United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Yosemite Niltional Park 

1'. O. 13m.: 577 

Yosemite. Cillilornia 95389 

IN REPLY RHER TO: 

L7617 (YOSE-I'M) OCT 242013 

Dear Yosemite Friends: 

On behalf of the National Park Service, I am pleased to announce the release of the Restoration ofthe Mariposa Grove of 

Giant Sequoias Final Environmental Impact Statement (Mariposa Grove FEIS). The Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National 

Park contains about 500 mature giant sequoia trees that are among the oldest, rarest, and largest living organisms in the 

world. These "big trees" were so inspirational to early visitors that in 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, Congress passed 

landmark legislation signed by President Lincoln to permanently preserve both the Mariposa Grove and Yosemite Valley. 

This was the first time in American history that the government set aside public lands for the express purpose of preserving 

scenic and natural resources. Nearly 150 years later, the Mariposa Grove is in need of comprehensive restoration to ensure 

that it continues to thrive and provide inspiration and enjoyment for future generations. 

The Mariposa Grove FEIS brings forth a plan to restore ecological processes and increase the resiliency of the Mariposa Grove 

while improving the overall experience for visitors. The plan describes and analyzes three action alternatives and a no action 

alternative. Key actions proposed in Alternative 2 (preferred alternative) include restoration of giant sequoia habitat and 

wetlands; removal of parking within the Grove and construction ofa transit hub at the South Entrance of the park; addition of 

shuttle service between the South Entraljlce and the lower Grove area during peak use periods; and removal ofthe commercial 

tram service to improve soundscapes and allow for additional ecological restoration. The NPS would establish a new pedestrian 

trail between the South Entrance and the Mariposa Grove, as well as several new accessible trails. 

Input fTom the public, our tribal partners, and other government agencies has helped to shape this plan since public scoping and 

consultation began in 20 II. The park received 334 comments during the 60-day public review of the Restoration ofthe 

Mariposa Grove ofGiant Sequoias Draft Environmental Impact Statement released in February of20 13. Key revisions to the 

preferred alternative between the draft and final EIS include refinements at the South Entrance to ensure adequate parking, 

provision of additional parking near the existing picnic area for periods when the shuttle is not in operation, and exploration of 

additional options for location(s) of the leach fields. Thank you for your involvement and participation so far. 

The Mariposa Grove FEIS is available on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) website at 

http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/mariposagrove. To request printed documents or CDs, e-mail yoseylanning@nps.gov or call 

(209) 379-1202. A minimum 30-day no-action period will follow the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency notice of 

availability of the Mariposa Grove FEIS in the Federal Register. The NPS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner 

than 30 days afte-r release ofthe FEIS. After approval of the ROD by the Regional Director, the park will announce the selected 

plan through local and regional press and on the project website. The official responsible for project implementation is the 

Superintendent, Yosemite National Park. 

Mail: 	 Superintendent 

Attn: Mariposa Grove/FEIS 

P.O. Box 577 
 

Yosemite National Park, CA 95389 
 

Don L. Neubacher 

Superintendent 

      

         

     

   

Yosemite National Park • National Park Service • U.S. Department of the Interior
 

Restoration of the

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Final Environmental Impact Statement

October 2013

   

               

      

     

         

                         

                             

                       

                             

                             

                              

                               

                       

           

                         

                       

                               

                                 

                             

                                 

                     

                               

                                 

                                 

                       

                           

                           

                        

                               

                           

                             

                         

                           

                               

              

                     

             

                         

                       

                                     

                                 

                         

      

     

          

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement
 

Yosemite National Park
 

Lead Agency: National Park Service
 

ABSTRACT

In 1864, the U.S. Congress passed landmark legislation preserving the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

and Yosemite Valley. Nearly 150 years later, comprehensive actions are needed to ensure that the Mariposa

Grove continues to thrive and provide inspiration and enjoyment for future generations. The Mariposa

Grove Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) brings forth a plan to restore ecological processes and

increase the resiliency of the Mariposa Grove while improving the overall experience for visitors. The plan

describes and analyzes three action alternatives and a no action alternative to achieve these goals.

Alternative 1, No Action, serves as a baseline against which to compare the action alternatives. This

alternative represents the continuation of current park management into the future, with no changes to

existing facilities, transportation systems, or services.

Alternative 2, South Entrance Hub, is the National Park Service (NPS) preferred alternative. Actions

proposed in Alternative 2 would restore giant sequoia habitat and wetlands; remove parking within the

Mariposa Grove and construct a transit hub at the South Entrance of the park; add shuttle service between

the South Entrance and the lower Grove area during peak use periods; and remove the commercial tram

service to improve soundscapes and allow for additional ecological restoration. The NPS would establish a

new pedestrian trail between the South Entrance and the Grove, as well as several new accessible trails.

Alternative 3, Grizzly Giant Hub, would relocate public parking and visitor information services from the

lower Grove area to a more centralized transit hub in proximity to the Grizzly Giant, outside of giant

sequoia habitat. The NPS would construct a new access road around the lower Grove area to the new

transit hub. The existing road, gift shop, and parking area would be removed from the Grove to allow for

comprehensive restoration of giant sequoia and wetland habitat. Commercial tram operations would be

eliminated.

Alternative 4, South Entrance Hub with Modified Commercial Tram Service, is similar to Alternative 2, but 

the commercial tram staging area would move to the South Entrance, and commercial tram operations

would extend to the vicinity of the Museum in the upper Grove area.

Input from the public, tribal partners, and other government agencies has helped to shape this plan since

public scoping and consultation began in 2011. The park received 334 comments during the 60­day public

review of the Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Draft Environmental Impact Statement

released in February of 2013. Key revisions to the preferred alternative between the draft and final EIS

include refinements at the South Entrance to ensure adequate parking, provision of additional parking near

the existing picnic area for periods when the shuttle is not in operation, and exploration of additional

options for the location(s) of leach fields.

The Mariposa Grove FEIS is available on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC)

website at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/mariposagrove. To request printed documents or CDs, send

an e­mail to (yose_planning@nps.gov) or call (209) 379­1202. A minimum 30­day no­action period will

follow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noticing of the availability of the Mariposa Grove FEIS

in the Federal Register. The NPS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after

release of the FEIS. After approval of the ROD by the Regional Director, the park will announce the

selected plan through local and regional press and on the project website. For further information,

contact:

Mail:	 Superintendent 

ATTN: Mariposa Grove/FEIS

P.O. Box 577
 

Yosemite National Park, CA 95389
 

October 2013

Abstract 

   

   

  

                     

                         

                           

                             

                             

                

           

                               

                           

                               

                        

                     

                               

                           

                             

                         

                                 

                       

                      

                       

  

                   

                       

                         

                         

               

                     

                         

                        

                       

              

                         

                           

  

                               

                             

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

INTRODUCTION

The Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Final Environmental Impact Statement

(Mariposa Grove FEIS) presents and analyzes four alternatives to restore natural conditions and

improve visitor experience and access to the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias in Yosemite

National Park, California (also referred to as the Mariposa Grove). This document fulfills the public

review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The primary purpose of the Mariposa Grove FEIS is to restore the dynamic ecological processes that

sustain the Mariposa Grove, increase the resiliency of the Grove to withstand emerging stressors,

and improve the overall experience in the Grove for visitors. Additional project goals are to protect

resources; enhance interpretation of natural and cultural resources; improve wayfinding and safety

within the Grove; and meet accessibility requirements consistent with the Architectural Barriers Act

of 1968, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These requirements would

improve access to comfort stations, parking areas, and on selected trails. Additionally, efficiencies in

energy and water use, and reduced use of non­renewable resources would be incorporated into the

action alternatives.

Comprehensive actions are needed to address the impacts of existing infrastructure, operations, and

visitor use on the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias and to ensure that the Grove thrives and

continues to provide inspiration and enjoyment for current and future generations. Current

conditions adversely affecting the ecological health of the Grove include the following:

•	 Roads, trails, and other infrastructure disrupt the natural hydrologic functioning of the

Grove.

•	 Buildings and infrastructure concentrated in the lower portion of the Grove encroach on

individual giant sequoias and their roots, and reduce habitat for giant sequoia propagation.

•	 Throughout the Grove, ongoing foot and vehicle access to trees damages giant sequoia

trunks, compacts soils, and exposes shallow giant sequoia roots, potentially making the trees

less resilient and more susceptible to external stressors.

•	 The deteriorated water distribution system through the Grove is leaking thousands of gallons

of chlorinated water per day, and may be affecting shallow hydrology and local vegetation.

Current conditions diminishing the quality of the visitor experience include the following:

•	 Wayfinding information is insufficient to properly orient visitors upon arrival at the Grove

and while on trails within the Grove.

•	 Poor road conditions between the South Entrance and the lower Grove area contribute to

seasonal closures, limit vehicle types, and are a safety concern for visitors and park

employees.

•	 The Grove parking lot often fills to capacity early in the day, forcing temporary closures of

the lot and Mariposa Grove Road, and causing visitor frustration as they are redirected to

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­1 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                               

                           

                           

                           

                    

                           

         

                     

                             

                         

    

                                 

                     

                           

                 

                         

                   

                             

                                 

                               

                               

                             

        

        

                       

                           

   

                 

                           

                   

                               

                 

                         

                               

                           

                             

                         

                             

               

                       

                       

                             

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

limited overflow parking at South Entrance or to Wawona to await a shuttle to return to the

Grove.

•	 Long lines form at the South Entrance station kiosks and intersection as visitors attempt to

get information, find parking, or turn around due to Grove parking lot and road closure.

•	 Shuttles from Wawona to the Grove are often full when they arrive at the South Entrance

shuttle stop, limiting boarding there and increasing visitor wait times.

•	 Trails and facilities in and around the Grove need improvements to reduce grades and/or

increase connectivity to provide better universal accessibility.

•	 Operation of the commercial tram within the Grove creates vehicle/pedestrian conflicts

along the loop road, and intrudes on the experience of pedestrian visitors seeking to enjoy

the majestic setting and natural soundscapes, particularly in the upper, more remote areas of

the Grove.

•	 The vault toilets in the lower part of the Grove are inadequate and not fully accessible, and

are the source of nuisance odors that detract from the Grove experience.

•	 The historic comfort station and the associated septic system and leach field in the upper

Grove area need improvements to increase water­use efficiency and maintainability.

•	 Historic features at Wawona Point, including the masonry overlook wall, steps, and railing,

are in disrepair and require repairs to meet current standards.

With the exception of Alternative 1, No Action, each of the alternatives meets the purpose and need

of the plan to varying degrees and in different ways. All alternatives would retain the existing visitor

use levels of a typical day in the Mariposa Grove, though visitor use would concentrate in different

parts of the Grove. The daily visitor use level proposed in the Mariposa Grove FEIS approximates the

visitor use level established for the Mariposa Grove in the 1980 GMP for Yosemite National Park

(3,850 visitors per day).

OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES

This FEIS presents a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and three action alternatives

(Alternatives 2 through 4) to restore natural habitat within the Mariposa Grove and improve the

visitor experience.

Several ecological restoration, infrastructure removal or improvement, and visitor experience

actions would be common to each of the action alternatives including road/trail grading and culvert

repair to improve hydrologic flows; removal of pavement and soil decompaction; repair/replacement

of the leaking water distribution system and relocation of the water tank; and improvement of visitor

orientation. The action alternatives also include actions to improve conformance with accessibility

criteria outlined in NPS Director’s Order 42 on accessibility for visitors with disabilities; the

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The actions include improving ratios of accessible parking spaces and providing accessible paths of

travel through giant sequoia and wetland habitats, as well as to visitor services at central transit hubs.

Appropriately spaced benches, pullouts, and resting places would be added along trails, at

viewpoints, and adjacent to congested paths of travel at transit hubs to improve the visitor

experience for persons with limited mobility and other visitors. Rehabilitation, stabilization,

protection, and/or enhanced interpretation of cultural resources at Mariposa Grove, Wawona Point,

and South Entrance also would be components of all of the action alternatives. Moreover,

restoration of giant sequoia habitat would preserve sequoia habitat as an integral part of the

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­2 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                         

                             

                             

                           

               

                           

                           

                     

                 

                               

                           

                                 

                         

                       

                             

                           

                             

                        

                       

                         

                       

                       

                           

                                 

                                       

                             

                           

                               

                               

                                 

                             

                       

                             

                             

                           

                               

                         

                               

                       

       

                             

                                 

                               

                       

                              

                                 

                             

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Mariposa Grove Historic District and as an American Indian traditional cultural resource. Other

components of the three action alternatives, as well as the no­action alternative, are briefly described

below.

Alternative 1, No Action, serves as a baseline against which effects of the action alternatives are

compared. Alternative 1 would continue the current level of maintenance and operations at the

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. Under this alternative, compliance with regulatory requirements

(e.g., health and safety or historic preservation) or strategies in current and future adopted plans

would be implemented over time. Ongoing adverse impacts on giant sequoia, wetlands, and wildlife

would continue to result from tram operations, infrastructure­related hydrologic changes, soil

compaction, and soundscape disturbance. Infrastructure would remain concentrated in the lower

Grove area, and commercial operation of the tram and the gift shop would continue. Access to

Mariposa Grove would remain challenging during peak use periods. Some visitors arriving at the

South Entrance would be redirected to Wawona to board a park shuttle bus and return to the Grove,

an inefficient process that takes about an hour. Renovation, rehabilitation, or upgrading of existing

buildings and infrastructure to improve functionality and accessibility would occur as emergency

actions in response to system failures rather than as planned, coordinated actions. The current level

of interpretation and orientation would be retained, and utilities and comfort stations would not be

upgraded. Stressors on the giant sequoia trees, wildlife, special status species, and other natural and

cultural resources in the Grove and at South Entrance would not be addressed.

Alternative 2, South Entrance Hub, the National Park Service’s Preferred Alternative, would

remove the majority of visitor parking, commercial tram staging and operations, and the

concessioner­operated gift shop from Mariposa Grove to allow for comprehensive restoration of

wetlands, soundscape, and giant sequoia habitat. New visitor services for the South Entrance would

include visitor information and educational and other sales items. Most parking would be relocated

to a South Entrance transit hub. A limited number of parking spaces could be provided in the lower

Grove area as well as at the picnic area adjacent to Mariposa Grove Road when the shuttle is not in

operation. Vault toilets would be renovated or replaced, and accessible trails would be established in

the ecologically restored lower Grove area and at the iconic Grizzly Giant. The abandoned historic

Washburn Wagon Road alignment to the Grove would be cleared of vegetation and rehabilitated as a

pedestrian path from South Entrance parking lot to the Mariposa Grove Road picnic area. Where the

Washburn Wagon Road ends in the vicinity of the existing picnic area, a new trail would be

constructed for the remaining distance to the lower portion of the Grove, including a pedestrian

bridge across Rattlesnake Creek. An accessible trail would be constructed through the lower Grove

area, and an accessible overlook to the Grizzly Giant would be provided. This alternative includes

options for realigning the entrance to the Grove to enhance restoration efforts and straighten the

existing tight curve near the giant sequoias in the vicinity of the Three Sentinels, which would

include a new drainage crossing structure to protect giant sequoias in that area from erosion and

from placement of roadway embankment over sensitive root zones. At the South Entrance, the

intersection of Wawona Road and Mariposa Grove Road would be realigned to the west of its

current location, and a roundabout would replace the current T­intersection should traffic

conditions warrant this action.

Alternative 3, Grizzly Giant Hub, would relocate public parking and visitor services from the lower

Grove area to a location outside giant sequoia habitat in the vicinity of Grizzly Giant. This would

include removing the lower Grove area parking lot, gift shop, and commercial tram staging area and

operations to allow for comprehensive restoration of giant sequoia habitat, wetlands, and

soundscapes. A new road segment with two bridges would be constructed to skirt the lower Grove.

Within the lower Grove area, the existing road to Grizzly Giant would be converted into a pedestrian

trail. Accessible parking would be provided at the lower Grove area, accessible trails would be

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­3 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                               

                     

                       

                           

                                 

                             

                                 

                         

                             

                           

                             

                             

                       

                                 

                             

                       

         

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

constructed in the lower and mid­Grove areas, and vault toilets would be installed at the Grizzly

Giant parking area. The existing T­intersection at South Entrance would be retained.

Alternative 4, South Entrance Hub with Modified Commercial Tram Service, would maintain

the commercial tram operations for visitor access and enjoyment, but tram staging would be moved

to a South Entrance Hub, similar to that described for Alternative 2, and the route and hours of

operation would be reduced to provide a balance between visitor access and opportunities for quiet

enjoyment and solitude in the upper part of the Grove. As under Alternative 2, new visitor services

would be provided for the South Entrance including visitor information and educational and other

sales items. The majority of public parking would be relocated to the South Entrance, and additional

off­season overflow parking would be provided near the Mariposa Grove Road picnic area. An

accessible overlook to the Grizzly Giant would be provided. Similar to Alternative 2, the abandoned

Washburn road alignment to the Grove would be cleared of vegetation and rehabilitated as a

pedestrian path extending from the South Entrance parking lot to the picnic area. Where the

abandoned Washburn road ends in the vicinity of the existing picnic area, a new trail would be

constructed for the remaining distance to the lower portion of the Grove, including a pedestrian

bridge across Rattlesnake Creek. The current T­intersection design at South Entrance would be

modified to improve traffic flow.

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­4 October 2013

Executive Summary
Restoration of the Maripo

Summary Comparison of No­Action and Action Alternatives

Alternative 1:

No Action

Alternative 2:

South Entrance Hub

Alternative 3:

Grizzly Giant Hub

Existing ConditionsExisting impervious (asphalt) surface inproject area

3.21 acres N/A N/A 

Existing road through the Grove 8.4 acres N/A N/A Existing trails within the Grove 3.5 acres N/A N/A RestorationRestoration of giant sequoia habitat

through reduction of impervious

surfaces in lower Grove

N/A Removal of 1.44 acres, a 50%

reduction of impervious surfaces

Removal of 2.38 acres, an

82% reduction of impervious

surfaces

Restoration of giant sequoia habitatthrough removal of trails

N/A 0.43 acre 0.58 acre 

Restoration of giant sequoia habitat

resulting from narrowing of Mariposa

Grove Road, conversion of road

segments to trails, or trail removal

N/A Removal of 2.11 acres of

existing paved road in the

Grove, a 25% reduction of road

Removal of 2.79 acres of

existing paved road in the

Grove, a 33% reduction of

road

Giant sequoia habitat restoration within

the Grove (total)

N/A 3.98 acres removal of built

footprint within the Grove (27%

reduction)

5.75 acres removal of built

footprint within the Grove(39% reduction)

Net, project­wide change in

development, excluding areas for leach

fields

N/A 0.74 acre addition developed

area (comprised of 3.98 acre netreduction of developed area

within the Grove plus 4.72 acresnew development at the South

Entrance)

0.50 acre addition of

developed area (comprisedof 5.75 acre net reduction ofdeveloped area within theGrove plus 6.25 acres new

development at Grizzly Giant

and new Grove bypass road)

Infrastructure Redesign and RelocationAccessible parking spaces 2 at lower Grove area 8 at South Entrance; 6 at lower

Grove area; 3 at picnic area; 8 at

Grizzly Giant

7 at Grizzly Giant; 10 at

lower Grove area

Standard vehicle parking spaces 20 at South Entrance,

115 seasonal at lower

Grove area. Over 100

spaces at Wawona areused for overflow

parking.

248 regular, 30 oversize at

South Entrance, 25­50 seasonal

at lower Grove area, 25­50

seasonal at picnic area

20 seasonal at South

Entrance, 189 regular, 27­32oversize at Grizzly Giant

South Entrance area build out (netfootprint after construction)

N/A 4.72 acres of non­giant sequoia

forest

N/A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­5 
Restoration of the Maripo

Alternative 1:

No Action

Alternative 2:

South Entrance Hub

Alternative 3:

Grizzly Giant Hub

Grizzly Giant area build out (net new

footprint after construction)

N/A 0.06 acre of non­giant sequoia

forest (includes 0 acres

impervious surfaces)

3.13 acres of non­giant

sequoia forest (includes

2.92 acres impervious

surfaces)

New bypass road build out (netfootprint after construction)

N/A N/A 2.20 acres, primarily through

non­giant sequoia forest

Primary visitor contact At lower Grove staging

area

At South Entrance Hub At Grizzly Giant Hub 

Trail from South Entrance to picnic area

using abandoned Washburn Road topicnic area and construction of a new

trail extending from picnic area to lower

Grove

N/A 0.66 acre of development N/A 

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­6 
               

   

   

  

                   

                       

                   

                           

                         

       

                       

     

                       

                       

                       

                     

                               

                       

                           

                       

                             

                   

                             

                         

         

                           

           

                           

                       

                   

         

                       

                   

            

                           

                             

                               

                         

                         

               

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

In accordance with NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis,

and Decision­making and Council on Environmental Quality requirements, the NPS is required to

identify the environmentally preferred alternative in all environmental documents, including EISs.

Generally, the environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that causes the least damage to

the biological and physical environment and that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,

cultural, and natural resources.

Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) on balance best achieves these following national

environmental policy goals:

(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding

generations.

All of the action alternatives would, to varying degrees, reduce development footprints

within the Mariposa Grove, restore hydrologic and ecological systems to more natural

conditions, and stabilize and/or rehabilitate cultural resources at South Entrance, the Grove,

and Wawona Point. Alternative 2 best meets this objective because it would result in a net

reduction of developed areas, would reduce developed area within sequoia habitat, better

protect Pacific fishers from road fatalities, and restores the soundscape in the upper Grove

area.

(2) Assure for all visitors safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings.

All of the action alternatives would meet this goal. Alternative 2 best removes much of the

transportation infrastructure from within the Grove and provides the highest quality

universal access experience in the lower Grove area and at the Grizzly Giant. The alternative

enhances the sense of solitude and natural soundscape in the upper Grove area through 

elimination of commercial tram operation.

(3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to

health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

Alternative 2 would attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment while

minimizing further degradation of the sensitive giant sequoia environment, manages risks to

visitor health and safety concerns by eliminating vehicle/pedestrian conflicts within the

Grove, reduces traffic/parking safety hazards.

(4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and

maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, access, and a variety

of options for experiencing the Grove.

Alternative 2 would best restore and preserve the giant sequoias of the Mariposa Grove.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a better opportunity for solitude in the upper Grove with 

the removal of the tram and private vehicles. All of the action alternatives would avoid and/or

minimize adverse effects to historic and traditional cultural aspects of the Grove and South 

Entrance.

(5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high standards of

living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­7 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                     

                       

                         

                           

              

                     

     

                       

                      

                           

                      

                      

                      

   

       

                         

                         

                   

                         

                             

                         

                           

                             

               

                           

                           

                               

                     

                             

                           

                                 

               

                           

                             

                       

                         

                         

              

         

                         

                           

                           

                         

                             

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Alternative 2 would reduce in­Grove infrastructure and best conserves energy by

significantly restricting private vehicle access to the Grove and eliminating commercial tram

operations within the Grove. Alternative 2 offers the best opportunity for expanding the

range of visitor experiences by expanding accessible trail opportunities in diverse areas in the

lower Grove area and at Grizzly Giant.

(6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling

of depletable resources.

Alternative 2 represents the most efficient management of depletable fossil fuels both by

eliminating in­Grove tram operations, limiting most private vehicle access during peak

visitor season, and by concentrating visitor and employee parking near a park entrance and

implementing efficient shuttle service using buses that operate on alternative fuels.

On balance, Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) best achieves these national environmental

policy goals, and therefore is identified as the environmentally preferred alternative.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have long­term, moderate adverse impacts on natural and

sociocultural resources at the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias, including wildlife, special status

species, wetlands, hydrology and water quality, soils, soundscapes, archeological and traditional

cultural resources, and energy use and sustainability. Under Alternative 1, vegetation would be

subject to continued long­term major adverse impacts as a result of ongoing soil compaction and

erosion, root disturbance, bark and bole damage from commercial tram impact, and modified

hydrologic flow and processes. Under Alternative 1 visitor experience would be subject to continued

long­term, moderate to major, adverse impacts as a result of in some areas insufficient resource

interpretation and orientation; soundscape disturbances from vehicles and the in­Grove commercial

tram; inadequate and poorly functioning restrooms and vault toilets; and lack of accessible facilities

and trails. The inconvenience associated with periodic closure of the Mariposa Grove Road as the

Grove parking lot fills to capacity, redirection to Wawona for shuttle service, and waits at poorly

designed shuttle stops would continue to negatively affect visitor experience. The concessioneroperated gift shop and tram would continue to operate in the Grove. Visitors with limited mobility

could access the mid­ and upper Grove areas via the fee­for­service tram, or those with appropriate

accessible parking placards could follow the tram in a personal vehicle to the Grizzly Giant and along

the loop road in the upper Grove area.

Deterioration of the historic road and built features at Wawona Point would continue under

Alternative 1. Degradation of archeological resources also would continue as a result of the current

location of infrastructure on sensitive archeological resources, which in turn could affect traditional

cultural use of the Grove. Although the estimated construction costs would be negligible compared

to the action alternatives, deferred maintenance costs under Alternative 1 would exceed the

estimated operating costs for the action alternatives.

Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub (Preferred Alternative)

Actions under Alternative 2 would result in long­term, major, beneficial impacts on vegetation,

wildlife, special status species, and wetlands. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a

reduction in paved area within Mariposa Grove; drainage improvements along trails and roads; and

actions to restore hydrologic flow and processes, reduce soil erosion, and reduce soil compaction

near giant sequoias and wetlands. Removal of the commercial tram and tram staging area and

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­8 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                         

                     

                           

                         

                         

                         

                           

                     

                               

                           

                   

                       

                         

                       

                           

                             

                           

                       

   

                         

                                   

                   

                               

                             

                           

                  

     

                         

                           

                             

                           

                               

                             

                               

                               

                           

                               

                               

                           

                               

                          

                             

                     

                         

                                 

                               

                               

                         

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

relocation of visitor parking, museum functions, and other services to the South Entrance would

reduce noise and enhance soundscapes throughout the Grove, and reduce traffic/wildlife conflicts

along the Mariposa Grove Road, which would benefit wildlife. Visitor use and experience would also

incur long­term, major, beneficial impacts as a result of improved traffic flow and orientation,

enhanced accessibility of trails and visitor facilities, improved soundscapes due to removal of the

commercial tram and incompatible elements in the lower Grove area, improved signage and

interpretation, and construction of a larger parking lot, visitor services, and shuttle stop at South 

Entrance. Removal of the commercial tram, consolidation of infrastructure at the South Entrance,

repair of the Grove water system, and use of water­ and energy­efficient sustainable design in new

and renovated facilities would result in long­term, major beneficial impacts on park operations and

energy use and sustainability. Historic preservation goals would be advanced through improved

interpretation of cultural resources; rehabilitation of segments of historic trails/road, Wawona Point

overlook features, and other cultural landscape elements; and removal of infrastructure from and

revegetation of sensitive archeological sites. Adverse effects on historic structures, features, and

cultural landscapes and archeology are likely under Alternative 2, primarily due to proposed road

alignment shifts, conversion of some roadway to trail, and narrowing of historic roads within the

Mariposa Grove Historic District. However, ecological restoration of the Grove would also serve to

protect the iconic giant sequoias that are character­defining components of the Mariposa Grove

Historic District.

Overall, Alternative 2 would result in a 0.74 acre addition of developed areas project­wide, which 

would be comprised of 3.98 acre net reduction of developed area within the Grove plus 4.72 acres of

new development at the South Entrance. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that construction costs

for Alternative 2 would be slightly less than the other action alternatives, but operating costs would

be slightly higher than other action alternatives. If the optional new bridge/box culvert across the

Rattlesnake Creek drainage in the vicinity of the Three Sentinels were constructed under this

alternative, it would add an additional major capital cost.

Alternative 3: Grizzly Giant Hub

Actions under Alternative 3 would result in long­term, major, beneficial impacts on vegetation,

wildlife, special status species, and wetlands within giant sequoia habitat at Mariposa Grove. These

actions include reduction in paved area, drainage improvements along trails and roads, and repairs to

restore hydrologic flow and processes, reduce soil erosion, and reduce soil compaction near giant

sequoias and wetlands in the lower Grove area. Removal of the commercial tram and tram staging

area and relocation of visitor parking, museum functions, and other services outside of giant sequoia

habitat in the vicinity of the Grizzly Giant would have a major, long­term beneficial impact on

soundscapes in the upper and lower parts of the Grove, but would have moderate long­term, adverse

impacts on soundscapes in the mid­Grove area of the Grizzly Giant. However, wildlife, vegetation,

and special status species outside of giant sequoia habitat would be subject to moderate to major,

long­term adverse impacts as construction of new road and the Grizzly Giant Hub facilities, and the

resulting increase in private vehicle trips, would remove habitat and increase the potential for

wildlife/vehicle conflicts along the Mariposa Grove Road and the new extension to the hub. The new

bypass road would affect Pacific fisher denning habitat in a previously undisturbed area.

Visitor use and experience would incur long­term, major, beneficial impacts as a result of improved

traffic flow and orientation, removal of the concessioner­operated tram and other incompatible

elements from the lower area of the Grove, improved signage and interpretation, elimination of

reliance on the park shuttle service to reach the Grove, and construction of a parking lot outside the

bounds of giant sequoia habitat, in the vicinity of the Grizzly Giant. Removal of tram operations,

consolidation of infrastructure near the Grizzly Giant, repair of the Grove water system, and use of

water­ and energy­efficient sustainable design in facilities would result in long­term major beneficial

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­9 October 2013

Executive Summary
               

   

   

                           

                     

                           

                             

                       

                         

                             

   

                             

                                   

                               

                 

                   

                         

                             

                                 

                         

                         

                         

                         

                             

                       

                       

                         

                             

                           

                       

                         

                         

                       

                    

                             

                             

                           

                                 

                             

                        

     

                             

               

                           

                         

           

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

impacts on park operations and energy use and sustainability. Historic preservation goals would be

advanced through rehabilitation of historic road and trail segments, and Wawona Point overlook

features. However, introduction of a new parking lot near the iconic Grizzly Giant, and modification

of segments of the Mariposa Grove Road would result in indirect and direct adverse effects,

respectively, on these contributing historic cultural landscape features. Construction of the new

access road also would adversely affect sensitive cultural resources. However, restoration of the

Grove would also protect the cultural landscape, in which the giant sequoias are considered a

cultural resource.

Overall, Alternative 3 would result in a net addition of 0.5 acre of developed area project­wide, which 

would be comprised of 5.75 acre net reduction of developed area within the Grove plus 6.25 acres of

new development at the Grizzly Giant arrival area and new bypass road. Alternative 3 would have the

highest cost relative to Alternatives 1, 2, and 4.

Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with Modified Commercial Tram Service

Actions under Alternative 4 would result in long­term, major beneficial impacts on vegetation,

wildlife, special status species, and wetlands within the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias. Similar to

Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in a reduction in paved area in the Grove,

drainage improvements along trails and roads, and utility repairs to restore hydrologic flow and

processes, reduce soil erosion, and reduce soil compaction near giant sequoias and wetlands.

Relocation of visitor parking, tram staging, and other services to South Entrance would reduce

traffic/wildlife conflicts along the Mariposa Grove Road. Visitor use and experience would also

incur long­term, major, beneficial impacts as a result of improved traffic flow at a modified

T­intersection at South Entrance, removal of incompatible elements from the lower Grove area,

improved signage and interpretation, and construction of a larger parking lot at South Entrance.

Beneficial impacts on soundscapes would be less than those under Alternative 2 because commercial

tram service would continue, albeit at a reduced frequency and along a shortened in­Grove route.

Consolidation of infrastructure at South Entrance, repair of the Grove water system, and use of

water­ and energy­efficient sustainable design in facilities would result in long­term moderate

beneficial impacts on park operations and energy use and sustainability. Historic preservation goals

would be advanced through rehabilitation of historic road and trail segments and Wawona Point

overlook features. However, removal of infrastructure and modifications to sections of Mariposa

Grove Road would result in adverse effects on cultural resources.

Overall, Alternative 4 would result in a net addition of 2.88 acres of developed area project­wide,

which would be comprised of 1.84 acre net reduction of developed area within the Grove plus

4.72 acres of new development at the South Entrance. Alternative 4 construction cost would be

greater than that of Alternatives 1and 2, and possibly less than Alternative 3. If the optional new

bridge/box culvert across the Rattlesnake Creek drainage in the vicinity of the Three Sentinels were

constructed under this alternative, it would add an additional major capital cost.

Considerations for All Action Alternatives

The potential long­term benefits of the action alternatives would be realized only if routine and

proposed site­specific management actions are implemented consistently in the future. If

maintenance or other actions are deferred, long­term benefits may be marginal. Future funding and

prioritization of management actions at Mariposa Grove are essential to maintaining the proposed

ecological restoration embodied in the action alternatives.

Final Environmental Impact Statement ES­10 October 2013

Executive Summary
   

     

   

   

         

             

             

   

     

   

         

         

   

             

   

       

       

         

         

         

               

           

           

       

     

         

   

                   

   

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

ABSTRACT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................ES­1
 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................1­1
 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1­1
 

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................. 1­1
 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT...................................................................... 1­6
 

Goals Prescribed in the General Management Plan for Yosemite................................. 1­8
 

Project­specific Goals ........................................................................................................ 1­8
 

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................... 1­9
 

POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT................................................................................... 1­10
 

Interrelationships with other Plans and Projects ......................................................... 1­11
 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS IDENTIFIED IN SCOPING....................................................... 1­12
 

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................... 1­13
 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................2­1
 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2­1
 

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
 

STATEMENT (EIS)......................................................................................................................... 2­1
 

ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................................. 2­2
 

Choosing By Advantages/Value Analysis Workshops................................................... 2­2
 

Alternative 1: No Action .................................................................................................... 2­5
 

Actions Common to All Action Alternatives .................................................................. 2­6
 

Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub (Preferred Alternative)....................................... 2­12
 

Alternative 3: Grizzly Giant Hub .................................................................................... 2­20
 

Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with Modified Commercial Tram Service ....... 2­25
 

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis................................. 2­31
 

MITIGATION MEASURES......................................................................................................... 2­33
 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE....................................................... 2­33
 

COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................................................................... 2­36
 

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS....................................... 2­36
 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
 

CONSEQUENCES...................................................................................................................3­1
 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3­1
 

NEPA Impact Analysis....................................................................................................... 3­1
 

Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed ...................................................................... 3­2
 

Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................ 3­4
 

Impairment.......................................................................................................................... 3­4
 

Assessment of Effects on Special­Status Species and Historic Properties.................. 3­4
 

NATURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................... 3­5
 

Vegetation............................................................................................................................ 3­5
 

Affected Environment.......................................................................................... 3­5
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­13
 

Wildlife............................................................................................................................... 3­21
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­21
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­25
 

Special­status Species....................................................................................................... 3­32
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­33
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­40
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement i October 2013

Table of Contents
               

   

     

     

         

   

         

     

   

     

   

     

           

     

   

             

             

       

         

                     

   

   

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 3­53
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­53
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­56
 

Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................................... 3­62
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­62
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­69
 

Soils..................................................................................................................................... 3­75
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­75
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­77
 

Air Quality and Climate Change..................................................................................... 3­83
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­83
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­86
 

Soundscapes ...................................................................................................................... 3­94
 

Affected Environment........................................................................................ 3­94
 

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3­96
 

CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 3­102
 

Historic Structures ......................................................................................................... 3­102
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­102
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­112
 

American Indian Traditional Cultural Resources...................................................... 3­136
 

Introduction and Definitions .......................................................................... 3­136
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­136
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­138
 

Archeological Resources ............................................................................................... 3­148
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­148
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­152
 

SOCIOCULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 3­163
 

Visitor Experience and Recreation.............................................................................. 3­163
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­163
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­174
 

Park Operations .............................................................................................................. 3­184
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­184
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­186
 

Energy Use and Sustainability....................................................................................... 3­190
 

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3­190
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3­193
 

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PREPARERS ..................4­1
 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................. 4­1
 

Project Scoping ................................................................................................................... 4­1
 

Public Review of the Mariposa Grove Draft EIS ............................................................ 4­1
 

AGENCY CONSULTATION........................................................................................................ 4­2
 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Board......................................................... 4­2
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service........................................................................................... 4­3
 

California State Office of Historic Preservation............................................................. 4­3
 

State Water Resources Control Board and Central Valley Regional Water Quality
 

Control Board ..................................................................................................................... 4­4
 

American Indian Consultation ......................................................................................... 4­4
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement ii October 2013

Table of Contents
               

   

     

                     

                   

       

   

     

           

           

                     

           

           

                   

                     

                         

         

                     

                       

             

         

         

                                 

   

     

                   

                 

         

         

                 

             

           

                    

                      

                

                          

                          

                           

             

                          

                     

                        

   

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

FUTURE INFORMATION ........................................................................................................... 4­6
 

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses Receiving The Restoration of the

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Draft Environmental Impact Statement ............ 4­7
 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ................................................................................. 4­9
 

CHAPTER 5: BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................5­1
 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2­1 – Preliminary Cost Estimates .................................................................................................... 2­36
 

Table 2­2 – Summary Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 2­37
 

Table 2­3 – Summary of Potential Impacts and Restoration Footprint Areas..................................... 2­39
 

Table 3­1 – Special­status Wildlife Species............................................................................................... 3­33
 

Table 3­2 – Special­status Plant Species.................................................................................................... 3­35
 

Table 3­3 – Topographic Relief of the Mariposa Grove Area ............................................................... 3­64
 

Table 3­4 – Climate Summary for the South Entrance (Station 048380), 1941­2011 ......................... 3­65
 

Table 3­5 – Water Quality Data for Station YOSE007 near Grizzly Giant, 1981­1983....................... 3­68
 

Table 3­6 – Mariposa County Attainment/Nonattainment Designations ........................................... 3­83
 

Table 3­7 – Air Quality Monitoring Data for Yosemite National Park ................................................ 3­85
 

Table 3­8 – Approximate Decibel Levels of Common Sound Sources (NPS 2006) ........................... 3­95
 

Table 3­9 – Mariposa Grove Archeological Resources ........................................................................ 3­151
 

Table 3­10 – South Entrance Archeological Resources........................................................................ 3­151
 

Table 3­11 – Visitor Typologies ............................................................................................................... 3­170
 

Table 3­12 – Estimated Daily Visitors by Mode of Arrival on a Busy Summer Day (85th Percentile,
 

Design Day)..................................................................................................................... 3­176
 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1­1 – Distribution of Giant Sequoia Groves in California............................................................ 1­2
 

Figure 1­2 – Giant Sequoia Groves in Yosemite National Park............................................................... 1­3
 

Figure 1­3 – Galen Clark ............................................................................................................................... 1­4
 

Figure 1­4 – Mariposa Grove Restoration Project Area and Vicinity..................................................... 1­5
 

Figure 1­5 – Vintage promotional poster of Wawona Tunnel Tree........................................................ 1­6
 

Figure 2­1 – Choosing by Advantages Workshop ..................................................................................... 2­3
 

Figure 2­2 – Alternative 1: No Action.......................................................................................................... 2­9
 

Figure 2­3 – Alternative 1: No Action – South Entrance Detail............................................................ 2­10
 

Figure 2­4 – Alternative 1: No Action – Lower Grove Area Detail....................................................... 2­11
 

Figure 2­5 – Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub (Preferred Alternative)............................................ 2­14
 

Figure 2­6 – Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub (Preferred Alternative) – South Entrance Detail. 2­15
 

Figure 2­7 – Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub (Preferred Alternative) – Lower Grove Area
 

Detail .................................................................................................................................. 2­16
 

Figure 2­8 – Alternative 2: South Entrance Hub Grizzly Giant Accessible Parking Area Detail....... 2­17
 

Figure 2­9 – Alternative 3: Grizzly Giant Hub.......................................................................................... 2­22
 

Figure 2­10 – Alternative 3: Grizzly Giant Hub – Lower Grove Area Detail ...................................... 2­23
 

Figure 2­11 – Alternative 3: Grizzly Giant Hub – Grizzly Giant Area Detail ...................................... 2­24
 

Figure 2­12 – Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with  Commercial Tram Service ........................... 2­27
 

Figure 2­13 – Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with  Commercial Tram Service – South 

Entrance Detail ................................................................................................................. 2­28
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement iii October 2013

Table of Contents
               

   

     

                          

   

                        

     

           

                       

                         

               

                      

                 

                           

                                 

                               

       

                   

         

               

                             

                         

                         

                 

                   

           

         

               

             

             

           

               

         

                               

                              

       

                              

       

               

         

               

                     

           

           

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Figure 2­14 – Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with Commercial Tram Service – Lower Grove

Area Detail......................................................................................................................... 2­29

Figure 2­15 – Alternative 4: South Entrance Hub with Commercial Tram Operation – Upper

Grove Area Detail............................................................................................................. 2­30
 

Figure 3­1 – The Big Trees ............................................................................................................................ 3­5
 

Figure 3­2 – Schematic of Vegetation by Elevation within Yosemite National Park............................ 3­6
 

Figure 3­3 – Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Southwestern Yosemite National Park......... 3­7
 

Figure 3­4 – Burned Area in Mariposa Grove............................................................................................ 3­8
 

Figure 3­5 – Location of Giant Sequoias in the Mariposa Grove ........................................................... 3­9
 

Figure 3­6 – Fire History of the Mariposa Grove.................................................................................... 3­11
 

Figure 3­7 – Fire Return Interval Departure for the Mariposa Grove and Surrounding Forest....... 3­12
 

Figure 3­8 – Vegetation as a Component of Wildlife Habitat in and Near the Mariposa Grove...... 3­23
 

Figure 3­9 – Vegetation as a Component of Wildlife Habitat in and Near the South Entrance ....... 3­24
 

Figure 3­10 – Pacific Fisher......................................................................................................................... 3­50
 

Figure 3­11 – Wetlands In and Near the Mariposa Grove ..................................................................... 3­55
 

Figure 3­12 – Wetlands at South Entrance ............................................................................................... 3­56
 

Figure 3­13 – Perennial Stream in Mariposa Grove ................................................................................ 3­63
 

Figure 3­14 – Mariposa Big Trees Watershed and Surrounding Watersheds ..................................... 3­64
 

Figure 3­15 – Culvert Function Status and Redirected and Lost Flow within the Mariposa Grove 3­66
 

Figure 3­16 – Drainage Channel along the Mariposa Grove Road within the Grove ........................ 3­66
 

Figure 3­17 – Denuded Vegetation and Soil Compaction Along Mariposa Grove Trail................... 3­76
 

Figure 3­18 – Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effects ................................................................. 3­103
 

Figure 3­19 – Mariposa Grove Road in Upper Grove Area ................................................................. 3­103
 

Figure 3­20 – Mariposa Grove Museum................................................................................................. 3­104
 

Figure 3­21 – Wawona Point.................................................................................................................... 3­106
 

Figure 3­22 – Comfort Station in Upper Grove..................................................................................... 3­106
 

Figure 3­23 – Mariposa Grove Historic District.................................................................................... 3­107
 

Figure 3­24 – South Entrance Station Historic District........................................................................ 3­111
 

Figure 3­25 – South Entrance Comfort Station ..................................................................................... 3­111
 

Figure 3­26 – Orientation Sign at Lower Grove..................................................................................... 3­165
 

Figure 3­27 – Commercial Tram.............................................................................................................. 3­166
 

Figure 3­28 – Average Daily Total of Inbound Visitors at the Upper Grizzly Giant Counter......... 3­167
 

Figure 3­29 – Average Daily Total of Inbound Visitors at the Outer Loop Trail Counter .............. 3­167
 

Figure 3­30 – Grizzly Giant Visitor Use Hypothetical Use Level – 18 people, approximately 77
 

square feet per person.................................................................................................... 3­169

Figure 3­31 – Grizzly Giant Visitor Use Hypothetical Use Level – 24 people, approximately 58

square feet per person.................................................................................................... 3­169
 

Figure 3­32 – Trails of the Mariposa Grove ........................................................................................... 3­171
 

Figure 3­34 – Trail Sign ............................................................................................................................. 3­172
 

Figure 3­33 – Stonework along Mariposa Grove Trail ......................................................................... 3­172
 

Figure 3­35 – Traffic Circulation between Wawona and the Mariposa Grove................................. 3­173
 

Figure 3­36 – Park Shuttle Bus ................................................................................................................. 3­184
 

Figure 3­37 – Solar­powered Sign at South Entrance ........................................................................... 3­191
 

Final Environmental Impact Statement iv October 2013

Table of Contents
               

   

     

   

                

        

           

       

       

                   

            

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Amendments to the General Management Plan

Appendix B: Cumulative Actions

Appendix C: Public Comments and Responses

Appendix D: Restoration Plan

Appendix E: Mitigation Measures

Appendix F: Draft Statement of Findings for Protection of Wetlands

Appendix G: Draft Memorandum of Agreement

Final Environmental Impact Statement v October 2013

Table of Contents
               

   

     

       

         

       

       

              

    

   

   

        

      

        

        

    

         

      

   

          

        

      

       

   

    

            

    

     

             

     

        

      

       

        

               

     

        

      

         

       

     

         

          

         

Restoration of the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 

ABAAS Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

APE area of potential effect

Army Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

BMP Best Management Practice

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CBA Choosing by Advantages

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDN Communications Data Network

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Comprehensive Interpretive Plan

CSC California Species of Special Concern

dB decibel

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FC Federal Candidate for Listing

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRID Fire Return Interval Departure

GHG greenhouse gas

GMP General Management Plan

LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LRIP Long­range Interpretive Plan

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

PEPC Planning, Environment and Public Comment

PM10 particulate matter greater than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter greater than 2.5 microns in diameter

POV privately owned vehicle

RAWS Remote Access Weather Station

ROG reactive organic compound

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SITES Sustainable Sites Initiative

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

YARTS Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System

Final Environmental Impact Statement vi October 2013

Table of Contents