly 2001). Damage to the shallow root system and associated reductions in

nutrient and water uptake can weaken both the structure and health of the tree, making it

more susceptible to other pathogens or physical damage. Fences, removing infrastructure and

rerouting trails and roads away from giant sequoia roots, has mitigated many of these impacts

but often can divert attention to a previously undisturbed giant sequoia.

	 Protect easily accessible giant sequoias. Some trees may require fencing. In addition,

rather than fence every tree, well‐placed trails and improved education delivering a

consistent message is necessary for effective protection of the entire grove population.

MONITORING AND LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND 

MANAGEMENT 

Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been

degraded, damaged, or destroyed and is typically very successful. However, successful

ecological restoration should include continued protection and management of the project site

into the indefinite future (Clewell et al. 2005). Frequently, ecological restoration projects are

not funded for subsequent management that may be required to prevent recurrent

degradation of restored ecosystems. To ensure success and to facilitate learning (sometimes

D‐24
 
       

                           

  

                           

                     

                     

  

                           

                           

                       

                         

                         

                             

                   

                               

      

                     

                       

                             

                 

                       

         

                           

     

                           

             

              

                 

                     

         

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

from mistakes), it is critical to include monitoring and utilize adaptive management in ecological

restoration planning.

Monitoring can help to determine the efficacy of the restoration efforts and provide guidance

for future restoration projects in similar environments. Monitoring methods may include

vegetation transects, quadrats or ocular estimations, groundwater monitoring wells, and photo

point establishment.

The Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias comprises the largest grove of giant sequoias in

Yosemite National park and is a complex and dynamic ecosystem. Any alterations can effect

cascading changes to the complex physical, chemical and biological interactions and conditions.

Monitoring the efficacy of restoration efforts and the conditions stemming from those actions

can feed into adaptive management and help avoid unwanted results. Ecological restoration is

a long‐term process of initiating autogenic repair but when the degree of degradation is high,

further intervention may be necessary. Future ecological restoration actions and monitoring

will also be guided by ongoing and future research as understanding of the causal factors for

ecosystem damage increases.

Long‐term monitoring coupled with investigative research studies could facilitate an in‐depth

understanding of past and present hydrologic conditions in the Grove and inform management

of potential approaches to enhance the sustainability of the Grove over time. Such efforts are

especially important considering potential environmental changes associated with climate

change. Research needs to enhance our understanding and management of giant sequoia

sustainability in the Grove, include:

Future monitoring of restoration actions will be dependent on Park staff to secure funding

through proposal processes.

Maintenance of restoration sites is also required to ensure plant recovery and successful giant

sequoia recruitment. General management and maintenance recommendations should follow

an ecosystem approach centered on the following.

 Minimize anthropogenic disturbance and infrastructure near all giant sequoias and

wetlands

 Maintain natural resource protection buffers for wetlands and streams, rare plant

populations, giant sequoias and wildlife

D‐25
 
       

                

           

                     

                           

       

         

            

           

                

                         

   

                       

                       

                     

             

             

                         

                             

     

                         

         

                           

               

                       

                               

             

 

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

 Facilitate surface water infiltration into soil subsurface horizons

 Minimize hardscaping within the grove watershed

 Minimize soil compaction within the grove watershed, and especially within the

rooting zone of all existing giant sequoia trees and in areas of likely recruitment

(i.e., forest canopy gaps)

 Minimize induced channelization of runoff.

 Minimize vehicular traffic in the Grove

 Continue an active prescribed fire program

 Maintain, protect and enhance wetland extent and condition

 Minimize the need for hazard tree removal to protect and restore vegetation and

wildlife habitat

 Continue non‐native plant survey and treatment to control infestations and limit spread

 Protect easily accessible giant sequoias. Rather than fence every tree, well‐placed trails

and improved education delivering a consistent message is necessary for effective

protection of the entire grove population.

DATA GAPS

Future studies needed to fill information gaps

 Complete giant sequoia survey to map and measure all trees in the grove.

 Use data collected in (1) to construct a population model that can be compared to

expected population structure

 Conduct an analysis of fire history and giant sequoia mortality, survival, and recruitment

to more fully understand the relationships

 Measure gap size and distribution to determine if current fire intensity and patterns are

congruent with giant sequoia regeneration and wildlife habitat requirements

	 Long‐term monitoring and research to increase understanding of the water regime in

the grove and to facilitate management actions to sustain the grove over time in light of

changing snow line due to climate change.

D‐26
 
       

                               

                         

                     

                       

                   

                               

                         

                          

                   

                           

                       

                       

  

                     

       

                             

                 

                       

         

                             

                   

                           

                   

        

                               

                       

                     

                  

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

LITERATURE CITED 

Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell, 1994. Habitat ecology of American martens and fishers. In S.W.

Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell (Eds.), Marten, sables, and fishers:

biology and conservation (PP. 297‐315). Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

Clewell, Andre, J. Rieger & J. Munro. 2005. Society for Ecological Restoration International:

Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration Projects, 2nd Edition.

http://www.ser.org/content/guidelines_ecological_restoration.asp

Demetry, A. and D. M. Duriscoe. 1996. Fire‐caused canopy gaps as a model for the ecological

restoration of Giant Forest Village. Report to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

Demetry, A. 1997. Assessment of soil conditions in the Giant Forest area, Sequoia National

Park. Final report to National Park Service, Denver Service Center.

Demetry, A., and J. Manley. 2001. Ecological Restoration in a Giant Sequoia Grove. Crossing

Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and

Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. The George Wright Society, Hancock,

Michigan.

Entrix. 2007. Mariposa Grove Hydrology, Yosemite National Park. Unpublished report for

Yosemite National Park, CA.

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on National

Forests in California: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region.

Hall, J.E. 1997. Vegetation Management Plan; Yosemite National Park. USDOI National Park

Service, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Halpin, P.N. 1995. Forest pattern in the giant sequoia‐mixed conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada.

PhD Dissertation, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. 276 pp.

Hartesveldt, R. J. 1962. The effects of human impact upon Sequoia gigantea and its

environment in the Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park, California. Doctoral

Dissertation, University of Michigan.

Hartesveldt, R. J. 1965. An investigation of the effect of direct human impact and of advanced

plant succession on Sequoia gigantean in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks,

California. Contract No. 14‐10‐0434‐1421. Final Contract Report for the Regional Director,

Western Region, U.S. National Park Service, San Francisco, California.

D‐27
 
       

                               

          

                               

                    

                               

                         

                         

                     

                   

  

                       

       

                           

                            

                                 

                                   

                           

                       

                         

              

                                 

                     

                             

                   

                               

                       

  

                           

                     

  

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Hartesveldt, R. J. and H. T. Harvey. 1967. The fire ecology of sequoia regeneration. Tall Timbers

Fire Ecology Conference #7 Proceedings

Harvey, H. T., H. S. Shellhammer, and R. E. Stecker. 1980. Giant sequoia ecology: fire and

reproduction. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Harvey, H. T. 1986. Evolution and history of giant sequoia. In: Witherspoon, C. P.; Iwamoto, Y.

R.; Piirto, D. D., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the workshop on management of

giant sequoia; 1985 May 24‐25; Reedley, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW‐95. Berkeley, CA:

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Kuhn, B. 2011. Mariposa Grove Landscape Analysis. Yosemite National Park. Unpublished

report.

Kuhn, T. and J. Roche. 2011. Mariposa Grove hydrological condition assessment. Yosemite

National Park. Unpublished report.

Leisz, D.R. 1994. Remarks for a Giant Sequoia Symposium. Proceedings of the symposium on

giant sequoias: their place in the ecosystem and society; 1992 June 23‐25; Visalia, California.

Mitsch W. J. and J. G. Grosselink. 2007. Wetlands. 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoboken,

NJ.

Parsons, D. J. and H. T. Nichols. 1986. Management of giant sequoia in the National Parks of the

Sierra Nevada, California. In: Witherspoon, C. P.; Iwamoto, Y. R.; Piirto, D. D., technical

coordinators. Proceedings of the workshop on management of giant sequoia; 1985 May 24‐

25; Reedley, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW‐95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pierson, E.D., W.D. Rainey, and L.S. Chow. 2006. Bat use of the giant sequoia groves in Yosemite

National Park, project report prepared for The Yosemite Fund, Yosemite, California.

Piirto, D. D. and R. R. Rogers. 1999. An ecological foundation for management of National

Forest Giant Sequoia Ecosystems. R5‐EM‐TP‐005. United States Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. Piirto, D. D., R. R. Rogers and M.C. Bethke. 1997. Communicating the role of

science in the management of giant sequoia groves. Presented at: National Silviculture

Workshop, Warren.

Repath, Charles. 2011. Delineation of Wetlands and Waters of the United States occurring in

and around the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. Yosemite National Park. Unpublished

report.

D‐28
 
       

                               

                     

                               

            

                             

           

                         

                       

   

                       

   

                       

           

                                   

               

                              

                               

                       

                         

                   

                           

                          

                               

                     

                                     

                     

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Reynolds, R. D. 1959. Effect of natural fires and aboriginal burning upon the forests of the

central Sierra Nevada. unpublished Thesis M A, University of California, Berkeley.

Rundel, P. W. 1969. The distribution and ecology of the giant sequoia ecosystem in the Sierra

Nevada, California. Doctoral Dissertation, Duke University.

Rundel, P.W. 1971. Community structure and stability in the giant sequoia groves of the Sierra

Nevada, California. The American Midland Naturalist 85(2):478‐492.

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004.

The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for

Ecological Restoration International.

Stock, S. 2011. Mariposa Grove and South Entrance wildlife assessment. Yosemite National

Park. Unpublished report.

Stephenson, N. D. 1999. Reference conditions for giant sequoia restoration: structure, process

and precision. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1253‐1265.

Swetnam, T. W., R. Touchan, C. H. Baisan, A. C. Caprio, and P. M. Brown. 1990. Giant sequoia

fire history in Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park.

Swetnam, T. W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262:

885‐889.

Weatherspoon, C. P. 1986. Silvics of giant sequoia. In: Witherspoon, C. P.; Iwamoto, Y. R.; Piirto,

D. D., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the workshop on management of giant

sequoia; 1985 May 24‐25; Reedley, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW‐95. Berkeley, CA: Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Webster, K. M., and C. B. Halpern. 2010. Long‐term vegetation responses to reintroduction and

repeated use of fire in mixed‐conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 1(5).

York, R. A., Z. Thomas, and J. Restaino. 2009. Influence of Ash Substrate Proximity on Growth

and Survival of Planted Mixed‐Conifer Seedlings. Western Journal of Applied Forestry

24:117‐123.

York, R. A., N. L. Stephenson, M. Meyer, S. Hanna, T. Caprio and J. J. Battles. In press. Appendix

to: Natural resources condition assessment. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

D‐29
 
       

               

                       

                 

  

                 

                    

                     

       

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

United States Department of the Interior (USDI);

1995. Giant Forest Guidelines for Ecological Restoration. Appendix B of the Interim

Management Plan/Environment Assessment – Giant Forest. Sequoia and Kings National

Parks, CA.

1996. Interim Management Plan/Environmental Assessment – Finding of no significant

impact – Giant Forest. Sequoia and Kings National Parks, CA.

2004. Yosemite National Park Fire Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

Yosemite National Park, CA.

D‐30