Draft U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement and North Fork of the

Tulare and Fresno Counties

Volume 2: The Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences / Appendixes / Glossary / Selected Bibliography Preparers and Consultants / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Volume 2: The Affected Environment / Environmental Consequences / Appendixes / Glossary / Selected Bibliography / Preparers and Consultants / Index

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Contents: Volume 2

THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ecosystem Stressors ...... 3 Loss of Pre-Euro-American Fire Regimes ...... 3 Exotic Species ...... 4 Air Pollution ...... 4 Habitat Fragmentation ...... 5 Rapid Anthropogenic Climatic Change...... 6 Natural Resources...... 8 Caves ...... 8 Water Resources ...... 9 Soils and Vegetation...... 11 Wildlife...... 16 Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species ...... 16 Air Quality...... 18 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 25 Description of Designated River Segments...... 25 Rivers Being Studied for Inclusion in the System...... 26 Backcountry / Wilderness ...... 32 Designated Wilderness ...... 32 Potential Wilderness ...... 32 Backcountry Areas Managed to Preserve Wilderness Characteristics ...... 32 Wilderness Studies ...... 33 Cultural Resources ...... 34 Historical Overview of the Parks...... 34 Archeological Resources ...... 37 Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes ...... 38 Cultural Landscapes ...... 40 Ethnographic Resources and Landscapes...... 41 Museum Collections and Archives...... 42 Transportation and Circulation...... 45 Roadway Network in and around the Parks ...... 45 Visitor Circulation in the Parks ...... 46 Transportation Service Quality of Park Roads ...... 46 Parking...... 54 Visitor Experience...... 56 Park Character ...... 56 Visitation ...... 57 Visitor Use Patterns ...... 57 Visitor Profile ...... 59 Visitor Use Projections...... 59 Educational Opportunities ...... 60 Recreational Opportunities ...... 60 Visitor Services ...... 64 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land ...... 68 Private Land...... 68 Special Use Permits on Park Land ...... 69

iii CONTENTS

Potential Boundary Adjustments ...... 71 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities ...... 72 Staffing ...... 72 Partners and Other Entities ...... 74 Park Facilities ...... 74 Concession Facilities ...... 78 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 80 Demographic Characteristics...... 80 Park Budget and Park Employment...... 83 Special Use Permits on Park Land ...... 83 Regional Communities ...... 83

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction ...... 87 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts ...... 87 Impairment of Park Resources or Values ...... 91 Natural Resources...... 92 Cave Resources ...... 92 Water Resources ...... 96 General Vegetation and Soils ...... 105 Giant Sequoia Groves...... 114 Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities ...... 124 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ...... 135 Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species ...... 143 Air Quality...... 158 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 172 Guiding Regulations and Policies...... 172 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 172 Areas of Impact Analysis ...... 172 River Protection Measures Common to All Alternatives ...... 173 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 176 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 178 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 180 Impacts of Alternative C...... 182 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 184 Backcountry / Wilderness ...... 187 Guiding Regulations and Policies...... 187 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 187 Regional Context ...... 188 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 188 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 190 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 191 Impacts of Alternative C...... 192 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 193 Cultural Resources ...... 195 Guiding Regulations and Policies...... 195 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 196 Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes ...... 197 Archeological Resources ...... 220 Ethnographic Resources and Landscapes...... 228

iv Contents

Museum Collections and Archives...... 233 Transportation ...... 238 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 238 Carrying Capacity Estimates ...... 240 Impact Definitions and Intensities ...... 243 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 244 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 248 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 251 Impacts of Alternative C...... 253 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 256 Visitor Experience...... 260 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 260 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 261 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 268 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 276 Impacts of Alternative C...... 282 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 288 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land ...... 295 Guiding Regulations and Policy ...... 295 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 295 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 296 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 300 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 305 Impacts of Alternative C...... 308 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 312 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities ...... 317 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 317 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 317 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 321 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 324 Impacts of Alternative C...... 327 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 331 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 335 Methodology for Analyzing Impacts...... 335 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...... 336 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ...... 338 Impacts of Alternative A ...... 341 Impacts of Alternative C...... 344 Impacts of Alternative D ...... 346 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...... 350 The No-Action Alternative...... 350 The Preferred Alternative ...... 350 Alternative A ...... 351 Alternative C ...... 352 Alternative D ...... 352 Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity...... 354 The No-Action Alternative...... 354 The Preferred Alternative ...... 354 Alternative A ...... 354

v CONTENTS

Alternative C ...... 354 Alternative D ...... 354 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...... 355 The No-Action Alternative...... 355 The Preferred Alternative ...... 355 Alternative A ...... 355 Alternatives C and D ...... 356 Consultation and Coordination...... 357 Public Involvement History...... 357 Native American Consultations...... 358 Agencies Consulted ...... 359 Ongoing Informational Briefings ...... 359 List of Recipients...... 360

APPENDIXES, GLOSSARY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, PREPARERS, INDEX Appendix A: Laws and Executive Orders ...... 365 Appendix B: Mission Goals for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks ...... 366 Appendix C: Cultural Resources in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks...... 370 Appendix D: Native American Consultations...... 373 Appendix E: Water and Wastewater Use ...... 381 Appendix F: Choosing by Advantages...... 385 Glossary...... 389 Selected Bibliography ...... 393 Preparers and Consultants ...... 407 Index: Volume 2...... 409

vi Contents

Figures

Figure 1: Air Quality Stations in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks ...... 23 Figure 2: Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) ...... 47 Figure 3: Average Seasonal Daily Traffic: Friday–Sunday ...... 49 Figure 4: Average Visits by Month to Sequoia and Kings Canyon — 1992–2001 ...... 58 Figure 5: Actual and Projected Use — Kings Canyon National Park...... 61 Figure 6: Actual and Project Use — ...... 61 Figure 7: Backcountry Overnight Stays — 1992–2001 ...... 64

Tables

Table 1: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species...... 17 Table 2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 20 Table 3: Fresno and Tulare County Attainment Status ...... 21 Table 4: Estimated Annual Emissions from Stationary Sources ...... 21 Table 5: Vehicle Lengths ...... 51 Table 6: Vehicle Classifications...... 51 Table 7: High-Accident Roadway Segments, 1/1/1990 to 12/31/1993 ...... 53 Table 8: High-Accident Intersections...... 53 Table 9: Summary of Annual Visitation ...... 57 Table 10: Summary of Trails...... 63 Table 11: Summary of Lodging Available in 2000...... 66 Table 12: Summary of Visitor Facilities ...... 67 Table 13: Staffing Summary 2001 ...... 72 Table 14: Summary of Vehicular Parking Areas ...... 76 Table 15: Summary of NPS Facilities ...... 76 Table 16: Summary of Residential Facilities in the Parks...... 77 Table 17: Summary of Concession and Private Facilities...... 78 Table 18: Population ...... 80 Table 19: Total Personal Income...... 80 Table 20: Per Capita Personal Income ...... 81 Table 21: Earnings by Industry (1999)...... 81 Table 22: Employment by Industry (1997) ...... 82 Table 23: Unemployment Rates ...... 82 Table 24: Estimated Percent of People of All Ages in Poverty...... 82 Table 25: Local Property Taxes ...... 83 Table 26: Effects on Populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — No-Action Alternative ...... 144 Table 27: Effects on Populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Preferred Alternative ...... 148 Table 28: Effects on Populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Alternative A ...... 150 Table 29: Effects on Populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Alternative C...... 153 Table 30: Effects on Populations of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Alternative D ...... 155

vii CONTENTS

Table 31: Summary of Peak-Season Daily Vehicle Volume Estimates for the Air Quality Analysis ...... 158 Table 32: Emission Factors and Calculations ...... 159 Table 33: Projected Automobile Emissions — No-Action Alternative ...... 161 Table 34: Projected Automobile Emissions — Preferred Alternative / Alternative C...... 164 Table 35: Projected Automobile Emissions — Alternative A ...... 166 Table 36: Projected Automobile Emissions — Alternative D ...... 169 Table 37: Wild and Scenic River Segments and Outstandingly Remarkable Values ...... 174 Table 38: Summary of Areas Compatible as Designated Wilderness under Each Alternative ...... 189 Table 39: Traffic Growth Assumptions from the 1998 Visitor Use Study ...... 240 Table 40: Roadway Carrying Capacity for Selected Segments...... 241 Table 41: Summary of Peak-Season Daily Vehicle Volume Estimates ...... 241 Table 42: Roadway Carrying Capacity for Grant Grove Road Segments — No-Action Alternative ...... 245 Table 43: Roadway Carrying Capacity for Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Road Segments — No-Action Alternative ...... 246 Table 44: Summary of Management Zones by Alternative ...... 262

viii The Affected Environment

1 2 Ecosystem Stressors

The Ecosystem Project (SNEP 1980; Stephenson 1994). Today more area is 1996) and decades of research in Sequoia and dominated by dense intermediate-aged forest Kings Canyon National Parks have identified patches, and less by young patches (Bonnicksen five important systemic stressors to park eco­ and Stone 1978, 1982; Stephenson 1987). systems: Perhaps most importantly, dead material has accumulated, causing an unprecedented buildup • loss of pre-Euro-American fire regimes of surface fuels (Agee et al. 1978; van • introduced species Wagtendonk 1985). One of the most immediate • air pollution consequences of these changes is an increased hazard of wildfires sweeping through the mixed- • habitat fragmentation conifer forests with a severity that was rarely • rapid anthropogenic climatic change encountered in pre-Euro-American times (Kilgore and Sando 1975; Stephens 1995, 1998). While these stressors all interact in complex ways, it is worth noting that, if projections are Lack of fire also reduced habitat critical for correct, climatic change could both exacerbate certain wildlife species. The number and extent and dominate all other stressors in importance in of forest openings was reduced without fire, the coming decades. The following description causing a reduction of key herbaceous and shrub of stressors is from the Natural and Cultural species, particularly nitrogen fixers such as Resources Management Plan (NPS 1999d). Ceanothus (Bonnicksen and Stone 1982). Wildlife that depend on these plants, such as deer, now have less habitat available to them. LOSS OF PRE-EURO-AMERICAN FIRE Black-backed woodpeckers declined in the REGIMES absence of fresh fire-created snags. Rodents are also less abundant in areas within these parks Between 1891 and 1967 all fires in Sequoia, where fire has been excluded (Harold Werner, General Grant, and Kings Canyon National NPS, unpublished data), almost certainly leading Parks were suppressed, with a fair degree of to a reduction in the carnivore populations that success. This lack of fire resulted in important depend on them. ecosystem changes. A buildup of dense vege­ Beginning in 1968, the parks began an aggres­ tation along foothill streams and in their upper sive prescribed fire program to reestablish fire in catchments reduced annual streamflow in the the parks’ ecosystems. This program has made foothills, probably to the detriment of aquatic great strides in restoring giant sequoia groves, communities. and considerable progress in other mixed-conifer The consequences of fire exclusion have been forest stands. However, after more than 30 characterized best in the mixed-conifer zone. years, the parks still are far from restoring Both stream chemistry (Williams and Melack natural fire regimes to the entire park landscape 1997) and stream flow (Ralph Moore, NPS, (Caprio and Graber 2000). The inability of the unpublished data) in the mixed-conifer zone parks to maintain a natural fire regime continues were altered by the lack of fire, with unknown to result in changes to the nature of the parks’ consequence for aquatic ecosystems. Giant vegetation, aquatic ecosystems, and wildlife sequoia reproduction, which in the past de­ populations. pended on frequent fires to expose mineral soil and open gaps in the forest canopy, effectively ceased, and reproduction of other shade- intolerant species was reduced (Harvey et al.

3 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCED SPECIES At lower elevations within the parks, domestic species (especially cats) and other nonnative Hundreds of introduced species have become wildlife periodically establish themselves. These established within the parks, and invasions are animals compete with native wildlife for ongoing. More than 120 nonnative vascular resources. Nonnative bullfrogs now occupy low- plant species are known within park boundaries, elevation streams, threatening the future of the and new ones are discovered yearly. Plant western pond turtle (a California species of invasions have severely altered some park special concern) in the parks by preying on their ecosystems. For example, about 99% of the young. Wild descendants of domestic pigs could herbaceous biomass in foothills grasslands is become a major threat to native vegetation. due to introduced species (Parsons and Portions of Sequoia National Park have been Stohlgren 1989), potentially affecting soil water severely grazed in the recent past by trespass dynamics, stressing native species, and perhaps cattle and now harbor numerous introduced increasing the probability of invasion by plants. Human developments in the parks particularly noxious species, such as the star (especially residential areas and pack stations) thistle (Gerlach, in review). have created conditions suitable for significant numbers of brown-headed cowbirds, which are Blister rust, an exotic fungus that attacks white nest parasites that attack rare native songbird pines, is reducing the number of sugar pines in species. the parks and may effectively eliminate this species from the ecosystem over time. Sugar pine is one of the most important food sources AIR POLLUTION for seed-eating animals in the mixed-conifer zone, and the potential consequences of its Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks decline are largely unknown. Additionally, new periodically experience some of the worst air and destructive exotic pathogens, such as pine quality in the United States (Peterson and pitch canker, have become established in Arbaugh 1992; Cahill et al. 1996). Perhaps the California, and some seem likely to invade the most damaging pollutant is ozone. Ozone- parks in the future. sensitive individuals of ponderosa and Jeffrey pines show extensive foliar injury at present Even before the parks were created, humans ozone levels (Peterson and Arbaugh 1992; moved fish into waters that were originally Duriscoe and Stolte 1992; Stolte et al. 1992; barren of fish and also introduced new species. Miller 1996). Compared to ozone-resistant As a result, most aquatic communities above individuals, ozone-sensitive pines have lower 7,000 feet have been altered, some severely photosynthetic rates, lose their needles earlier, (Knapp 1996). Impacts have included a decline and have diminished annual ring growth (Miller in both native invertebrate and vertebrate 1996). In contrast to pines, mature giant species, with the precipitous decline of the sequoias seem to be relatively resistant to mountain yellow-legged frog being one of the present ozone levels (Miller et al. 1994). most notable (Bradford 1989; Bradford et al. However, newly emerged sequoia seedlings are 1993; Knapp and Matthews 2000). (Other more vulnerable to ozone injury (Miller et al. factors, such as airborne pesticides, are also 1994; Miller 1996). likely contributors to the decline of the frog.) Additional damage has been caused by hybridi­ Research in southern California suggests that zation. For example, the Little Kern golden trout chronic ozone pollution can lead to shifts in was almost lost due to hybridization with intro­ forest structure and composition (Miller 1973). duced rainbow trout, and the status of the Kern If ozone concentrations in the Sierra Nevada rainbow remains to be determined. Native remain relatively constant into the future, they rainbow trout genotypes were contaminated by may affect the genetic composition of pine and genotypes from other geographic areas. sequoia seedling populations, and significantly

4 Ecosystem Stressors: Habitat Fragmentation contribute to increased death rates and decreased precipitation as high as 6,300 feet (1,920 meters) recruitment of ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine (Zabik and Seiber 1993). Other synthetic chem­ (Miller 1996). Ponderosa/Jeffrey pines are icals (such as chlorinated hydrocarbons) drifting important species ecologically in Sequoia and into the parks can have estrogenic or other Kings Canyon. Increased damage due to ozone effects as hormonal imitators. They can cause will cause a reduction in basal area, alter nutrient changes in wildlife reproductive capacity, cycling patterns, change landscape stability, and longevity, intelligence, and behavior, or can lead affect the fire susceptibility of forest ecosystems to cancer or mutations. in the parks. The effects of chronic ozone pollution on other species are less well known. While studies have not yet been conducted to establish cause-and-effect links between syn­ High elevation lakes and streams in the parks are thetic chemical drift into the parks and effects on very dilute and potentially sensitive to human- park ecosystems, circumstantial evidence sug­ induced acid deposition. While chronic gests that such effects may be occurring. For acidification is not now a problem, episodic example, the parks’ peregrine falcon aerie at depression of acid-neutralizing capacity occurs has never produced offspring. during snowmelt (Melack and Sickman 1995; Additionally, the foothill yellow-legged frog Melack et al. 1998), and episodic acidification completely disappeared from these parks in the occurs during rainstorms in summer and early 1970s. The frog is much more common on the fall (Stohlgren and Parsons 1987). If acid opposite side of the San Joaquin Valley (in the deposition increases in the future, episodic foothills of the Coast Range), upwind from acidification will become more frequent, likely pesticide drift. Synthetic chemical drift may also altering aquatic communities. be playing a role in the ongoing decline in mountain yellow-legged frogs in these parks The deposition of atmospheric nitrogen in park (Fellers, unpublished data), although other watersheds has been increasing slowly (Lynch et factors, such as fish introductions, are also al. 1995). However, there has been a decrease in contributing. dissolved nitrogen leaving watersheds (Melack et al. 1998). These changes parallel a shift in the phytoplankton community of the heavily studied HABITAT FRAGMENTATION Emerald Lake, from one dominated by phos­ phorus limitation to one dominated by nitrogen Intensifying land use and population growth on limitation. Mixed-conifer watersheds in Giant lands adjacent to the national parks are turning Forest have also shown net retention of nitrogen, the parks into biological islands, which will with stream concentrations often below make the ecosystems significantly more difficult detection limits (Williams and Melack 1997). to preserve with their biodiversity intact. Several The consequences of increased nitrogen species have either already disappeared from deposition and retention on terrestrial plant this part of the Sierra Nevada or survive in very communities are unknown, but studies are small numbers (e.g., black-tailed hare, foothill underway. yellow-legged frog, California condor), most likely as a result of habitat loss on adjacent lands Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are that leaves park habitat insufficient to support downwind of one of the most productive agri­ metapopulations over the long term (Graber cultural areas in the world, the San Joaquin 1996). There is a loss of stopover points and Valley, where tons of pesticides are applied to wintering grounds for migrating species. This crops every year (Department of Pesticide Regu­ problem is most serious for foothills species, lation 1999). Pesticides that become volatilized including seasonal residents, because most or suspended in the atmosphere as particulates adjacent lands are privately held and substan­ drift into the parks on prevailing winds. Conse­ tially altered through development, grazing, quently, organophosphates have been found in agriculture, hydrological diversions, exotic

5 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT plants and animals (including pets and feral boundaries. As a consequence, how these animals), and altered fire regimes. animals are managed outside the parks affects the age structure and abundance of populations The mostly public coniferous forested lands to within the parks. It is also likely that the the north and south of the parks have been unhunted park populations are a reservoir of altered by timber harvest, grazing, water diver­ source material for hunted and less dense sions, introduced species, and loss of natural fire populations outside these parks. regimes, although to a much lesser extent than the foothills. The decline of forest wildlife populations in the region, including wolverine, RAPID ANTHROPOGENIC fisher, and red fox, as well as some bat and owl CLIMATIC CHANGE species, has been attributed to forest structural changes by many authorities (DeSante 1995; Average global temperature has been rising in Graber 1996). Fishers — which once occurred this century, and the world is now warmer than throughout the Sierra Nevada and whose at any point during the last several centuries populations were continuous with those in the (Mann et al. 1998). Internationally, climatolo­ Pacific Northwest — today are isolated from gists and atmospheric scientists generally agree other populations, so opportunities for gene flow that at least part of this warming is due to are now absent. human-caused increases in atmospheric green­ The loss of natural fire regimes and introduced house gases (Houghton et al. 1996). Global plants and animals within as well as outside the temperatures are projected to rise by another 1.0 parks’ foothill zone may be exacerbating this to 3.5°C (2 to 6°F) over the next century regional problem. For example, eastern bullfrogs (Houghton et al. 1996). Much uncertainty — which have benefited from water impound­ surrounds the details of how global climatic ments near the parks — may be an important change will manifest itself locally in the Sierra predator on young western pond turtles, while Nevada. European predatory brown trout and the over- The paleoecological record is one of the best shading of foothills streams as a result of fire tools for understanding the possible magnitude suppression may have led to the extirpation of of biotic changes resulting from future climatic the foothill yellow-legged frog (pesticides may changes. About 10,000 to 4,500 years ago global also have played a role). Settlement outside the summertime temperatures were perhaps up to parks prevents the re-establishment of the 2°C higher than now, with prolonged summer extirpated grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) because a drought in California. Both the species composi­ durable population requires more low-elevation tion and fire regimes of Sierran forests were habitat than can be provided by the national quite different from those of today (Anderson parks. 1990, 1994; Anderson and Smith 1991, 1994, Along the crest of the Sierra Nevada, domestic 1997). For example, forests growing on sites grazing on public lands east of the crest formerly now occupied by sequoia groves were much threatened the reestablishment of healthy popu­ more heavily dominated by pines, including lations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis lodgepole (which no longer occur in sequoia canadensis ssp. nova) in and adjacent to the groves; R. Anderson 1994). Firs were less parks, leading to their endangerment. This is an abundant than today, and sequoias were quite example of functional habitat fragmentation. rare (R. Anderson 1994; Anderson and Smith Bighorn are now recovering slowly. 1994), probably existing only along creek and meadow edges where present groves exist. Animals that routinely cross the park boundaries These and other paleoecological records clearly (e.g., deer, bear, and band-tailed pigeons) indicate that climatic changes smaller than or become legal game species once outside the comparable to those projected for the next

6 Ecosystem Stressors: Rapid Anthropogenic Climatic Change century may profoundly alter Sierran Most Sierran habitats will likely shift to higher ecosystems. elevations. Organisms with limited mobility may become extinct locally. For example, subfossil Increasing temperature will probably result in records from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition higher snow lines, earlier snowmelt, and pro­ in the Grand Canyon (spanning a global warm­ longed summer droughts (Vaux 1991). Without ing comparable in magnitude to that expected increased precipitation, perennial streams could over the next century) indicate that rapid habitat dry out during the summer. In forested eco­ displacement due to climatic change can lead to systems, there could be a widespread and con­ several millennia of depressed species diversity tinuing failure in the reproduction of certain (Cole 1985). Finally, some habitats, such as high species, such as giant sequoia, whose seedlings alpine habitats, are likely to disappear entirely, are highly vulnerable to drought (Harvey et al. leading to the irreversible loss of some species. 1980; Mutch 1994). Death rates would likely increase among adult trees as drought stress Rapid anthropogenic climatic change has the made them more vulnerable to insects, potential to become the greatest stressor on the pathogens, and air pollution. ecosystems of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Climatic change undoubtedly Global warming is also likely to increase the will interact with other stressors, with unex­ probability of destructive wildfires in the Sierra pected consequences. While there is little that Nevada. Models predict that global warming park managers can do to prevent global warm­ will be accompanied by increased lightning ing, they can take some steps to mitigate impacts strikes (Price and Rind 1991), and extreme on park ecosystems. For example, the resilience weather conditions are likely to make individual of forests to climatic change and consequent fires burn more total area, be more severe, and extreme wildfire behavior can be increased by escape containment more frequently (Torn and restoring a more open structure to the forests, Fried 1992; Miller and Urban 1999). which reduced both competition and fire intensity.

Air Pollution at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

7 Natural Resources

Kings Canyon National Park encompasses the The two parks contain some of the most exten­ upper foothills and the subalpine and alpine sive and least impacted caves in the western region that forms the headwaters of the South United States. Lilburn Cave is the most exten­ and Middle Forks of the Kings River and the sive cave in California, with over 17 miles of South Fork of the . These measured passages. A total of more than 30 rivers have extensive and spectacular glacial miles of cave passages have been documented in canyons. Both the Kings Canyon and Tehipite the parks’ caves. The caves contain many en­ Valley are glacial “Yosemites” — deeply demic invertebrates, several bat species, very incised glacial gorges with relatively flat floors unusual mineral deposits, and rare calcite spele­ and towering granite cliffs thousands of feet othems (cave features such as helictites, stalac­ high. To the east of the canyons are the high tites, and curtains). Invertebrates that reside in peaks of the Sierra Crest, culminating in 14,242- the caves are largely cave adapted and mostly foot North Palisade, the highest point in Kings endemic to a single valley, cave, or even room. Canyon National Park. This is classic high Sierra country — barren alpine ridges and Many caves are in isolated areas and are not well glacially scoured, lake-filled basins. known to the general public. Crystal Cave is the only cave now open to guided cave tours, and Sequoia National Park lies south of Kings improvements have been made to facilitate Canyon. The park rises from the low western visitation and resource protection (e.g., paved foothills to the crest of the Sierra at 14,495-foot- walkways, lighting, railings). high , the highest point in the lower 48 states. The is a north-south ridge that runs through the middle of Stressors the park. Peaks in the vicinity of the divide rise as high as 13,802 feet. The eastern half of the Crystal Cave and Clough Cave (which was park consists of the alpine headwaters of the formerly commercialized) contain extensive North Fork of the Kern River, the glacial trench areas of disturbance from trail construction and of Kern Canyon, and the Sierra Crest, which blasting, which have created unnatural habitats, runs north-south and forms the eastern boundary altered microclimates, and broken fragile cave of the park. features. Other alterations in Crystal Cave include the effects of artificial lighting. Moss, algae, and even grasses are growing near lights CAVES along the cave tour route. The presence of this unnatural flora can alter habitats for cave- Description adapted animals. Anthropogenic lint and dust accumulations may be negative impacts in More than 200 caves and at least 75 active karst several park caves, including Crystal, Soldiers, systems are known within Sequoia and Kings and Clough. Local lints create acidic solutions Canyon National Parks. Karst systems that may alter habitat and damage cave surfaces. (subterranean stream systems), which have Lint is often deposited adjacent to trails, but may formed primarily along the five forks of the also be left behind by recreational cavers. Dust , are a major contributor to and may be deposited dozens of feet away from an potential groundwater storehouse for all five area of disturbance, altering the appearance of forks. The karst hydrology that creates caves cave surfaces and surficial habitats. Restoration feeds surface springs that have allowed has begun on some caves, including Crystal, extensive riparian areas to form. Clough, and Soldiers.

8 Natural Resources: Water Resources

Recreational use of other park caves continues to supplies many meadows, seeps, springs, creeks, grow slowly. Currently several hundred people and perennial streams. per year visit park caves. Past damage from human use includes broken speleothems, tram­ pled invertebrates, compacted soils, sediment Stressors transport on clothes, litter, deposits of toxic spent carbide, and the alteration of airflow and Water withdrawals not only decrease waterflows microclimates due to human modification of downstream, but also reduce the variability of cave passages. the system’s hydrograph. This in turn can affect downstream riparian or meadow vegetation and sequoia groves (see related impact topics), as WATER RESOURCES well as the habitat available to aquatic communi­ ties. Water is diverted to feed electrical generat­ ing systems and to supply water to support park Hydrology development and use.

Description Kaweah hydroelectric plant no. 3, which began operations in 1907, is on the Middle Fork of the The four large river systems with headwaters Kaweah River just outside Sequoia National within the parks are the North Fork of the Kern Park. Water is drawn from the Middle and River, the five Forks of the Kaweah River, the Marble Forks by means of a diversion dam on South and Middle Forks of the Kings River, and each fork and flumes, diverting up to 100 cubic the South Fork of the San Joaquin River. Surface feet per second (the average is 30 cfs) from the water occurs primarily as rivers and streams at river. No minimum release requirements existed lower elevations, with a greater occurrence of prior to 1964, sometimes resulting in diversion lakes and ponds at higher elevations. The of 100% of river flow. In 1964 seasonal mini­ quantity of surface flow follows an annual cycle, mum release requirements were established for with the lowest flows typically occurring in both forks combined. These requirements pre­ August and the highest flows in May or June. vent diversions from occurring when the com­ Spring flows are primarily snowmelt from bined flows decrease below seasonal minimum glaciers and snowpack at higher elevations; by levels. In 1974 seasonal minimum release re­ late August, the source is primarily groundwater. quirements were further distributed into percent­ Annual flows vary considerably. The largest ages for each fork. Today, the combined river streams produce peak flows of about 82,000 flow at the driest point in the year is reduced to liters per second (l/sec), which decrease to about 11 cfs, which can be as little as 10% of the 1,500 to 2,500 l/sec during August. natural flow. In addition to the dams and flumes, there are four gaging stations, a siphon crossing Groundwater is common in alluvial deposits in the Middle Fork, and a cable crossing with meadows and wherever decomposed or fractured concrete abutments. The Kaweah no. 1 generat­ granite is suitable to form an aquifer. Precipita­ ing facility (which dates from 1899), draws its tion appears adequate to recharge the ground­ water below the park, but uses four storage dams water, but the actual quantity of stored water in above Mineral King on Upper Monarch, Lower aquifers is unpredictable. Rainfall and melting Crystal, Lower , and Eagle Lakes. These snow tend to rapidly infiltrate weathered and dams store a total of 500 acre-feet. The dams are fractured rock. Even in areas of relatively solid designed to produce a more even flow in the rock, runoff tends to channel into the nearest East Fork of the Kaweah. fractures and crevices. These characteristics mean that much of the streamflow is a result of Most of the water consumed in the parks comes interflow, or shallow groundwater movement, from surface sources such as streams and rather than direct surface runoff. Groundwater springs. There are a few shallow wells with good

9 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT water, but one of the deeper foothills wells Stressors contains sulfur and arsenic and is not potable. The status of the water systems, water source The primary threats to water quality are air production capacities, and water consumption pollution, loss of natural fire, runoff from park throughout the parks are detailed in appendix E. facilities, and runoff from heavy visitor use areas in the backcountry. The single biggest Facilities such as roads, culverts, and buildings threat is air pollution. Air pollution adds acidic also alter the local hydrology and drainages in deposition, nutrients, and other contaminants to scattered locations throughout the park’s park waters (Cory et al. 1970; Melack et al. developed areas or road corridors. 1985, 1995; Sickman and Melack 1989; Williams and Melack 1991; Zabik and Seiber 1993). Fire affects nutrients, buffering capacity, Water Quality water temperature, sediment transport rates, and other water characteristics. Park facilities Description generate sewage effluent. Monitoring of the sprayfields at Red Fir and the former facility at Surface waters in the parks contain concentra­ detected elevated nutrients and tions of dissolved constituents that are so dilute conductivity in adjacent streams that extended as that the electrical conductivities are very low. much as 1.3 kilometers downstream during low- Alpine lakes and streams are generally below 20 flow conditions. In addition to sewage effluent, microSiemens per centimeter (µs/cm), and nonpoint pollution sources, such as recreational sometimes approach 2 µs/cm, the conductivity activities, roads, and parking lots, can contribute of distilled water. One consequence of such pure biological, physical, and chemical pollutants into water is that it is poorly buffered (limited ability aquatic systems. to absorb water chemistry changes or additions), making the ecosystem sensitive to human disturbance and pollution. Ion concentrations do Floodplains increase as elevation decreases. Conductivities may exceed 100 µs/cm when the rivers reach the Floodplains for most of the parks’ watersheds park boundary. This is partially because marble, have not been mapped. However, much of the schist, and other metamorphic rocks add signifi­ parks encompass steep, upper watersheds that cant dissolved constituents, forming a band would limit the extent of floodplains. Of the along much of the western portion of these parks parks’ major developed areas, Lodgepole, Cedar and at several other scattered locations. Grove, and Mineral King are potentially subject to flooding from larger streams. Peak spring Surface water is also very clear, with turbidities runoff, fed by melting snowpack, typically generally well under 0.5 nephelometric turbidity occurs in late spring through early summer. unit (NTU), though meadow water may exceed Winter flooding is associated with heavy warm 1.0 NTU. The waters are oligotrophic. Nutrients rains falling on snowpack and is characterized like phosphate or nitrate are generally less than by a large volume of runoff occurring in a 40 µg/l and ammonia is generally undetectable. relatively short time frame. Except for mineral springs, thermal springs, and some meadows, the water is normally saturated The Marble Fork runs through the Lodgepole with oxygen (6.8–8.8 mg/l) and generally quite area. From the developed area to its headwaters, cold (8o–16oC). The pH is normally slightly the Marble Fork drains approximately 8,510 acidic, but varies from about 5.5 to 8.5, and acres. The stream has a history of flooding in the some sites exceed those extremes. Park surface Lodgepole area. Annual spring floods from waters contain some biota (i.e., Giardia lamblia, snowmelt rise approximately 5 feet above the Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium) that can be summertime stream level. Midwinter floods, harmful if consumed. which are the largest, have damaged campsites

10 Natural Resources: Soils and Vegetation within 100 feet of the stream (NPS 1982). No of habitat types and conditions that range from buildings occur within the 100-year floodplain xeric low-elevation oak woodlands to high- in the Lodgepole area. Campgrounds with sites elevation alpine communities. Within elevation in floodplain areas are being redesigned to and precipitation bands, an additional complex remove those sites prone to flooding. of species and communities exists that is affected by relatively static physical influences, Cedar Grove is in a relatively broad portion of such as aspect, slope position, soils, and the the lower valley of the South Fork of the Kings effects of past glacial action. Dynamic pro­ River. No buildings exist within the 100-year cesses, such as variable moisture regimes and floodplain, although a portion of the Sentinel fire, also affect these species and communities. campground loop closest to the river is within the floodplain, as are sections of roads within the Extensive tracts of Sierran mixed-conifer forest, canyon. generally at altitudes between 5,000 and 9,000 feet, covers much of the southern Sierra and The only NPS facility within the 100-year consists primarily of fir (white and red), mixed floodplain at Mineral King is a small segment of conifer (fir and various pine), montane chaparral the Cold Spring campground, and a large (green-leaf manzanita), and montane meadows. segment is within the 500-year floodplain. Flood On surrounding lands, the great majority of this hazards are considered small due to low flows forest zone has been managed for multiple use. during the peak visitor use season. In addition, As a result, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National the probability of a large flash flood is low Parks now contain the largest remaining old- because of the size and nature of the drainage growth forest in the southern Sierra. Below the basin. Flows for the 100-year flood in the conifer forest (in the western portions of the vicinity of the campground would be approxi­ Sierra), various plant communities and environ­ mately 1,000 cfs and 6 feet above the river ments constitute the foothill region. There is bottom. very little land within this natural zone in Kings Canyon; but the lower canyons of the forks of the Kaweah River include extensive foothill SOILS AND VEGETATION lands in Sequoia National Park. This environ­ ment, which is typified by deciduous woodland Description (blue and black oak, north slope), evergreen hardwoods (canyon and interior live oak), Igneous rocks of Mesozoic origins (granite and chaparral (mixed and chamise), and deciduous its relatives) underlie the majority of the two riparian forest (alder and sycamore), covers parks, but extensive bands of Paleozoic meta­ much of lowland central California outside the morphic beds also occur. Within the latter, caves parks. Privately held lands cover much of the and beds of marble are common. Soils are foothills, which have been altered by timber derived from the two general igneous and harvest, grazing, agriculture, mining, develop­ metamorphic rock types, glacial debris, and ment, water diversions, loss of fire regime, and alluvium. Sierran soils tend to be shallow and recreational use, as well as regional population young, showing little development. They also growth and air pollution. tend to have high infiltration rates. Surface erosion is relatively low because infiltration The remainder of Sequoia and Kings Canyon rates are generally greater than rainfall or National Parks, most of which is above 9,000 snowmelt rates, and water is absorbed into the feet in elevation, can be described as “high soil. Sierra.” This environment covers nearly as much acreage as the two parks’ other environments Native plant communities within the parks are combined. It is a spectacular land of rugged, ice- comprised of over 1,200 vascular plant species. sculptured alpine ridges and sparsely wooded, Extreme topographic differences create a variety lake-filled basins. Alpine and subalpine areas

11 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT contain pine (foxtail, whitebark, and lodgepole), areas of the park through focused inventory juniper, wet and dry meadows, alpine tundra, efforts. Habitats most likely to harbor exotic fell fields, and lichens. species include riparian corridors, developed areas, roads and trails, pack stations, campgrounds, abandoned settlements, sewer Stressors sprayfields, and other disturbed areas.

The use, maintenance, and management of park While past human activity has altered and facilities affect only a small area and do not shaped the native vegetation resource at the contribute to widespread destruction of soils landscape scale, visitor and administrative uses within the parks. Localized impacts such as affect the vegetation on a local scale. Develop­ compaction and erosion result from visitor use ments such as campgrounds and lodges require and development and are the major stressors. the local environment to be modified for safety Inappropriately placed culverts, flume failures, and aesthetics. The maintenance and use of social trails, and new construction all contribute roads and trails have direct impacts and also to unnatural erosion. provide corridors for the introduction of new exotic species. Direct compaction and trampling Primary vegetation stressors include air pollu­ by visitors in high-use areas will modify local tion, historic loss of natural fire regime, possibly stand structure and composition over time. global warming, and invasion by exotic patho­ Grazing by pack and saddle stock in wilderness gens and plant species. Tropospheric ozone air meadows creates localized impacts to the native pollution has been observed to have an effect on vegetation, as well as provides a potential vector some sensitive species within the parks. Pon­ for the introduction of exotic plant species into derosa and Jeffrey pine are particularly sensitive. new areas. Off-trail hiking can create informal Surveys and studies on these species have shown social trails that lead to vegetation impacts. The that a small percentage of the population of each infrastructure that supports park developments, is significantly affected in the most severely such as the withdrawal of water and the dis­ polluted areas of the parks, resulting in reduced charge of wastewater, alter local to subwater­ vigor and increased susceptibility to other shed hydrology, change local species compo­ pathogens. Other less sensitive species include sition, and affect nutrient availability. the emergent seedlings of giant sequoia, black oak, mugwort, and blue elderberry. Visible symptoms of ozone injury have been observed Giant Sequoia Groves on these species within the parks, but no effect on their physiology has been shown. Successful Description fire suppression beginning in the late 1800s has significantly altered stand structure and species Sequoia trees do not grow continuously through composition throughout many of the parks’ the mixed-conifer forest belt, but rather in vegetation communities. The exotic pathogen, geographically limited areas called groves. In white pine blister rust, has had a significant the Sierra Nevada, the only present natural home effect on native white pines, particularly sugar of sequoias, the trees grow in about 75 separate pine and western white pine within the parks. A groves; about 37 of these groves are within the recent survey has shown the disease to be wide­ two parks. The parks contain roughly a third of spread, and in localized areas it has resulted in all the naturally occurring sequoias. the decline and mortality of a significant number of individual trees, especially saplings. The Most giant sequoia groves are managed as displacement of the native herbaceous compo­ integral to the surrounding ecosystem, and nent of the foothill vegetation communities by natural processes are allowed to shape the exotics has been virtually complete. Exotic communities. However, because of their long species have recently been detected in other life and immense size, individual sequoia trees

12 Natural Resources: Soils and Vegetation tend to generate strong emotional reactions and has inhibited giant sequoia reproduction, attachments from many visitors and admirers. A increased hazardous fuel accumulation, and number of large specimen trees have been changed the forest structure within the parks. imbued with additional significance by being Since the advent of ecologically based named (e.g., the General Grant tree which is management in the late 1960s, protection and also, by proclamation, the Nation’s Christmas management of natural grove conditions and Tree) or by their particular attributes (e.g., the fundamental natural processes have been tree, named and recognized as emphasized over strict protection of individual the largest living tree on earth). Due to the specimen trees. Natural processes such as fire strong social connections to certain specimen and native forest insect outbreaks have been trees (along with an assortment of sequoia snags, reintroduced or managed to preserve the groves’ stumps, and logs), such featured specimens are ecological integrity. Threats from damage by managed to perpetuate their condition and unusually severe wildfire have been reduced, appearance as substantially unchanged through and giant sequoia reproduction has been time. stimulated.

Degradation of regional air quality has several Stressors potential effects on the giant sequoias. In fumigation chamber experiments, high ozone Prior to their inclusion in the parks, some groves levels produced visible symptoms of damage in (Atwell, Big Stump, Dillonwood, Squirrel sequoia seedlings (Miller et al. 1994; Miller Creek, and Redwood Mountain) were partially 1996), though no significant difference was logged for commercial timber. Park develop­ found in short-term seedling survival. Long-term ments at Grant Grove, Atwell Mill, and Giant seedling mortality and differential genetic Forest were constructed in and among the selection due to the observed effects of air sequoia trees to provide direct visitor access to pollution are unknown, but these are possible the prime resource. In the 1980s the park began impact sources to sequoia groves (SNEP 1996). the process of removing overnight lodging and Ozone and other pollutants have been shown to other commercial facilities from the Giant Forest be factors in the decline of several tree species Grove. The project is expected to be substan­ that are part of the giant sequoia grove structure tially complete by 2005. Intensive commercial (ponderosa and Jeffrey pine) (SNEP 1996). and administrative developments exist at Grant Severe impacts to those species could result in Grove, and a campground development remains significantly altered grove conditions over time. in a second-growth portion of Atwell Grove. The 1,540-acre Dillonwood Grove, which was White pine blister rust has had a significant logged from the 1880s to the 1950s, contains effect on the native white pines, particularly both ancient, old-growth monarchs and sugar pine and western white pine within the extensive stands of second-growth forest. parks. Sugar pine is a major component of the giant sequoia groves’ forest structure, and the The park has long identified the loss of the Redwood Mountain and Atwell Groves display historic fire regime as a primary stressor and some of the most severe blister rust infections. threat to the integrity of the giant sequoia Active management of the sugar pine population groves. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project may be necessary to maintain its historic (SNEP 1996) identified the loss of the natural importance in the composition of these mixed fire regime as one of the dominant negative conifer forests. effects on the greater Sierran ecosystem. Frequent fire reduces competition for light and Direct impacts of visitor use include trampling water and prepares an ideal set of conditions and soil compaction in high-use areas; these necessary for giant sequoia reproduction. A impacts are usually confined to specific sites. history of fire suppression over the past century Indirect impacts, which occur as a result of the

13 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT development of visitor services and related and Deepwater Habitats of the United States support services, include the interception of (1979). According to this definition, a wetland natural fire ignitions by roads and trails through­ has at least one of three attributes: undrained out the giant sequoia groves. Indirect impacts hydric soils, predominantly hydrophytic vegeta­ are more widespread and difficult to detect and tion, or if the substrate is nonsoil, the area is manage. Another indirect impact includes the saturated with water or covered with shallow withdrawal of surface and subsurface water. water at some time during the growing season of Both surface and groundwater conditions are each year. The primary types of wetlands and important to the reproduction and maintenance deepwater habitats within the parks are of sequoias. High soil moisture availability in persistent palustrine emergent (wet meadows), well-drained soils is the primary factor that deciduous broad-leaved palustrine scrub-shrub determines the occurrence and extent of sequoia (primarily willow thickets), upper perennial groves. Park developments and inholdings at riverine (permanent rivers and streams), lacus­ Grant Grove and park developments at Atwell trine (lakes), open-water palustrine (ponds), and Mill use water from the grove hydrologic intermittent riverine (ephemeral streams). Many systems. A well supplies water at Atwell Mill. of the rivers and streams have riparian areas that NPS and concession facilities at Grant Grove are are either forested palustrine (e.g., alder) or supplied by water from four sources: deciduous broad-leaved palustrine scrub-shrub (e.g., spice bush) along their banks. • The primary source is an artesian well in Round Meadow, which drains into Abbott Riparian areas, lakes, and meadows occur Creek. This drainage is north of the Gen­ throughout the parks, although lakes and mead­ eral Grant Grove, and there is no known ows are primarily found in the mid- to upper- groundwater connection between Abbott elevations of the park. These communities Creek and the Mill Flat and Sequoia provide important habitat for populations of a Creek drainage systems. If rock fractures number of special status species, including that function as underground conduits amphibians, fish, and invertebrates (see the exist, then water from the Round Meadow “Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive may affect groundwater in the sequoia Species” section). They affect the quality, groves in the Mill Flat and Sequoia Creek quantity, and timing of streamflows. These drainages. ecosystems are also principal destinations for • Rona and Merritt Springs supply water recreation within the parks. and are part of the Sequoia Creek drainage. Meadows are among the most attractive and important natural resources within the parks. • The fourth source is a well in the Sequoia Less than 2% of the land base supports meadow Creek drainage. Inholdings in Wilsonia vegetation. Meadows are complex systems, also use wells located in this drainage. varying widely in character and composition (Benedict and Major 1982; Ratliff 1982). Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Although meadow vegetation is generally highly Communities productive and relatively resilient, meadow systems vary in their sensitivity to impacts and Description in their ability to recover. Meadows and their adjacent camp areas are frequently a principal Lakes, rivers, streams, and adjacent riparian destination for backcountry hikers and areas are classified as wetlands. Wet meadows horseback riders. Many, if not most, of the also fall into this category. The National Park grazed meadows contain flora, soils, and Service defines wetlands as any area classified hydrology associated with wetlands. as wetland habitat according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Classification of Wetlands

14 Natural Resources: Soils and Vegetation

Stressors after grazing. In systems dominated by herba­ ceous plants, adequate residue must be present Meadow, riparian, and aquatic communities can to protect soil surfaces and plants, to replenish all be directly affected by visitor impacts. the soil mulch and organic layers, and to trap Visitor-caused impacts on wetlands include and hold moisture [Neuman 1991].) Residual social trails around the edges of lakes that often biomass (production) and groundcover data are cut through the wetland meadows adjacent to collected at the end of the growing season from many lakes and ponds. In heavy use locations, approximately two dozen wilderness meadows upland areas adjacent to rivers are also im­ that consistently receive moderate to heavy use. pacted. Trampled streambanks are often associ­ These data provide NPS staff with short-term ated with swimming areas. How swimming and information on site conditions and allow for the wading affect benthic communities is unknown. development of minimum residual biomass Because streams undergo constant natural standards for grazed meadows in the long term. disturbance, they are unlikely to be damaged by These standards will then be used to establish visitor use. However, waders sometimes leave appropriate use levels that are directly tied to conspicuous scars on lake bottoms. Whether site conditions. Seven years of preliminary these effects are biological or just aesthetic is residual biomass data are currently being not known. analyzed to develop minimum standards that will allow managers to set limits on the amount Park regulations prohibit backcountry camping of use allowed during a given season. These in meadows. Since the 1980s a program has standards will ensure that adequate residual been undertaken to relocate trails outside matter remains on a site each year. sensitive meadows, further reducing direct hiker impacts on meadow vegetation. Wetlands are also impacted by trespass cattle. Cattle not only trample and defecate on the In some wilderness meadows a limited amount of edges of riparian wetlands, they heavily graze grazing by administrative and visitor pack and riparian sedges and other vegetation. Trespass saddle stock is allowed. This creates localized cattle have been seen grazing in the middle of impacts to native vegetation and wildlife, soils, the North Fork of the Kaweah. and water quality, and provides a potential vector for the introduction of exotic plant spe­ In a few areas, exotic wetland flora (Elodea sp.) cies. Some park meadows are permanently have apparently displaced the native benthic closed to stock because of heavy backpacker flora (Isoetes sp.) that normally dominate the camping use, their small size, research purposes, parks’ lake bottoms. Today, these sites are or relative sensitivity to grazing impacts. Stock structurally and floristically very different from animals are permitted in other areas, but feed what should be there (e.g., Rae Lakes). must be packed in. All park meadows open to grazing are subject to seasonal opening dates, Fire has an important influence on wetlands. which are determined according to soil moisture During severe fire conditions, fires will push conditions as predicted by May snowpack. In through riparian areas, completely altering the most park meadows, reduced levels of use and structure and function of the vegetation and increased minimum impact awareness among temporarily influencing the composition of stock users has led to a general improvement in future species. During drought conditions, fires site conditions since the 1970s and 1980s. sometimes burn the organic soils, causing long- term changes to the wetland community struc­ Residual biomass monitoring is a central com­ ture and species composition. In moist condi­ ponent of wilderness meadow management at tions, wetlands serve as barriers to the spread of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. fire, but fire influences the wetlands by liberat­ (Residual biomass refers to the amount of ing nutrients, altering sediment loads, and aboveground plant material present in a meadow changing hydrologic yield.

15 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

WILDLIFE Stressors

Description Terrestrial wildlife are affected by landscape level stressors, including Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are • ecological impacts from exotic species known to include 264 native vertebrate terres­ trial species, and an additional 25 species may • changes in the species composition and be present. Of the native vertebrates, five species abundance due to the altered fire regime have been extirpated, and 126 are rare or • bioaccumulation of contaminants uncommon. The 264 terrestrial vertebrates • isolation and fragmentation of some include 5 species of amphibians, 21 species of species due to differences in land-use reptiles, 168 species of birds, and 70 species of practices on adjacent lands mammals. Other effects to wildlife occur from conflicts Few studies of terrestrial invertebrates have been with visitor use, changes to the natural conducted. The most extensive work is the distribution and abundance of native species due ongoing collection at the end of the flume on the to park developments, and anthropogenic Middle Fork of the Kaweah River. Many of the mortality (both accidental and by poaching). parks’ caves are known to contain invertebrates. While the taxonomic work on cave fauna is The primary threats to native aquatic wildlife incomplete, the available information shows include competition and genetic introgression high levels of endemism, with some species from exotic species, and predation. Thirteen being restricted to a single cave. vertebrate species have been introduced to the parks’ aquatic environments, and at least nine For purposes of distinguishing aquatic fauna have become established. At least one aquatic from terrestrial fauna, aquatic wildlife species invertebrate and several plants have been intro­ are defined as those that depend on occupying duced into park waters. There is also a serious either lentic or lotic environments for all or concern about the introduction of contaminants, portions of their lives. These species may be especially biocides and pollutants from internal- either fully aquatic or amphibious. Aquatic combustion engines. Some native aquatic wildlife does not include species that frequent species are declining. There has been some wetlands or deepwater habitats but that are not anthropogenic alteration of aquatic habitats and dependent on those environments (e.g., Microtus harvest of fish. longicaudus). Of the vertebrates, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are known to have 45 native species that fit this definition, and an THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR additional 16 species may be present. Of the 45 SENSITIVE SPECIES native vertebrates, one species (Rana boylii) is extirpated, and 15 are rare or uncommon. The 45 vertebrate species include 5 fish, 7 amphibians, Description 1 reptile, 30 birds, and 2 mammals. While some The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists 2 studies of aquatic invertebrates have been con­ wildlife species in Sequoia and Kings Canyon as ducted (Abel 1977, 1984; Kubly 1983; Bradford threatened, 5 as endangered, and 39 as species of et al. 1998; Kratz et al. 1994; Stoddard 1987; concern (see Table 1). California lists 3 species Taylor and Erman 1980; Knapp and Matthews as threatened, 5 as endangered, and 36 as 2000), known invertebrates have not been protected, sensitive, or of concern. Three species compiled into a master list. The broad taxo­ are listed as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service. nomic groups studied include both benthic invertebrates (primarily aquatic insects) and zooplankton.

16 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species

Of over 1,400 species of vascular plants in the What is known is primarily derived from a single parks, no species are listed as federally threat- systematic survey conducted during the early ened or endangered, and only one, Tompkins’ 1980s (Norris and Brennan 1982), and more sedge (Carex tompkinsii) is listed by the state as localized surveys carried out in conjunction with rare. Little is known about the status and habitat major construction projects. requirements of this species within the two parks.

TABLE 1: THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES

Common Name Status Occurrence in the Parks Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared bat FSC, CSC Uncommon foothill resident. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Uncommon in the Sierra Nevada. Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Uncommon to rare resident at mid elevations. Bear, grizzly FT Extirpated from the Sierra Nevada. Beaver, mountain FSC, CSC Uncommon resident of montane riparian areas; ati ts southern extent of range in the Sierra Nevada. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Uncommon to rare resident in foothill hardwood and mixed coni fer zones. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Very rare resident to subalpine and alpine. May be extirpated. Hare, white-tailed CSC Uncommon resident of upper montane and subalpine areas. Marten FSS Same as above. Myotis, fringed FSC Widely distributed in the Sierra Nevada. Myotis, long-eared FSC Occurs in mid to high elevations. Myotis, long-legged FSC Ranges length of the Sierra Nevada in woodland, montane, and subalpine areas. Myotis, small-footed FSC Parks fall within range but no records exist. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Common in lower elevations in the parks and throughout the Sierra Nevada. Pallid CSC Status unknown in the parks — surveys in progress for this and following bat species. Uncommon foothill resident. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE Rare resident of alpine areas. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Rare resident of upper montane to alpine areas. Birds Condor, California FE, CE Extirpated from the parks. Eagle, bald FT, CE Species rarely uses the parks, which are outside of this species preferred habitat. No known nesting or communal roosting i n the parks. Eagle, golden CP, CSC Moderately common at all elevations. Falcon, peregrine CSC Rare breeding resident of montane zones. Falcon, prairie CSC Uncommon migrant and rare resident of alpine and subalpine areas. Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Rare in the parks in montane. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Uncommon i n montane to subalpine. Gull, California CSC Uncommon migrants through alpine/subalpine areas. Harrier, northern CSC Uncommon in the parks. Uses open, burnt, chaparral habitat. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Uncommon to rare in foothills to montane. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Uncommon in foothills to montane. Hawk, Swainson’s CT Rare resident/accidental visitor in the parks, which are outside usual range / preferred habitat. Kite, white-tailed CP Same as above. Lark, horned CSC Same as above. Martin, purple CSC Same as above. Merlin CS Sporadic use of open terrain in the parks. Osprey CSC Rare resident/accidental visitor in the parks, which are outside usual range / preferred habitat. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Parks are apparently south of normal range in Sierra Nevada. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks. Owl, long-eared CSC Very rare in montane areas. Owl, short-eared CSC Very rare visitor. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Uncommon resident of montane forests. Shrike, loggerhead FSC, CSC Rare resident/accidental visitor in the parks, which are outside usual range / preferred habitat. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Uncommon resident of oak and fir forests. Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Status unknown. Found in foothill chaparral and oak woodland/savanna areas.

17 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Common Name Status Occurrence in the Parks Lizard, coast horned FSC, CP, No modern records for parks. Either extirpated or never established in the parks. CSC Amphibians Frog, foothill yellow-legged FSC, CP, Extirpated from the parks. CSC Frog, mountain yellow-legged FSC, CP, Occurs in upper montane and subalpine/lower alpine areas. CSC Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, Occurs in subalpine/lower alpine areas. CSC Turtle, Western pond FSC, CP, Locally common in some foothill rivers and streams. CSC Salamander, Mount Lyell FSC, CP, Habitat includes alpine/subalpine areas. CSC Fish Roach, California CSC Found in the lower reaches of the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River. Trout, California golden FSC, CSC Does not occur within the park as a native species. This species is native immedi­ ately south of the park and occurs within the park as an introduced species. Trout, Kern River rainbow FSC, CSC Native to the Kern River. Trout, Little Kern golden FT Native to the Soda Springs Creek drainage — a small area within the parks. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Status unknown in the parks. No records for the park. Beetle, Hopping’s blister FSC Species occupy treeless habitats. Not present in the parks. Beetle, moestan blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, molestan blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, Morrison’s blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, San Joaquin dune FSC Species found on the west side in the Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Not present in the parks. Beetle, San Joaquin tiger FSC Same as above. Beetle, valley elderberry FT All specimens collected are from the Kaweah drainage and have been identified as longhorn the unlisted and common coastal subspecies. This species occurs below 3,000 feet elsewhere. Beetle, wooly hydroporous FSC Status unknown in the parks. No records for the parks. diving Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Occurs in freshwater habitat in the parks. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon FSC Same as above. cryptochian Californi a linderiella FSC Status unknown in the parks. No records for the parks. Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Same as above. Crustaceans Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT Status unknown in the parks. No records in the park. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Foothills and lower montane forests. FE = federally endangered CP = California protected CSC = California species of concern FT = federally threatened CE = Californi a endangered CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CT = California threatened FSS = Forest Service sensitive

Stressors change. Other effects are associated with visitor use and developments within the parks. Stressors to sensitive species include those mentioned under previous resource topics. Landscape level stressors include invasion by AIR QUALITY exotic species, altered fire regime, bioaccumu­ lation of contaminants, isolation or fragmenta­ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have tion of populations, and anthropogenic climate been designated as class I areas under the federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. As such, the

18 Natural Resources: Air Quality parks are afforded the greatest degree of air differ in their sensitivity to pollutants. Studies quality protection under the Clean Air Act, and have shown that Jeffrey and ponderosa pines are the National Park Service is required to do all it especially susceptible to ozone. Sequoia seed­ can to ensure that air quality related values are lings suffer needle damage at current ozone not adversely affected by air pollutants. This levels and reduced growth when exposed to includes participation in the review of permits of elevated levels. Acid deposition has been found those sources whose emissions will potentially to affect the chemical composition of lakes and affect the park as defined in the Prevention of streams within the parks, which can harm Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which aquatic life. was established in the 1977 amendments (Title I, Part C). Air pollution is one of the most serious external threats to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Most of the parks’ air pollution originates Regional Air Quality outside the parks’ boundaries, and the National Park Service has virtually no control over the air The San Joaquin Valley to the west of the parks quality within the regional airshed encompassing is a trap for air pollutants originating in the the parks. Therefore, park staff participate in valley as well as pollutants from cities along the local and state air quality planning efforts to central California coast that are carried in on improve air quality and protect park resources. prevailing winds. Southerly wind patterns carry Park monitoring stations have been established these pollutants through the valley until they to measure ozone, carbon monoxide, particu­ reach the mountains at the southern end of the lates, acid deposition, and visibility in order to basin, causing an eddy to form in the vicinity of define the extent of the problem and pollutants’ Visalia and Fresno. Frequent inversions over the effects on park resources. valley place a lid over the valley air at night. Rising daytime air currents then carry these Motor vehicle emissions within the parks are trapped pollutants up into the parks, giving the also a concern to the Park Service. On-road parks some of the worst air quality of any mobile sources are greatest in the summer, when national park in the country. This movement of visitation is at its highest. During the winter polluted air into the Sierra occurs daily during most in-park emissions are from wood used for the summer months. heating.

Vehicular traffic is one of the major sources of Almost a century of fire suppression has led to pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley, contribut­ major changes in the structure and composition ing much of the particulates, carbon monoxide, of forested ecosystems. Before Euro–American nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons annually settlement, fires were frequent and of variable emitted. In the presence of sunlight, the latter intensity and size. Now with high fuel loads, two constituents interact to form ozone. Ozone there is a greater risk of large fires. Since 1968, levels in the parks approach and often exceed the parks have been actively restoring fire as a state and federal health and welfare standards natural process, and both management-ignited during the summer (based on the newer 8-hour fires and natural ignitions are used to achieve ozone average). Other sources of pollution fire management objectives. Because of con­ include power generation, petroleum production, flicts between the effects of smoke and the need and agricultural practices. to restore an altered fire regime, ways are being explored to improve the methodology for Not only does pollution pose a human health managing smoke from prescribed fires. The risk, it also impairs visibility and injures plant parks work closely with the San Joaquin Valley and animal life. The once vast panoramas from Unified Air Pollution Control District in con­ vista points in the parks looking westward are ducting prescribed fires under favorable air highly obscured by regional haze. Plant species quality conditions.

19 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

National and State Ambient Air lates. Table 2 lists the national and California Quality Standards standards for these pollutants.

Sequoia National Park is located in the moun­ Geographic areas (including counties, air basins, tainous portion of Tulare County in the southern or portions thereof) that exceed a particular Sierra Nevada, and Kings Canyon National Park national or state pollutant standard are consid­ is located in Fresno and Tulare Counties, which ered “non-attainment” areas for that pollutant. are part of the San Joaquin Valley air basin. The The attainment status of Fresno and Tulare San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Counties for various pollutants of concern is Control District is the governing authority that shown in Table 3. Both counties are designated has primary responsibility for controlling air as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10. pollution from stationary sources. The San Joaquin Valley air basin is designated The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a serious non-attainment area for PM10 or (USEPA) has established national ambient air smaller particulate matter and a severe non- quality standards (NAAQS) for each of six attainment area for ozone. The San Joaquin “criteria” pollutants to protect the public from Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is the health hazards associated with air pollution. empowered to adopt rules and regulations to These six criteria pollutants are carbon mon­ protect the public health and prevent the violation ambient air quality standards. The air oxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO ), particulate matter less than district requires all federal agencies to comply 2 with appropriate general conformity require­ 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and lead (Pb). The state of California has adopted additional air ments and emission budgets within non- quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, attainment areas. vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particu­

TABLE 2: NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standards Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 µg/m3 (9 ppm ) 10,000 µg/m3 (9 ppm) 1-hour 40,000 µg/m3 (35 ppm ) 20,000 µg/m3 (23 ppm ) Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour -- 42 µg/m3 (0.03 ppm ) Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 -- 30-day average -- 1.5 µg/m3 3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 µg/m (0.053 ppm ) -- 1-hour -- 470 µg/m3 (0.25 ppm ) 3 3 Ozone (O3) 1-hour 235 µg/m (0.12 ppm ) 180 µg/m (0.09 ppm ) 3 Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 µg/m -- Annual Geometric Mean -- 30 µg/m3 24-hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Sulfates 24-hour -- 25 µg/m3 3 Sulfur Dioxide ( SO2) Annual 80 µg/m (0.03 ppm ) -- 24-hour 365 µg/m3 (0.14 ppm ) 105 µg/m3 (0.04 ppm ) 1,300 µg/m3 (0.5 ppm) – 3-hour Secondary standard -- 1-hour -- 655 µg/m3 (0.25 ppm ) 1-hour 40,000 µg/m3 (35 ppm ) 20,000 µg/m3 (23 ppm ) Vinyl Chloride (chloroethene) 24-hour -- 26 µg/m3 (0.01 ppm ) NOTE: Federal primary standards are designed to protect human health. Federal secondary standards are designed to protect human welfare, including economic impacts such as damage to crops, vegetation, and materials. This table does

not include proposed new federal standards for ozone (8-hour) and PM2.5, as the implementation of these standards is being reviewed by the federal courts. California also has adopted a standard for visibility-reducing particulates. ABBREVIATIONS: µg/m3 — micrograms per cubic meter ppm — parts per million -- — no standard exists for this pollutant and/or averaging time.

20 Natural Resources: Air Quality

TABLE 3: FRESNO AND TULARE COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS California, Fresno and Tulare Counties, and the Fresno County Tulare County San Joaquin Valley air basin, and it compares Pollutant California National California National them to emissions from stationary sources in Ozone (one hour) N N N N Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The Carbon monoxide A U/A A U/A CARB data indicate that the majority of volatile Nitrogen dioxide A U/A A U/A Sulfur dioxide A A A A organic compound (VOC) emissions, which are Particulate matter N N N N a precursor for ozone formation, are generated Lead* A A by landfills in Fresno County. NOX and VOC SOURCE: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 2000 emissions from stationary sources in Sequoia A = attainment. N = Nonattainment. U = Unclassified. * No areas in California exceed the national standard for lead. and Kings Canyon National Parks are relatively minor compared to totals in the two counties. As a non-attainment area, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is required to develop three attainment plans — a Smoke Emissions rate of progress plan, a post rate of progress plan, and an attainment demonstration plan. The parks’ fire management and natural re­ sources staff work closely with staff of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Stationary Sources District. The parks’ projected smoke emissions from prescribed fire are included in the “San Existing stationary air pollution sources within Joaquin Valley Smoke Management Plan.” This the park were determined in a 1998 Air Emis plan will then be incorporated as part of the sions Inventory (EA Engineering, Science, and State Implementation Plan for the San Joaquin Technology 2000). From the inventory it is evi­ Valley. A memorandum of understanding dent that the largest park air pollution sources between the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air are smoke from managed wildland fires and Pollution Control District and land management vehicle emissions. Stationary sources within the and fire protection agencies is being renewed to parks are minor and include generators, boilers, continue a formal working relationship. The goal and furnaces; emissions from these sources are is to develop and implement methods of between 8.1 and 16.6 tons per year for all reducing air quality impacts from prescribed pollutants (EA Engineering, Science, and burn practices. Technology, Inc. 2000). Prior to igniting a prescribed fire, park staff must The California Air Resources Board (CARB) obtain permission from the San Joaquin Valley estimates average annual emissions from Cali­ Unified Air Pollution Control District, which fornia counties. Table 4 summarizes estimates has the responsibility to adopt, implement, and for criteria emissions from stationary sources in enforce air quality rules and regulations for

TABLE 4: ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES

PM10 SO2 NOX CO VOC Area (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) California 140 150 630 350 710

Fresno County 6 8 34 11 22 Tulare County 3 1 5 2 4 Subtotal 9 9 39 13 26

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 28 24 180 82 120

Sequoia and Kings Canyon 1.1 0.1 1.2 7.9 3.3 National Parks SOURCE: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 2000

21 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT prescribed burns, in accordance with the smoke any criteria pollutant in a year, a more rigorous management program and the State Implementa­ determination of conformity will be required. tion Plan (Title 17, California Code of Regula­ tions, Rule 4106). As an additional measure to A regional transportation model was developed mitigate the potential cumulative impacts of by the San Joaquin Valley Association of Gov­ prescribed fires, park fire management staff are ernments. The model is used to generate infor­ members of a Sierra-wide interagency group, mation about existing and future traffic volumes, which addresses smoke impacts and plays a role patterns, and congestion for the San Joaquin on the Interagency Air and Smoke Council. The Valley. It takes into consideration all planned goal of these groups is to ensure that planned land developments, and it estimates the most ignitions on federal and state lands in the Sierra likely amount and type of future development do not adversely impact smoke sensitive areas in for the region. Traffic volumes for 1998 were and around the burn area. Both groups meet on a used to reflect existing conditions, and 2010 was regular basis to discuss policy updates, data used for the planning year horizon analysis. The needs, and current technology. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Con­ trol District uses the regional transportation plan As appendixes in the latest park Fire Manage to demonstrate attainment of the federal Clean ment Plan and Environmental Assessment (NPS Air Act pollutant standards and also conformity. 2000b), a smoke communication strategy and a smoke management plan have been included, The park vehicle fleet is increasingly using which provide guidance for managing future alternative fuels, such as compressed natural smoke events from prescribed fires, fire use gas, to reduce localized transportation-related projects, suppression actions, and fires occurring emissions. outside the parks. It also provides messages and information on health issues and concerns for visitors, employees, and residents in affected Human Health and Enjoyment smoke sensitive areas. The parks also have the ability to monitor particulate levels in the parks Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks use during smoke events on an hourly basis. These air quality data to issue periodic warnings to levels are used to compute a 24-hour average, staff and visitors about limiting activity in times which correlates with the national ambient air of lower air quality. Wayside signs describe quality standards for particulates. regional air quality conditions and point out reduced visibility from historical conditions.

Transportation Sources Air Quality Monitoring and Research Since the proposed transportation system im­ provements are within national parks, and the air Air monitoring efforts in Sequoia and Kings basin is designated as non-attainment for PM10 Canyon National Parks began in the early 1980s and O3, the general conformity rule will apply to and has grown over the years to include more any project construction. Conformity with the air sites and types of monitoring equipment. Three quality standards is presumed if the project will air quality monitoring stations operate year- emit less than the general conformity de minimis round, measuring a combination of ambient thresholds. In serious ozone non-attainment areas, ozone concentrations, meteorological data, the de minimis thresholds for VOC and NOx are visibility, particulate matter, UV, and wet/dry 50 tons per year. In serious PM10 non-attainment deposition chemistry. The stations are at the Ash areas, the de minimis threshold for PM10 Mountain headquarters area, at Lookout Point emissions is 70 tons/year. If emissions from a near the Mineral King road entrance station, and project could exceed the de minimis thresholds of at the Lower Kaweah site in Giant Forest (see Figure 1).

22 Natural Resources: Air Quality

The national parks are part of several national In 1999 the parks implemented a parkwide air networks, including the following: advisory program from about May to October. Air quality designations are based on ozone • National Atmospheric Deposition values from the parks’ ozone monitoring station. Program / National Trends Network Health standards were exceeded every year (NADP/NTN) through 2002. • Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) Since the late 1970s air-related research has played a major role in helping determine the • Interagency Monitoring of Protected effects of air pollutants on park resources. This Visual Environments (IMPROVE) information is necessary in defining any adverse • NPS/ARD ozone and meteorological effects to air quality related values, as required network in a designated class I park. (Air quality data can • Park Research and Intensive Monitoring be obtained from the NPS Air Resources Divi of Ecosystems Network (PRIMENet) sion Website at .) • Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) Air Quality Conformity Ambient concentrations of PM10 are only moni tored at the air monitoring site at Ash Mountain. During summer months portable monitors and In 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency passive samplers are installed throughout the adopted regulations implementing section 176 of park to measure particulate matter and ozone. the Clean Air Act, which requires that federal actions conform to State Implementation Plans

F IGURE 1: AIR QUALITY STATIONS IN SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS

23 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

(SIP) for achieving and maintaining national air applies to activities in Sequoia and Kings quality standards. Federal actions must not cause Canyon because they are in Fresno and Tulare or contribute to new violations of any standard, Counties, which exceed federal ozone and increase the frequency or severity of any current particulate matter standards. violation, interfere with timely attainment or maintenance of any standard, delay emission In order to determine if the park emissions reduction milestones, or contradict requirements conform, the National Park Service must prove in the State Implementation Plan. that total direct or indirect emissions are in compliance with all State Implementation Plan The conformity rule has two parts — general requirements. Either park emissions have been conformity and transportation conformity. identified and accounted for in the state plan, or General conformity deals with stationary sources based on air quality modeling, the actions do not such as boilers or generators, and area sources, cause or contribute to any new violations or such as smoke from prescribed fire. Transporta increase the severity or frequency of existing tion conformity deals with mobile air pollution violation. The two main source of air pollution sources, such as cars and buses. The conformity in the park are smoke from managed wildland rule applies only in federally designated non- fire and mobile source emissions from visitor attainment areas, or those areas that currently vehicles and concessioners. exceed federal air quality standards. Conformity

24 Wild and Scenic Rivers

DESCRIPTION OF DESIGNATED the U.S. Forest Service the remaining 27.6 miles (USFS 1991a). RIVER SEGMENTS The portions of the Middle and South Forks The Middle and South Forks of the Kings River managed by the National Park Service begin in and the North Fork of the Kern River, which glacial lakes above timberline and flow through have been designated as wild and scenic rivers, deep, steep-sided canyons, over falls and cata­ are described below. The outstandingly remark­ racts, and eventually become an outstanding able values of each river segment are listed in whitewater rafting river in Sequoia National volume 1 in the alternatives table. Forest (USFS 1991a). Both the Middle and South Forks flow through extensive and spec­ tacular glacial canyons. All of the Middle Fork Middle Fork and South Fork of the is within designated wilderness, as is the upper Kings River portion (24.1 miles) of the South Fork. The lower 7.6-mile portion of the South Fork canyon The Kings River is the largest free flowing river is known as the Kings Canyon, giving the park in the Sierra Nevada. Approximately 88.8* river its name. miles of the Middle Fork, South Fork, and main stem of the Kings River were added to the The Kings Canyon and the Cedar Grove national wild and scenic rivers system on developed area are the only areas in the main November 3, 1987 (PL 100-150). The desig­ part of the park accessible by motor vehicle. nated reaches include: • the Middle Fork from its headwaters at Lake Helen between Muir Pass and Black North Fork of the Kern River Giant Mountain to its confluence with the main stem (29.5 miles) The North Fork of the Kern River was added to the national wild and scenic rivers system on • the South Fork from its headwaters at November 24, 1987 (PL 100-174). This 78.5- Lake 11599 to its confluence with the mile segment extends from its headwaters at the main stem (31.7 miles) 12,000-foot contour just south of Harrison Pass • the main stem of the Kings River from the Lake below the Kings-Kern Divide and off the confluence of the Middle Fork and the west slopes of Mount Whitney in Sequoia South Fork to the point at elevation 1,595 National Park to the Tulare-Kern county line. feet above mean sea level (this portion is The National Park Service manages the upper outside the park and is managed by the 28.9 miles of the North Fork within Sequoia U.S. Forest Service) National Park, and the U.S. Forest Service manages the remainder of the river, which flows These reaches encompass the entire Middle and almost entirely through national forest land, South Forks, which are largely in Kings Canyon including the . National Park. The National Park Service man­ ages the 61.2 miles of the Middle and South The upper river portion is free flowing for over Forks within Kings Canyon National Park and 61 miles, the longest stretch of free-flowing river in the Sierra Nevada, and it is classified as * Stated mileages are from the 2002 GIS-based calcula­ wild. The lower 17.5-mile stretch managed by tions; some of these mileages differ slightly from those the U.S. Forest Service is classified as recrea­ given in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended in tional due to road accessibility and minor 1987. impoundments. (USFS 1994).

25 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The 28.9-mile segment of the North Fork The South Fork canyon is designated wilderness managed by the National Park Service includes and provides for a variety of outdoor recrea­ the headwaters and the spectacular reaches of tional opportunities. The entire canyon, with the the Kern Canyon within the park, all of which is exception of the uppermost 2 miles, is accessible within designated wilderness. via a maintained trail that parallels the river. All points within the canyon are more than a day’s travel from the nearest roads. In addition to RIVERS BEING STUDIED FOR INCLU wilderness camping, the area is used for SION IN THE SYSTEM climbing and photography. The South Fork is a cold water trout fishery, Description with rainbow trout being dominant (these are possibly from native stock, though genotypes are The South Fork of the San Joaquin River and likely altered). No stocking is done, the river five forks of the Kaweah River (North, Marble, being self-sufficient. The river’s cold water Middle, East, and South Forks) were studied for provides for a high level of dissolved oxygen their suitability and eligibility for inclusion in that in turn provides good habitat for aquatic the national wild and scenic rivers system. The invertebrates, such as stoneflies (restricted to following descriptions are inventories of all highly oxygenated water). While the area features that were analyzed to determine the contains typical California alpine wildlife, the outstandingly remarkable values for these rivers. drainage contains major clusters of fishless The outstandingly remarkable values of the waters (west of ) that provide eligible segments are listed in volume 1 in the good habitat for populations of the mountain alternatives table. Only the North Fork of the yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad, Kaweah within the park boundary was deter­ which are both declining across their range. This mined to be ineligible because no outstandingly rocky area is sparsely wooded. The most remarkable values were identified. common trees include lodgepole and whitebark pine, with some scattered populations of moun­ tain hemlock, mountain juniper, aspen, and South Fork of the San Joaquin River cottonwood. While vegetation is sparse, it plays a role in determining the character of this area. The South Fork of the San Joaquin River origi­ nates at Martha Lake, a scenic alpine basin at Human use of this drainage is not well docu­ 11,000 feet on the west slope of Mount Goddard mented. A handful of sparse lithic scatters in the (13,568 feet). From Martha Lake the stream upper end of the drainage attest to some prehis­ descends to the northwest into a rough rocky toric use; a systematic survey would likely find gorge of increasing depth. At an elevation of additional evidence. Various Western Mono 8,800 feet the South Fork joins Evolution Creek, (Monache) groups would have known about the a major eastern tributary. Five miles down­ drainage and its tributaries, and it can be inferred stream, at an elevation of 7,900 feet, the South that they would have used the area for hunting, Fork leaves Kings Canyon National Park. travel, and probably trade and interaction with Paiute groups to the east. During historic times The South Fork canyon is glaciated throughout this remote, high alpine country was seldom its length within the park and has numerous visited, and there was little interest from sheep interesting glacial features. The Mount Goddard grazers and miners. roof pendant, a geological formation at the headwaters of the South Fork, contains meta­ Water quality is excellent. morphic formations of scientific and scenic interest, including meta-volcanic marine rocks (largely metamorphosed rhyolite).

26 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Rivers Being Studied for Inclusion in the System

North Fork of the Kaweah River The North Fork is accessible only with difficulty in its middle reaches, as essentially there are no The North Fork of the Kaweah River rises in roads (remnants of historic roads still exist), and several headwater streams along the Kings- the popular North Fork trail is generally high Kaweah Divide and flows out of the Jennie above the river corridor. Lakes Wilderness. It becomes the North Fork at the confluence of Stony Creek (from the north) Native American use of the North Fork is and Dorst Creek (from the east), at an elevation indicated by a handful of mid-elevation and of approximately 5,400 feet. At this point it foothill sites, including bedrock mortars, forms the boundary between Sequoia National grinding slicks, and scatters of obsidian tools Park and Kings Canyon National Park. The river and debris. Ethnographically, the river and its flows southwest then turns to the south, serving upland tributaries were most often frequented by as the western boundary of Sequoia National Western Mono (Monache) groups, especially the Park, leaving the park at approximately 1,700 Wuksachi. Historically, the lower stretches of feet elevation. The full extent of the river passes the river witnessed activity by the settlers of the through numerous areas of metamorphic rocks Kaweah Colony, and features are associated and also forms deep, steep gorges in granitic with the sites of Kaweah, Advance, and Camp rocks in its upper reaches. The North Fork Flagstaff, as well as Colony Mill Road. The provides examples of an incised river canyon Grunigen homestead is found along the lower and gorge with a moderate, stepped gradient of elevations of Yucca Creek, with a CCC camp descent. In its lower reaches the river eases its having been located at the confluence of Yucca rate of descent, creating long gentle stretches of Creek and the North Fork; this junction marks calm water with extensive riparian development the western boundary of Sequoia National Park. and deep pools. Examples of karst topography in the watershed include Lilburn Cave, Hurricane Most of the lands west of the river are managed Crawl, and Crystal Cave. by the Bureau of Land Management, and there are grazing allotments. Some private land and Redwood Creek, a primary tributary, flows for USFS land lies to the west. (Note: The Forest approximately 5 miles through the lower reaches Service did not address its portion of the North of Redwood Canyon. This drainage contains the Fork in regards to wild and scenic river status in and several other the 1988 Land and sequoia groves. The lower reaches support Resource Management Plan — Forest Plan. The stands of foothill riparian forest vegetation, USFS parcel adjoining the North Fork was which is dominated by an overstory of alder and zoned as “semi-private motorized.”) sycamore with tangles of blackberry and wild grape in the understory. Water quality is generally good to fair, with some limited agricultural and air pollutant The river supports a self-sustaining population deposition. of naturalized trout. Rainbow are native (though genotypes are likely altered), with several other species, including the golden, brown, and brook Marble Fork of the Kaweah River trout, having been introduced. The native western sucker is also present. There is a self- The Marble Fork is one of the most spectacular sustaining population of the western pond turtle watercourses in California, dropping 8,000 feet in the river. Peregrine falcons regularly nest in in approximately 15 miles; it is the only major the Chimney Rock area above the North Fork. watercourse wholly contained within Sequoia The water and riparian vegetation create oasis- National Park. The Marble Fork originates like habitats for various species during the hot above timberline at Lake 10,559, and the upper summer months. reach (4.1 river miles) flows from the area known as the Tableland. At Tokopah Falls the

27 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT river drops 1,500 feet over a massive granite In 1912–13 the Mount Whitney Power Company bluff to the floor of a spectacular, glacially constructed a complex of power generation carved canyon known as the Tokopah Valley. facilities on the Kaweah, including the impound­ Below Lodgepole the river plunges through a ment about 0.5 mile above the Potwisha camp­ steep-walled canyon that is essentially inacces­ ground. The impoundment (which is still used sible, except for the Crystal Cave Road bridge. under a park permit and a Federal Energy Regu­ In its middle reaches the river flows through latory Commission [FERC] license) consists of a Marble Falls and Wild Child Caves; at low flow, small concrete dam with a concrete diversion the entire river flows through these caves. At the flume that feeds into a siphon, passes under the multi-stepped Marble Falls the river drops more Middle Fork, and then joins the Middle Fork than 1,000 feet. Below the falls, the steep can­ flume. The total length of the flume and siphon yon again does not allow access until just above is about 1.25 miles. In accordance with the park Potwisha campground, where an impoundment permit, the amount of water released from the dam for hydroelectric generation alters the diversion into the natural stream course is either river’s flow. The river then flows through the natural streamflow or the following, which­ Potwisha campground and under the Generals ever is less: January and February, 6 cubic feet Highway before joining the larger Middle Fork per second (cfs); March through June, 9 cfs; July of the Kaweah River. through August, 6 cfs; September through December, 1.5 cfs. The Tableland is a wilderness recreation area accessed by the Lakes Trail and used primarily Water quality of the Marble Fork is very good. by backpackers and climbers, with some limited stock use. In the Tokopah Valley the river is paralleled by a popular frontcountry trail from Middle Fork of the Kaweah River the Lodgepole campground to the falls. The Middle Fork of the Kaweah River begins at The lower reaches of the Marble Fork support the confluence of Lone Pine and Hamilton outstanding examples of foothill riparian forest (Deer) Creeks, in a glacial U-shaped head-valley vegetation, with towering sycamores providing several thousand feet deep, and flows 17.6 miles welcome shade to park visitors near Potwisha. to the park boundary. The river lunges through a Marble outcrops provide habitat for yucca and very rugged, V-shaped and spectacular canyon, other plants with calcicole (marble) affinities. among the deepest in the Sierra Nevada. Much Stands of big-leaf maple and alder line the river of its course is cut through solid granite in the in the reaches below the Crystal Cave bridge, form of a slickrock gorge, which is very difficult along with mixed coniferous vegetation from the to access. Below the river’s confluence with adjacent forested slopes. Moro Creek, a road winds through the river canyon, usually 100–200 yards from the river’s There are numerous prehistoric and historic sites banks, so the character of the river is not along the Marble Fork and its tributaries. The changed. In its lower stretches the river has a Potwisha had village sites at the mouth of the riparian oasis-like character owing to the very Marble Fork. A variety of bedrock mortar sites, dry nature of the surrounding landscape. grinding slicks, large bedrock basins, picto­ graphs, midden soils, caves, and lithic scatters The Middle Fork canyon is a popular wilderness have been recorded within the drainage. Yokuts and non-wilderness recreation area for hikers (e.g., Wukchumni) and Western Mono (e.g., and stock users, especially in spring, fall, and Potwisha and Wuksachi) peoples were present winter when its foothill trails are snow free. The throughout the area in protohistoric and early upper 10 miles or so contains the Middle Fork historic times. Military patrol camps, CCC trail, which parallels the river on the north side. camps, ranger stations, and even a remote Several giant sequoia groves are in the water­ trapper’s cabin site mark historic era activities. shed, and the Redwood Meadow Grove is imme­

28 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Rivers Being Studied for Inclusion in the System diately adjacent to the river. Patches of alder, Water quality of the Middle Fork is very good. sycamore, and live oak line the river corridor near the Buckeye Flat campground and along the lower reaches. There is a naturalized and self- East Fork of the Kaweah River sustaining fishery, with surviving native roach, western sucker, and rainbow trout; brown, The East Fork of the Kaweah River begins on golden, brook, and hatchery rainbow trout have the slopes of spectacular granitic peaks of the been introduced, some in tributaries only. The Great Western Divide. Tributary streams flow foothills habitat also serves as home to wildlife through Mesozoic metamorphic rocks in the such as bear, deer, mountain lions, and a variety vicinity of the U-shaped, glaciated Mineral King of birds. There are notable bat colonies at Walk Valley. Evidence of glaciation extends to an Softly Cave near Ash Mountain. elevation of 7,000 feet, below which is a deep granitic canyon extending to and below the park The area is a popular summer recreation area, boundary. The upper river canyon (Mineral King with the river providing a welcome respite from Valley) is a rare glaciated metamorphic land­ the high ambient summer temperatures. The scape in the Sierra Nevada. This area has a Buckeye Flat campground and the Ash variety of geologic features, including tufa de­ Mountain administrative headquarters are posits and soda springs, which are the result of located on and near the Middle Fork. groundwater systems super-charged with carbon dioxide; these features are unusual in the region. The Middle Fork Canyon supports a high den­ Karst features are extensive and notable due to sity of prehistoric and historic sites, especially their alpine location. The river then rapidly along its mid-slope and foothill elevations. descends into a steep and deeply incised granite Lithic scatters, bedrock mortar sites, granite V-shaped canyon, which is essentially inacces­ basins, rock art panels, and midden soils are sible due to its ruggedness. The area’s dominant recorded. The village site of Potwisha marks the scenic features are the dramatic sub-alpine confluence with the Marble Fork, and the village valley, several giant sequoia groves, and the site of Hospital Rock occurs a few miles farther deep river-cut canyon. upstream and is traversed by the historic . Other historic sites include Stands of quaking aspen, uncommon in this part the remains of a fish hatchery, a CCC camp, of the Sierra, line the river in its upper reaches as hydroelectric facilities, and the Ash Mountain it flows through the Mineral King Valley. headquarters complex. Thickets of willow and stands of cottonwood provide habitat along the river corridor below The lower reach of the Middle Fork contains an the valley and adjacent to the Cold Springs impoundment/diversion that is part of the campground. Kaweah power generation complex constructed by the Mount Whitney Power Company in There is abundant wildlife in the East Fork 1912–13. The impoundment is about 1 mile drainage, including deer, bear, and marmots. In above the confluence with the Marble Fork and the lower reaches deep pools provide valuable consists of a small concrete dam with a concrete habitat for resident and migratory species. and wooden diversion flume running along the south side of the Middle Fork canyon for about 4 Less well documented for cultural resources, miles inside the park. According to the park especially along its lower reaches, the East Fork permit, the amount of water released from the parallels the Mineral King Road Cultural Land­ diversion into the natural stream course is either scape District, which has been listed on the the natural streamflow or the following, which­ National Register of Historic Places. The area ever is less: January and February, 14 cfs; March contains the remains of a homestead, NPS rang­ through June, 21 cfs; July through August, 14 er stations, CCC-era structures, water troughs, cfs; September through December, 9.5 cfs. and sub-alpine special use permit cabin

29 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT communities, along with the historic road cabins does not meet the California standards corridor. and may contribute to localized degradation.

Also within the upper reaches of the drainage are abandoned mines, remnants of a sawmill, South Fork of the Kaweah River former sequoia logging sites, and former mili­ tary campsites. Prehistoric and protohistoric The South Fork of the Kaweah River originates sites are not well documented, though clearly on the granitic Hockett Plateau (near 10,000 Native American use is evidenced by bedrock feet) west of the Great Western Divide. It flows mortars, granite basins, and lithic scatters. through a steep granite canyon to areas with Mesozoic metamorphic marine rocks near the The valley was the focus of a landmark environ­ park boundary. Prominent depositional terraces mental battle in the 1970s over its long-term line the river in its lower reaches. It flows past future. The diverse mountain environment one of these terraces (near the South Fork provides excellent recreational opportunities for campground) before leaving the park at activities such as hiking and photography. approximately 3,400 feet elevation. The South Fork canyon has been cut by glaciation and river There are two private inholdings along the river, erosion. It may be an example of a “captured one in the Mineral King Valley and one at stream,” i.e. its pre-glacial course was notably Kaweah Han, just downstream from the valley. altered by glaciation. The upper reaches are on a The park’s current Land Protection Plan for this large glaciated plateau, and the lower reaches area (NPS 1984) recommends that the Mineral are a deeply incised river canyon. There are King Valley inholding (5 acres, owned by the several examples of karst topography, among Disney Corporation) be acquired in fee for them Clough and Soldiers Caves. There is visitor use and minor facility development. The evidence of a massive landslide from the 19th Kaweah Han inholding (60 acres) is expected to century, which temporarily blocked the flow of continue in private use (the existing historic the river. Large meadows line the upper reaches Kaweah Han building complex is south of Silver of the river as it cuts through the lodgepole and City), which is consistent with NPS policies and red fir forest, which characterize the Hockett plans. The purchase of easements would safe­ Plateau. Several populations of purple mountain guard park purposes and provide land protection parsley, a sensitive plant species, can be found while recognizing the rights of the private own­ in the decomposed granites near the river and ers. Therefore, so long as existing use continues, adjacent to Hockett, Mitchell, and Tuohy private ownership of Kaweah Han is compatible Meadows. Nearby giant sequoia groves include with park purposes. If uses changed, this the Garfield and South Fork Groves. In the position would need to be reassessed. lower elevations, big-leaf maple, alder, and an occasional California nutmeg line the river Four dams are currently used for impoundment corridor. in the upper reaches of the East Fork drainage above Mineral King Valley at Monarch, Crystal, In the South Fork drainage, Homer’s Nose is a Franklin, and Eagle Lakes. Constructed as part regular nesting area for peregrine falcons. The of the Kaweah complex of power generation karst features are known to provide nesting areas facilities in 1903–5 by the Mount Whitney to notable populations of several species of bats Power Company, they consist of concrete and near the river. native stone with check gates to regulate flow for downstream (out of park) diversion and The headwaters of the South Fork suggest mid- power generation. elevation to higher elevation use by Native Americans, as evidenced by campsites, bedrock Water quality is generally good. Runoff in mortar sites, and lithic scatters. A few historic Mineral King Valley from some permittee cabins and ranger stations are also found along

30 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Rivers Being Studied for Inclusion in the System the drainage. Hockett Meadow supports a well- In 1984 the report on the impacts of hydroelec­ preserved CCC-era ranger cabin and storage tric facilities on park resources (Jordan/Avent building. Evidence of the previous South Fork 1984) found that the impacts were not signifi­ ranger station is found on the river floodplain cant enough to remove the permitting or near where the river leaves the park. licensing of facilities, hence both the permit and license were subsequently renewed. In 1986 The South Fork canyon was utilized by Euro- Congress authorized the secretary of the interior Americans as the first Trans-Sierra trail, ca. to permit the Southern California Edison 1863–64 and was known as the Hockett Trail. Company to operate the Kaweah complex of The area is very popular with backpackers and hydroelectric facilities (dams, impoundments stock users. Clough Cave is a popular recrea­ and diversions on the Marble, Middle, and East tional cave (use requires a permit). Forks of the Kaweah River) for 10 years and to renew the permit for 10 years (PL 99-338). In Water quality is very good. 1986 the park issued a special use permit for 10 years, which was renewed in 1996 (PWFA- SEKI-6000-095) through September 8, 2006. Status of Hydroelectric Facilities in Relation to Wild and Scenic Rivers In 1992 the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­ mission renewed Southern California Edison’s The Mount Whitney Power Company con­ license for the Kaweah complex facilities out­ structed the Kaweah complex of hydroelectric side Sequoia National Park (Project 298-000- power generation facilities roughly between California). The commission specifically 1902 and 1913. The complex encompasses facil­ excluded from its licensing those portions of the ities both inside and outside Sequoia National complex in the national park. The current FERC Park. These facilities have been in continuous license runs through December 31, 2021. operation since their construction. In 1920 the Pursuant to PL 99-338, the National Park Mount Whitney Power Company was dissolved Service is not currently authorized to extend the and became a part of its parent company, special use permit beyond 2006. Without an Southern California Edison. extension, Southern California Edison would need to terminate the operation of hydroelectric The operation of these facilities, and their generating facilities within the park. permitting and licensing, is currently mandated by congressional legislation. In 1974 Congress The impoundments and diversions for hydro­ authorized the National Park Service to permit power generation on the Marble and Middle the operation of impoundments and diversions Forks, and from impoundments on the tributaries on the Marble and Middle Forks of the Kaweah of the East Fork, have an adverse impact on the River for a period not to exceed 10 years (PL free-flowing condition and ecological functions 93-522). By 1984 the Park Service was to of these rivers. However, it has been determined conduct a study and report to Congress on the that the magnitude of impacts resulting from impacts of the hydroelectric facilities on the these relatively small-scale facilities does not national park. preclude the inclusion of these river segments in the wild and scenic rivers system, since even In 1978, pursuant to PL 95-625, the Mineral with these facilities the waterways remain King area (including four Southern California “generally natural and riverine in appearance” Edison dams on tributaries of the East Fork of (Federal Register 47, no. 173: 39458). The the Kaweah River) was transferred from the U.S. desired future condition for these rivers is to Forest Service to the National Park Service. PL provide for the removal of the impoundment and 95-625 amended PL 93-522 to incorporate diversion infrastructure, which would allow the studies of hydroelectric facilities contained rivers to be restored to naturally functioning and within the Mineral King addition. free-flowing condition.

31 Backcountry / Wilderness

Backcountry is a term used by the National Park • the Jennie Lakes Wilderness in Sequoia Service to refer to primitive, undeveloped, and National Forest, 10,289 acres, established roadless portions of parks. Backcountry includes in 1984 areas designated or managed as wilderness. At • the Monarch Wilderness in Sequoia and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Sierra National Forests, 44,896 acres, backcountry includes steep inaccessible areas, as established in 1984 well as areas reached by an extensive trail system. Most backcountry areas, which com­ As a result of the 1984 designation, the parks prise about 96% of the parks, are managed as became the core of the second largest wilderness wilderness. in the lower 48 states, totaling 1,661,785 acres.

The NPS Management Policies related to backcountry use (sec. 8.2.2.4) state POTENTIAL WILDERNESS the number and type of facilities to support visitor use, including sanitary facilities, will The following areas are potential wilderness, be limited to the minimum necessary meaning that when and if the facilities were removed, they would become wilderness. public use levels will be managed . . . in accordance with the natural system’s ability • The 25-acre private land / inholding at to absorb human waste Oriole Lake is in a unique foothills lake all refuse must be carried out environment and includes 10.3 acres of inholding. Part of the area is owned by the Background material related to congressional National Park Service. Surrounded by wilderness designation has been presented in the wilderness, the area currently contains context for the plan. This section describes some uses inconsistent with wilderness. A wilderness status and related issues for Sequoia private airstrip has been removed, but a and Kings Canyon National Parks. private primitive road provides vehicular access. Five cabins remain in the area. • The Bearpaw Meadow high Sierra camp DESIGNATED WILDERNESS is a 32-acre roadless area surrounded by wilderness. The area is at 7,800′ elevation On September 28, 1984, the Sequoia–Kings and is east of Giant Forest. It contains a Canyon Wilderness was established as federally popular concessioner-run tent hotel and designated wilderness, including approximately backcountry campground. 723,000 acres, or about 83.5% of the parks. • Pear Lake is a 5-acre area surrounded by Adjacent wilderness areas managed by the U.S. wilderness. The area includes a ranger Forest Service include the following: station. • the Wilderness within Sierra • Two 34-acre powerline corridors. and Inyo National Forests, 580,293 acres, established in 1964 • the Golden Trout Wilderness in Inyo and BACKCOUNTRY AREAS MANAGED Sequoia National Forests, 303,287 acres, TO PRESERVE WILDERNESS established in 1978 CHARACTERISTICS

In 1984 three other areas of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks were included in the

32 Backcountry / Wilderness: Wilderness Studies wilderness recommendation but were not for­ Sequoia National Park in 1890. At an mally designated as wilderness. At that time elevation of 8,500′, the Hockett Plateau Congress stated that this was done “without receives considerable stock and back­ prejudice.” The parks have continued to manage packer use. A historic ranger station is these areas to preserve wilderness characteristics staffed seasonally. The southeast portion per regulation and policy. These areas include: of the Hockett Plateau area is adjacent to • Redwood Canyon in Kings Canyon, and Dillonwood and the Golden Trout Wilder­ North Fork of the Kaweah River in ness, and the northeast portion is adjacent Sequoia National Park, which have a to the Mineral King area. The area is combined total of 35,321 acres extensively used by hikers and is very popular with stock parties. Redwood Canyon, which is separated from the core of Kings Canyon National Park and lies to the southwest, includes WILDERNESS STUDIES the largest sequoia grove in the parks — the Redwood Mountain Grove. There are At the direction of Congress or in accordance over 10 miles of hiking trails and exten­ with NPS Management Policies, wilderness sive karst features (including Lilburn studies would be conducted for the following Cave, one of the largest caves in Cali­ areas: fornia). Adjacent to the area that was • The 1,756-acre Chimney Rock area in originally recommended as wilderness is Kings Canyon National Park is a rocky, a rough, unpaved road less than two lanes rugged, and little-used area that is ac­ wide that provides access to a trailhead. cessed by way of Forest Service roads. It Some of the area was logged and contains has been found suitable for wilderness. second-growth sequoias as well as a his­ toric ranger station and an experimental • The 15,600-acre Mineral King area is sequoia management station. The area is accessed by a road; trails leading out of used by hikers and stock parties. the scenic Mineral King Valley provide access to high-altitude alpine areas. A • The North Fork of the Kaweah River is stock pack station is near the valley trail­ south of the Redwood Canyon area, in the head. A suitability study has been com­ northwestern section of Sequoia National pleted, and the area has been determined Park. It contains rugged terrain and ranges suitable for wilderness except for the from low foothill country to coniferous immediate road corridor and existing forests, including several giant sequoia developments. groves. The area also contains the historic Colony Mill Road, now a trail, which was • The Dillonwood area on the southern a wagon road built to access timber from boundary of the park totals approximately giant sequoia groves in the late 19th cen­ 1,518 acres, 1,180 of which contain a tury. Light use by hikers, stock parties, sequoia grove. Access is provided by a and anglers occurs mostly in spring and dirt road from the Springville area. Addi­ fall. tional study and planning for the Dillon- wood area are needed to determine re­ • Hockett Plateau in the watershed of the source management and visitor use. A East Fork of the Kaweah River contains suitability study has been completed, and around 56,315 acres. Lying in the south­ the area was determined to not be suitable western corner of Sequoia National Park, for wilderness. the area contains a variety of natural re­ sources, including extensive tracts of giant Wilderness studies for these areas by the parks sequoia groves. Part of Hockett Plateau could lead to wilderness recommendations that was included in the original legislation for Congress could act on.

33 Cultural Resources

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Tharp, who had begun raising cattle in the present-day Three Rivers vicinity, entered the OF THE PARKS Giant Forest area in September 1858 — perhaps the first Euro-American to do so and guided by American Indians two young Potwishas. By 1861 Tharp had begun using Log Meadow as summer range for horses When the present-day Sequoia and Kings and later built a trail to the south end of the Canyon National Parks were first inhabited is meadow to be used by his growing cattle herd. unclear. However, the possibility of Paleo- Indians’ presence is postulated based on projec­ The first record of a Euro-American entering the tile point evidence dating from 12,000 B.C. to Kings Canyon area is from 1862, when John 9,000 B.C. By 1,000 B.C. human occupation in Hardin Thomas “discovered” what would later the parks is better documented, indicating more be known as the General Grant Tree. The influx intensive use that continued into the historic of Euro-American settlers, prospectors, and period. European contact is dated to A.D. 1858 loggers forced Native Americans to leave the when Giant Forest was first visited by Hale Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks area Tharp, the first Euro–American to view the giant by the mid-1860s. In 1870 settlers occupied the sequoia trees of this area. Fallen Monarch, a huge hollow log in what would become known as Grant Grove, operating Archeological evidence includes projectile a saloon within its confines. points and tools of different cultural complexes and periods, pictographs and petroglyphs, small Sheepherders made the first commercial use of encampments and larger village sites, trade the Kings/Kaweah/Kern watersheds during the rendezvous places, granite bedrock mortars used 1860s and 1870s, but prospectors also partici­ to prepare acorns and other seeds, rock shelters pated in the exploration and utilization of the associated with habitation sites, and so-called watersheds. After years of futile efforts by workshops where projectile points were manu­ prospectors to find valuable minerals, silver was factured from materials such as obsidian. In the discovered in 1873, touching off a rush to the historic period the Western Mono or Monache Mineral King Valley. Prospectors eagerly filed and the Eastern Mono or Owens Valley Paiute mining claims, and the New England Tunnel and were known to occupy and frequent the park Smelting Company promoted development. areas, as well as the Yokuts and Tubatulabal Thomas Fowler, a prominent Californian, peoples. The Western Mono, who are linguis­ completed a toll road into the valley in 1879 and tically related to the Eastern Mono, may have built a stamp mill and a tramway to the Empire crossed the Sierra Nevada from east to west Mine, but these ventures proved unprofitable. about A.D. 1500. Prehistorically and historically The toll road (the precursor of the present-day indigenous peoples used areas at higher eleva­ Mineral King Road) became public, but only a tions in the summer and lower elevations the rest few summer tourists, attracted by the cool of the year. mountain air, continued to visit the valley.

Logging began soon after the first settlers Euro-Americans arrived in the San Joaquin Valley; by the 1860s several small mills operated on the most Euro-Americans first entered the southern Sierra accessible fringes of the coniferous forest. At Nevada during the late 1850s and early 1860s, first the mills served only local communities, but building trails, grazing sheep and cattle, search­ the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad ing for gold and silver, and felling timber. Hale line in the mid-1870s opened more distant

34 Cultural Resources: Historical Overview of the Parks markets. Although pine and fir trees provided Cavalry, established a camp outside the parks at most of the lumber, many giant sequoias were Mineral King and became their first acting cut to provide shakes, fence posts, and grape superintendent. In 1914 Walter Fry was stakes. In 1885 colonists associated with the appointed as the first civilian superintendent of utopian Kaweah Colony, under the leadership of the two national parks. Charles Keller, filed claims to lands in the Giant Forest vicinity and built the Colony Mill Road to During the early 20th century efforts were provide access for logging operations in the started to improve access to the national parks sequoias. In 1889 log flumes were introduced, and to develop their recreational potential. In opening previously inaccessible timberlands to 1902 a contract was awarded to John Broder and loggers. In 1890 the Kings River Lumber Ralph Hopping, two local ranchers, to operate Company (later reorganized as the Sanger the first commercial transportation and camping Lumber Company) began to ship timber via a facilities in Sequoia National Park. That same long flume to Sanger, more than 50 miles away. year a road was constructed to the “Big Trees” During its operation this one company felled in Grant Grove; later this road would be rebuilt nearly every tree in the Converse Basin, once the with alignment changes to form the Sequoia finest stand of giant sequoias in existence. Lake Road. In 1903 the Colony Mill Road was improved and extended to Round Meadow and John Muir first traveled into the southern Sierra Moro Rock in Giant Forest under the direction Nevada in 1873. Two years later he traced the of Captain Charles Young, the only African- belt of giant sequoias south from the Mariposa American then holding a regular commission in Grove, crossing the North and Marble Forks of the U.S. Army, and on May 24, 1904, the first the Kaweah River and climbing into a “noble automobile entered Giant Forest. In 1913 the forest,” which he named the Giant Forest. first well-graded approach road to General Grant National Park was constructed, reaching the park from the south. Establishment and Development of the National Parks During the 1910s a simple commercial village developed near Round Meadow in the Giant Shortly after John Muir’s visit, efforts to save Forest vicinity. Campgrounds were established the magnificent sequoias began. In 1880 four at Giant Forest in 1920, and the first winter sections of the Grant Grove area were suspended accommodations, as well as informal winter from entry, temporarily prohibiting anyone from sports activities, were initiated here in 1922. By claiming the land under existing land laws. the end of the 1920s, a new Giant Forest village Sequoia National Park, the nation’s second had taken shape around the Sentinel Tree, national park, and General Grant National Park, featuring a gasoline station, a lunch room that the nation’s fourth national park, were estab­ also served as a winter lodge, a market, and a lished by Congress on September 25 and new photography studio. October 1, 1890, respectively. On the latter date, Sequoia National Park was tripled in size. On In 1926 Sequoia National Park was enlarged to February 14, 1893, Benjamin Harrison include the Kern Canyon/Mount Whitney area, signed a proclamation establishing the Sierra increasing the park’s area from 252 to 604 Forest Reservation, an area of more than 4 square miles. Samuel Pierpont Langley had million acres stretching from Yosemite National conducted research on solar heat on the summit Park in the north to a point well south of of Mount Whitney as early as 1881, and in 1909 Sequoia National Park. the Smithsonian Institution had constructed a stone building on the peak’s summit to conduct Administration of the new national parks was solar heat observations. assigned to the military. On June 7, 1891, Captain J. H. Dorst, Fourth United States

35 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The 1926 legislation also designated 25 square economy measure, an arrangement that miles in the Mineral King area as the Sequoia continues to the present day. In 1965 the Cedar National Game Refuge to protect the area’s Grove area of Kings River Canyon, described by wildlife that moved freely in and out of the John Muir as a “rival to Yosemite,” and Tehipite surrounding national park lands. The refuge was Valley were added to Kings Canyon National administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Park to protect their valley floors from proposed water development projects for the expanding Road construction during the 1920s and early Los Angeles metropolitan area. 1930s made the national parks more accessible to automobile touring. In 1921 construction of In 1976 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Generals Highway began, and it took five years Parks were among the first American national to build 18 miles from Ash Mountain (the site of parks to be designated as international biosphere the new park headquarters at the southern edge reserves under the Man and Biosphere Program of Sequoia National Park) to Giant Forest. In of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, 1932 the General Grant National Park section of and Cultural Organization. Each biosphere the Generals Highway was completed, and in reserve represents a specific ecosystem; a place 1934 the picturesque inter-park highway was for research, monitoring, and education; and a opened for automobile travel from Grant Grove place where government policy makers, to Ash Mountain. In 1929 construction started scientists, and local persons cooperate to manage on a state highway from Grant Grove to Kings land and water resources to meet human needs River Canyon. while conserving natural resources.

In 1933 five Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) In 1978 Congress added the Mineral King area camps were established in Sequoia National to Sequoia National Park, bringing an end to a Park; later two more were added. Enrollees 12-year fight. In 1966 the U.S. Forest Service, constructed campgrounds, trails, ranger stations, responding to greater demands for outdoor and other administrative facilities, landscaped recreation, had granted Productions roadsides, cut firewood, and controlled forest a preliminary planning permit for a year-round fires. Some of the notable CCC improvements resort in the Mineral King Valley, which would included structures and trails in Giant Forest and include a Swiss-style village, ski-lifts to serve Grant Grove villages, the rock work along 20,000 skiers daily, and parking for 3,600 Generals Highway, and the stone stairway on vehicles. However, the argued that Moro Rock. An ice-skating rink at Lodgepole Mineral King’s value as wilderness made the and a ski area at Wolverton were opened in valley worthy of national park status, and that 1934. In 1940 Crystal Cave, discovered by park development would cause irreversible damage. employees in 1918, was opened to the public As a result of litigation that reached the U.S. after the CCC constructed a trail and lighting Supreme Court, the California legislature’s system. refusal to fund improvements of the Mineral King Road, and growing national public oppo­ After a 50-year struggle Kings Canyon National sition to the plans, Disney dropped the resort Park was finally established on March 4, 1940. plans, leading to the legislation adding the area Its purpose was to protect some 710 square to the park. miles of scenic mountain and rugged canyon wilderness on the west slope of the Sierra Nearly 70 years after John White (park Nevada, including the former General Grant superintendent 1920–1939 and 1941–1947) National Park. Several months later the raised the issue that development was damaging Redwood Mountain area north of Sequoia the very sequoias that the parks had been National Park was added to Kings Canyon. In established to protect, all overnight visitor 1943 the administration of Sequoia and Kings facilities, including many locally significant Canyon National Parks was unified as a wartime historic structures, were removed from the Giant

36 Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources

Forest area. Replacement facilities and lodging Human remains have been found in Crystal accommodations are being provided at Cave, which were repatriated according to Wuksachi, and the grove’s natural setting is Native American consultation procedures in being rehabilitated. accordance with the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act. A newly published book On April 15, 2000, President William J. Clinton provides evidence of Yokuts traditional ethno­ signed a proclamation creating the Giant graphic interest in Crystal Cave (Despain 2003), Sequoia National Monument, consisting of two which will be pursued as a topic of the parks’ parcels of Sequoia National Forest. The northern ongoing Native American consultations. Arche­ parcel is bordered by the Kings Wild and Scenic ologically, one prehistoric bedrock mortar site River (authorized on November 3, 1987); the for grinding seeds is located outside the entrance southern parcel by the North Fork of the Kern to Crystal Cave. Inside the cave, a charcoal Wild and Scenic River (authorized on November hearth has been found that came “from a tree 24, 1987). that died between [A.D] 1600 and 1820 . . . [and the hearth was located] near the largest entrance to Crystal Cave, in an area natural light has its ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES farthest reach into the cave . . . [marking] the best place to start a fire to illuminate the next There are some 260 archeological sites known in dark and to light torches for further exploration” the parks. About 4% of the parks’ acreage (Despain 2003). Other than the historic remnants (approximately 35,000 acres out of 864,000) has of CCC stone work at the Crystal Cave’s en­ been surveyed for cultural resources. Most of the trance, there are no other known cultural survey work has been in the parks’ frontcountry, resources associated with caves in the parks. which is more easily accessible and where de­ velopments or projects are most often proposed Two archeological sites are listed on the (e.g., roads, campgrounds, overnight accommo­ National Register of Historic Places: dations, and prescribed fires). Comparatively • Groenfeldt Site — Listed March 30, 1978. fewer backcountry projects have been carried This is a rock shelter of late prehistoric out (excluding historic structure evaluations, times with considerable human habitation. trail surveys, and topic-specific research). While the site is between Grant Grove and Giant Forest, it is in such remote and Both prehistoric and historic archeological sites relatively steep terrain that visitors would can be found in the parks. Twenty-six archeo­ probably find it only by accident. logical sites have been recorded that show obsidian fragments. Obsidian tools were highly • Hospital Rock — Listed August 29, 1977. prized for their sharpness and suggest trade since Hospital Rock is a late prehistoric village mineral analysis of the obsidian shows that some site with pictographs, pottery, and evi­ of it came from sources far away (Roper dence of human burials. Its historic Wickstrom 1992). Sites in east-west passes like components continue up to the time of Taboose Pass in Kings Canyon National Park European contact in the mid-19th century. suggest trade routes, as well as the presence of However, any links between the prehis­ women with children, because grinding stones toric and the historic Indians who lived have been found as evidence of food prepara­ here are not well defined. This site is a tion. Also, stone structures thought to have popular stop for visitors to picnic, use the served as hunting blinds as well as temporary comfort station, and take in the interpre­ shelters have been found. At least one site tive wayside exhibits. The site is in the suggests evidence of use over many years foothills at the point where Generals because of the range of artifacts, from prehis­ Highway begins its ascent to Giant Forest. toric stone tools to 19th century trade beads (1200 B.C. to A.D. 1850).

37 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

HISTORIC STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, Historic Properties Listed on the AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES National Register of Historic Places

The wide range of cultural resources in Sequoia Authorized by the National Historic Preservation and Kings Canyon National Parks reflects the Act of 1966, the National Register of Historic evolution of land use philosophy, from pre­ Places is the nation’s official list of districts, historic human use of natural resources; through sites, buildings, structures, and objects in both Euro-American settlement, control, and extrac­ public and private ownership that are significant tion of resources; to the conservation and preser­ in American history, architecture, archeology, vation movements of the late 19th and 20th engineering, and culture. The following 18 centuries. According to the NPS thematic frame­ historic structures and districts in Sequoia and work of American history and prehistory for Kings Canyon National Parks are listed on the studying and interpreting historic sites, four of national register, along with the date each was the primary NPS history themes can be related listed: to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: • Ash Mountain entrance sign — April 27, I. Peopling Places — human population 1978 movement and change through prehistoric • Barton-Lackey cabin — March 30, 1978 and historic times, as well as the evolution and development of communities • Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormi­ according to cultural norms, historical tory — April 27, 1978 circumstances, and environmental • Cattle cabin — September 15, 1977 contingencies • Gamlin cabin — March 8, 1977 III. Expressing Cultural Values — expres­ sions of culture — people’s beliefs about • Generals Highway stone bridges (Clover themselves and the world they inhabit, as Creek bridge, Marble Fork bridge) — well as the ways that people communicate September 13, 1978 their moral and aesthetic values • Giant Forest Lodge Historic District — V. Developing the American Economy — May 5, 1978. During 1998–99, all ways Americans have worked and the structures in this historic district were ways they have materially sustained removed. themselves by the processes of extraction, • Giant Forest Village / Camp Kaweah agriculture, production, distribution, and Historic District — May 22, 1978. During consumption of goods and services 1998–99, the majority of the structures in VII. Transforming the Environment — the this historic district, with the exception of variable and changing relationships the district ranger’s residence, the comfort between people and their environment station, and the market, were removed. Historic sites, structures, and landscapes in • Hockett Meadow ranger station (also Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks date includes barn) — April 27, 1978 from the late 19th century and extend to the • Knapp’s cabin (also known as Artist’s post-World War II era. Site types include cabins, Cabin) — December 20, 1978 ranger stations, cattle and sheep camps, ranching • Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape sites, logging areas, mines, bridges, hydro­ District — October 24, 2003. Includes 52 electric dams and flumes, trails, wagon roads, buildings, 2 sites, and 4 structures that and early automobile roads and highways. contribute to the district’s significance, Numerous structures relate to the development along with 19 buildings and 1 structure of the national parks under the direction of the that do not contribute to its significance. National Park Service. (Preliminary determination of eligibility

38 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes

studies identified mining, resource • General Grant National Park Historic preservation [logging and early NPS District — December 29, 1998. Includes history], recreation, and the modern 71 eligible buildings/structures (3 environmental movement as themes structures not eligible). contributing to the significance of the • Generals Highway (including Hospital cultural landscape district.) Rock automobile watering stations and • Moro Rock stairway — December 29, stone water fountain, and Tunnel Rock) 1978 — June 1992 • Pear Lake ski hut (also known as Pear • Lost Grove comfort station — December Lake ranger station) — May 5, 1978 8, 1997 • Quinn ranger station — April 13, 1977 • Redwood Mountain residence — December 8, 1997 • Redwood Meadow ranger station (also includes barn) — April 13, 1978 The Kaweah hydroelectric plant no. 3 could be affected by this general management plan. • Shorty Lovelace Historic District — Located near Three Rivers, this historic property January 31, 1978. Includes Cloud includes three contributing structures (the Canyon, Vidette Meadow, Gardiner powerhouse, the Marble Fork conduit, and the Creek, Woods Creek, and Granite Pass Marble Fork siphon and diversion dam) and was cabins. determined eligible for listing on the national • Smithsonian Institution shelter (also register by the California state historic known as Mount Whitney summit shelter, preservation officer on March 21, 1990. Mount Whitney shelter) — March 8, 1977 • Squatter’s cabin — March 8, 1977 Potential National Register Listings • Tharp’s Log — March 8, 1977 The Wilsonia Historic District, an inholding in Four historic districts in the parks are under the Grant Grove vicinity within Kings Canyon consideration by the National Park Service for National Park, was listed on the national register evaluation and potential nomination to the on March 14, 1996. The historic district is com­ National Register of Historic Places: posed of 139 buildings that contribute to the Ash Mountain Historic District — Pending district’s significance, as well as 73 non­ formal evaluation, the National Park Service contributing buildings. currently considers 17 buildings / structures as contributing to the significance of the potential historic district, and 38 buildings / Historic Properties Determined structures do not contribute. Eligible for Listing on the National Lodgepole Historic District — Pending Register of Historic Places formal evaluation, the National Park Service currently considers four buildings / structures Seven historic structures, features, and districts as contributing to the significance of the in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks potential historic district and two buildings / (along with their dates of determination) have structures as not. been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the Sycamore Civilian Conservation Corps California state historic preservation officer: Camp Historic District — Pending formal evaluation, the National Park Service cur­ • Atwell Mill ranger station and garage — rently considers four buildings / structures as December 8, 1997 contributing to the significance of the poten­ • Atwell mill site — 1976

39 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

tial historic district. Trailers in this area do mentioned, during 1998–99 all buildings (all of not contribute to the significance of the area. which had been determined to have local historical significance) were removed from the Mission ‘66 Structures — While most Giant Forest area, with the exception of the historic sites, structures, and landscapes in ranger’s residence, the comfort station, the the parks date from the late 19th century and market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall. This extend through the 1940s, current studies are action was taken pursuant to the memorandum examining potentially eligible structures of agreement between the National Park Service from the NPS Mission ‘66 construction and the California state historic preservation program in the Ash Mountain, Lodgepole, officer, and it was accepted by the Advisory and Grant Grove areas. Council on Historic Preservation on September 25, 1995. The 1995 agreement was undertaken Structures Determined Ineligible for to provide for the restoration/rehabilitation of the National Register the natural conditions of the Giant Forest area and the preservation of the internationally Three historic structures in Sequoia and Kings significant sequoias. The National Park Service Canyon National Parks have been determined to intends to initiate actions to remove the Giant be ineligible for listing on the National Register Forest Lodge and Giant Forest Village / Camp of Historic Places by the California state historic Kaweah Historic Districts from listing on the preservation officer. These properties, and the National Register of Historic Places. dates of their determinations, are: The Beetle Rock assembly hall is to be retained • Muir hut (also known as Muir Pass shelter for use as a center for public education and/or cabin) — September 15, 1976 group events. • Beetle Rock assembly hall — August 5, 1994 List of Classified Structures • Sycamore Village shoeing shed — December 8, 1997 Currently, 98 structures in the parks are on the parks’ List of Classified Structures (see appen­ dix C). This list is an inventory of all structures Historic Districts to be Removed with historical, architectural, or engineering from the National Register significance and in which the National Park Service has or plans to acquire a legal interest. In 1994 the California state historic preservation Structures may individually meet the criteria of officer determined that additional resources in the national register or may be contributing the Giant Forest area were eligible for listing on resources to sites and districts that meet national the National Register of Historic Places, includ­ register criteria. Also included are other struc­ ing the Pinewood Shelter Camp Historic Dis­ tures that have been moved or reconstructed, trict, Lower Camp Kaweah Historic District, and commemorative structures, and structures various structures in the NPS Highland housing achieving significance within the last 50 years. area. However, the National Park Service, the These structures are to be managed as cultural California state historic preservation officer, and resources because of management decisions the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation made pursuant to the planning process. had executed a memorandum of agreement on August 21, 1978, providing for the removal of overnight facilities from Giant Forest that CULTURAL LANDSCAPES adversely affected the internationally significant natural values for which Sequoia National Park To date, one cultural landscape in Sequoia and had been established to preserve. As previously Kings Canyon National Parks has been listed on

40 Cultural Resources: Ethnographic Resources and Landscapes the National Register of Historic Places. The • Landscapes that have lost their integrity: Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District Lodgepole is a historic vernacular landscape, and it was Hospital Rock listed on October 24, 2003. General Sherman Tree area Giant Forest In 1998 the Cultural Landscapes Automated Sycamore CCC camp Inventory Management System database indicated that 10 parent landscapes and 13 • Landscapes that have retained their component landscapes have been identified in integrity: the parks at the park reconnaissance survey Generals Highway stage. Studies are underway to identify and Ash Mountain inventory additional cultural landscapes. Grant Grove Currently identified landscapes include: Crystal Cave • Ash Mountain Historic District • Landscapes that may be found significant • Generals Highway under the current Mission ‘66 study: ◦ Hospital Rock automobile watering Potwisha campground stations Buckeye Flat campground • Giant Forest Buckeye housing area ◦ Giant Forest Lodge Historic District Because the evaluation process has not been ◦ Giant Forest Village / Camp Kaweah completed, this environmental impact statement Historic District has evaluated impacts on all of these cultural ◦ Lodgepole landscapes as if they were eligible for listing on • Kern Ranger Station/Lewis Camp Area the National Register of Historic Places. ◦ Kern River Trail • Mineral King Historic District ◦ Early Trails ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES AND ◦ Empire Mine LANDSCAPES ◦ Mineral King cabin community ◦ Mineral King Road An ethnographic resource is defined as “a site, ◦ New England Tunnel and Smelting structure, object, landscape, or natural resource Company feature assigned traditional legendary, religious, ◦ White Chief Mine subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated with • Pear Lake it” (NPS 1997). Certain plants continue to be ◦ Pear Lake ski hut and ranger station gathered and used by American Indian tribes • Quinn Ranger Station near the parks, such as the Wuksachi Tribe; • Sycamore Village specific gathering spots have not been identified to date. Sites or areas with continuing impor­ • Wilsonia tance to contemporary Native American groups • Cabin Creek ranger residence and and individuals include the rock art at the dormitory Hospital Rock picnic area and the Potwisha campground. (Federally recognized tribes are The May 2003 “National Park Service Cultural listed in appendix D.) Landscapes Inventory” for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (NPS 2003c) made the At the time of Spanish and American explora­ following preliminary determinations about park tion and settlements in the early and middle landscapes: 1800s, known Yokuts groups included the Chunut and the Tachi of the region;

41 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT the Chukaimina of the Squaw Valley area; the rooted in that community’s heritage and history Wukchumni of the upper Kaweah River area, and because they are important to the continuity including Lemoncove and Three Rivers; and the of the community’s identity. Choinimi, Dumna, Kechayi, and Chukchansi of the northern foothills. On the west side of the Consultations with American Indians and other Sierra were Paiute-related groups, the Western neighbors of the parks will continue to identify Mono or Monache. They are believed to have possible ethnographic resources and landscapes migrated over the mountains 400 to 500 years for further learning and consideration. One such ago. The Monache groups included the topic for ongoing Native American consultations Michahai, Wuksachi, Wobonuch, Entimbich, is indigenous fire management. Possible indig­ and Potwisha. enous fire-management areas could be consid­ ered as traditional cultural properties eligible for The Yokuts as well as Monache groups are the national register and could be a topic of known to have seasonally used general areas mutual interest for both a tribe and the National within the parks, and a newly published book Park Service to share information about how provides evidence of the Yokuts’ traditional such areas might best be managed. ethnographic interest in Crystal Cave. Historic era contact and intermarriage among Yokuts and The parks have completed their compliance with Monache groups occurred with some regularity, the provisions of the Native American Graves making the ethnographic picture more complex. Protection and Repatriation Act. Descendants of these groups can be found today on the Reservation, within the various Paiute reservations and communities of MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND the Owens Valley, and interspersed within the ARCHIVES larger communities of the foothills and central valley towns and cities on the west side of the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have parks. A handful of key ethnographic studies maintained museum collections since the earliest exist for Native American groups (Gayton 1929, days of the National Park Service. The collec­ 1930, 1948; Latta 1949; and Steward 1933, tions support cultural and natural resource 1935), but a formal parks-specific ethnographic management and provide material for research overview has not been conducted to date. by park staff and outside scholars. At present, the parks’ museum collections and archives total Ethnographic landscapes generally are larger in approximately 340,000 items. A relatively small area and broader in scope than the vernacular or number of museum objects (about 200) are on designed historic landscapes that are often exhibit to the public in the parks’ various visitor considered under the category of cultural centers. landscapes. No ethnographic landscapes have been identified thus far through consultations with American Indians and other neighbors of the parks. Collections

To date no ethnographic resources have been The parks’ museum collections document the identified as potentially eligible for listing on the archeology, biology (including wildlife biology National Register of Historic Places as tradi­ and botany), geology, paleontology, ethnog­ tional cultural properties. Ethnographic re­ raphy, and history of the region. sources eligible for or listed on the national • The archeology collection (some 22,000 register are called traditional cultural properties. artifacts) consists primarily of obsidian Such resources may be listed or eligible for tools and debris, and also pottery (rela­ listing because of their association with a living tively rare on the western slope of the community’s cultural practices or beliefs that are Sierra Nevada).

42 Cultural Resources: Museum Collections and Archives

• The largest and most heavily used part of Storage Conditions the biology collection (with 10,000 zoological or botanical specimens) is the Today, most of the parks’ museum collections herbarium, with examples of 1,200 of the are housed in the headquarters at Ash Mountain. 1,400 known plant species. Other collec­ This is essentially a research and storage facility, tions preserve bird, insect, and mammal not an exhibit space. specimens. As these collections grow with ongoing inventory and monitoring efforts, The museum collections storage area is approxi­ they will help establish a baseline for mately 600 square feet, which is inadequate and species and their geographic distribution limited for the present collections. While within the parks. temperature and humidity are regularly • The geology collection (300 specimens) monitored and recorded, these are controlled by consists primarily of minerals and forma­ the thermostat for the building-wide heating and tions from area caves. cooling system. Temperature and humidity levels have proven to be fairly constant, and • The paleontology collection (20 speci­ within NPS standards, perhaps, because this end mens) consists entirely of fossilized of the building is partially built into an earthen sequoia wood. The 17 sequoia fossils are bank. from different parts of the world, such as Norway, Alaska, and State. Security and Fire Suppression The geologic conditions of the parks do Arrangements not facilitate preservation of fossils. • The ethnographic collection (30 artifacts) The Ash Mountain facility is secure and well consists of a small but important group of protected with keyed entry and an independent historic, locally produced American alarm system. Nonetheless, recent discovery of a Indian baskets. passive exhaust duct of the heating and cooling system has revealed that the Ash Mountain • The history collection includes nearly facility is less secure than previously thought, 300,000 manuscripts and records associ­ particularly from small animal intrusion. The ated with Euro–American exploration and duct, concealed by a false ceiling, opens into the settlement, local history, and park history. collections storage area and affords direct access Other items include period uniforms, for rodents and other pests. The area is now photographic albums, maps, and a miner’s being closely monitored for any incursions prior cache. A collection of 11,000 historic to repair of this condition. photographs documents both the natural and cultural environment of the parks. A fire suppression system is in place and the collections and archives environment is closely Library monitored. This is especially important given that the Sequoia / Kings Canyon ecosystems are Museum staff maintain the parks’ five branch thoroughly co-adapted to fire. The primary libraries, which make available various scien­ collections storage area is equipped with an tific, regional, and park-specific works on nat­ automated fire detection and suppression system ural and cultural resources. The libraries provide employing a halon-substitute (ozone-depletion an opportunity for research and the preparation problems preclude the use of halon). Individual of visitor-education materials and programs. fire extinguishers are kept at other museum storage facilities. No original, irreplaceable objects from the collections are exhibited or stored under conditions not in full compliance with NPS fire-safety standards.

43 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Future Needs collections are certain to grow, especially with regard to collections linked to ongoing projects The primary concern for the continued well­ (e.g., the herbarium and the records of pre­ being of museum collections is space. Both scribed burns and wild fires); this will further storage and workspace are at premium in the exacerbate the space shortage. There is also a collections storage area, despite the installation shortage of adequate workspace for researchers of compressed shelving on movable tracks. The and for the curation of objects.

Giant Forest Museum

44 Transportation and Circulation

ROADWAY NETWORK IN AND stated, the Generals Highway has been deter­ mined eligible for the National Register of AROUND THE PARKS Historic Places.

In the 1988 a total of 83 roadways in Sequoia Mineral King Road intersects California 198 just and Kings Canyon National Parks (including south of the Ash Mountain entrance station and some roads to parking areas) were classified and provides access to the Mineral King trailheads, numbered (NPS 1988). The discussion below camping areas, and several private inholdings. describes important regional and park roadways. The first 9 miles of the road are outside the park and are under the jurisdiction of Tulare County; Two regional highways provide access to the remaining 16 miles are within Sequoia Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: National Park. Mineral King Road is paved for • California Highway 198 provides access 17 miles; the remaining 8 miles are a mix of from Visalia to the Foothills visitor center paved sections around development and unpaved at Ash Mountain in Sequoia National sections away from cabins and campgrounds. Park. At Ash Mountain California 198 All of the unpaved sections are within the park. becomes Generals Highway, which At higher elevations and within the park, the provides most of the road access to road is predominantly one lane and unpaved, Sequoia’s main visitor interest areas. with a speed limit of 10–20 mph. As previously Generals Highway terminates at Kings stated, the Mineral King Road Cultural Land­ Canyon Highway about 1 mile south of scape District has been determined eligible for Grant Grove and east of the Big Stump the national register. entrance station. Two other roads follow the north and south • California 180 provides access from forks of the Kaweah River into the western side Fresno to the Big Stump entrance station of Sequoia National Park. Both are two-lane in Kings Canyon National Park. At Big paved roads that provide access to homes and Stump California 180 continues into the other lands in the Three Rivers area. As the park as the Kings Canyon Highway, roads near the park, they become one-lane leading through Grant Grove to the Cedar unpaved roads. Both roads terminate inside the Grove area of Kings Canyon. park boundary, with a campground at the end of Kings Canyon Highway and Generals Highway the South Fork road. are paved two-lane roads, characterized by 22­ foot traveled ways. Shoulder widths vary, but Other paved two-lane roads of substantial length are generally very narrow and unpaved. Both within the park connect attractions, including highways also have a fair number of vehicle Crystal Cave, Crescent Meadow / Moro Rock, turnouts at scenic viewpoints. Free-flow speeds Wolverton, Lodgepole, and Panoramic Point. Of on both highways vary from about 20 miles per these roads, Crescent Meadow / Moro Rock, hour (mph) on steep, winding sections to 35–40 Crystal Cave, and Panoramic Point are two-way mph on newer, flatter sections. Generals but are not wide enough to allow a center stripe Highway provides access to private inholdings to demarcate two lanes. Wolverton Road has full along the Big Meadow road and to U.S. Forest 11-foot lanes in both directions and center Service special use permit cabins at striping. Other shorter roads to campgrounds, Meadows. There is a large year-round resort at trailheads, viewpoints, and natural features Montecito-Sequoia, and seasonal lodging and throughout the parks are typically narrow and food service at Stony Creek that are accessed unpaved, with no shoulders. The Panoramic directly from Generals Highway. As previously Point Road and Kings Canyon Highway, as well

45 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT as portions of Mineral King Road, were paved in predominantly along the Generals Highway and 2001. The Wye, near Grant Grove, was replaced the Kings Canyon Highway. The Mineral King with a T intersection. Some roads were also Road and the North Fork and South Fork roads improved in park developed areas. also provide access to other park areas. All of these roads wind through foothills and moun­ The Moro Rock trail and Colony Mill Road tainous forest areas and may provide challenging (now a trail) have been determined eligible for driving experiences for visitors. Vehicle length the National Register of Historic Places. Other restrictions and advisories are intended to roads and trails will be identified, inventoried, provide more pleasant experiences for all and evaluated for listing eligibility. motorists and safer ones for those with larger vehicles. Roads may be closed due to weather conditions; the Mineral King and Cedar Grove VISITOR CIRCULATION IN THE PARKS areas are closed from winter through late spring.

A comprehensive visitor survey was conducted for the parks in the winter and spring of 1998 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE QUALITY and is documented in the “Transportation and OF PARK ROADS Visitor Use Data Summary for Winter / Spring 1998 and Transportation Condition Assessment” Road Use and Congestion (BRW, Inc., and Lee Engineering 1999).* According to this survey, the distribution of Traffic congestion and road use data are ex­ visitors between the two primary entry routes pressed here in four ways: length and classifica­ was fairly even. About 60% of visitors left via tion of vehicles in the traffic stream, average the same gate they entered. daily traffic (ADT) on key road segments, peak- hour volumes and level of service (LOS) on key Data on areas visited showed that over 66% of road segments, and peak-hour volumes and level visitors went to only one major activity area; no of service at intersections. single activity area was a clear favorite. In fact, 10% of survey respondents had not visited any major activity areas during their stay. Surveys in Vehicle Length and Classification the summer of 1997 showed slightly longer stays, as well as visits to more major activity Data on vehicle length and type were collected areas per stay, than the winter / spring 1998 in 1997 for the “Visitor Use Survey” at the surveys. This finding is not unexpected, since following locations: families with school-age children probably limit their visits to weekends during non-summer 1. Big Stump entrance on Kings Canyon months, and many activity areas are not Highway, inbound — length and accessible in the winter. classification 2. Generals Highway at the Giant Forest Visitors primarily travel to Sequoia and Kings museum, northbound — length and Canyon National Parks by private vehicle, and classification while tour bus use has been increasing in recent years, it is still limited. Vehicular access is 3. Mineral King entrance, inbound — classification only

* Visitors were randomly sampled upon exiting the parks Single vehicles on Generals Highway are about their entry point, visit duration, and use of various restricted to a maximum length of 40 feet, and roads and major activity areas, such as Giant Forest, Kings vehicles with trailers may not exceed 35 feet. Canyon, or Mineral King. More than 1,400 surveys were The Park Service recommends that large vehi­ collected over five days (three days in March and three days in May). cles use the Big Stump entrance because the

46 FIGURE 1: PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)

FIGURE 2: AVERAGE SEASONAL DAILY TRAFFIC: FRIDAY–SUNDAY

Transportation and Circulation: Transportation Service Quality of Park Roads horizontal and vertical curves along the northern Peak-Hour Roadway Level of Service portion of Generals Highway are not as sharp as those along the southern portion. Vehicles Transportation service quality for recreational longer than 22 feet are discouraged from using roads is commonly based on definitions in the Generals Highway between the Potwisha Transportation Research Board’s Highway campground and the Giant Forest museum Capacity Manual. Uniform standards are used to because of the numerous switchbacks. Table 5 define and measure the operational performance summarizes vehicle lengths and Table 6 vehicle of different types of roads by using the level of classifications. service (LOS) concept, as defined below: • LOS A — free-flow traffic. Individual users are virtually unaffected by other Average Daily Traffic vehicles on the road. Nearly all drivers are Daily traffic volume counts were taken at 19 free to select their desired speeds and to locations in and near the parks in the summer of maneuver within the traffic stream. The 1997 and the winter and spring of 1998, but not general levels of comfort and convenience all locations were counted in all three seasons. for motorists, passengers, and pedestrians Data represent the daily average for a three-day are excellent. count period at each location (see Peak Hour • LOS B — high-quality, stable traffic flow. Level of Service map). The California Depart­ The presence of other users begins to be ment of Transportation (Caltrans) has also noticeable to individual drivers. The free­ published 1997 ADT information for California dom to select desired speeds is relatively Highways 180 and 198 showing annual average high, but the freedom to maneuver within daily traffic for these highways. On California the traffic stream declines slightly from 180, just west of Kings Canyon National Park, LOS A. The levels of comfort and the Caltrans ADT count was 1,400 in 1997, convenience for individual travelers are somewhat lower than the average three-day somewhat less than at LOS A because the weekend volume reported in the NPS study. On presence of others in the traffic stream California 198, just south of Mineral King Road, begins to affect individual behavior. On a the Caltrans ADT count was 3,450, considerably road operating at LOS B, slow-moving higher than the count reported for the NPS vehicles would delay a few drivers, study. The higher count could include local especially on steep grades. traffic in the Three Rivers community. • LOS C — the beginning of traffic flow in which individual travelers are substan­ tially affected by other vehicles in the

TABLE 5: VEHICLE LENGTHS

Sample Size Primary Vehicles Primary Vehicles with a Trailer (veh) <22′ 22–30′ >30′ <22′ 22–30′ 30–40′ >40′ Big Stump Entrance 792 92% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Generals Highway at Moro Rock 649 96% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Source: BRW Inc. and Lee Engineering 1999. Data collected by Traffic Analysis and Research, Inc.

TABLE 6: VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS

Pickups (w/ Com Single Sample Size Passen Motor Camper), RVs mercial Unit Semi- (veh) ger Cars cycles Vans (<22′) (<22′) Buses Trucks Trailers Big Stump Entrance 792 92% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Generals Highway at Moro Rock 649 96% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mineral King Entrance 49 98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: BRW Inc. and Lee Engineering 1999. Data collected by Traffic Analysis and Research, Inc.

51 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

traffic stream. The selection of speed by traffic problems to acquaintances or park most users is affected by the presence of officials. other vehicles. Maneuvering within the The methods, measures, and empirical rela­ traffic stream requires substantial vigi­ tionships developed for two-lane rural roads are lance on the part of the driver. At LOS C the most applicable to the roads in Sequoia and slow-moving vehicles delay some drivers. Kings Canyon National Parks. The general level of comfort and conven­ ience at this level is noticeably worse than Driving in a park environment (especially where at LOS B, and some park visitors may attractive natural scenery is visible from the car) begin to consider their visitor experience differs considerably from driving on a typical compromised. roadway. Driving in a park can be part of the • LOS D — the upper end of traffic vol­ visitor experience, and traffic often moves at umes that can be accommodated while speeds well below the legal limit. As such, the maintaining stable traffic flow. Vehicle LOS results may understate traffic congestion, speeds and the freedom to maneuver are because the effects of drivers slowing or stop­ severely restricted for nearly all users. ping in the roadway to look at scenery or read Drivers and pedestrians experience a poor signs are not taken into account. The peak-hour level of comfort and convenience. Other level of service was evaluated for the morning vehicles delay most drivers, and some and evening peak hours at all locations and visitors perceive conditions as crowded. seasons for which data were collected and are shown on the accompanying map. • LOS E — operating conditions at or near the capacity of the roadway. All speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uni­ Intersection Level of Service form level. There is virtually no freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream; Level of service for intersections relates to the traffic entering the stream usually requires delays drivers encounter while waiting for an that drivers already on the road volun­ acceptable gap in opposing traffic. LOS esti­ tarily “give way.” Comfort and conven­ mates are based on information about specific ience levels are extremely poor, and turning movements at each intersection, and the driver frustration is high. Operations at level of service is determined from the total this level are usually unstable, in that estimated delay for unsignalized intersections. small increases in flow or minor dis­ ruptions within the traffic stream cause all Four intersections along Generals Highway were traffic to stop. Delays and slow speeds analyzed — the Wye on Kings Canyon High­ create a noticeable negative visitor way, Lodgepole Road, Wolverton Road, and experience for most visitors. Crescent Meadow / Moro Rock Road. Counts • LOS F — forced flow. LOS F occurs were taken at each location in the summer of when more traffic attempts to use a road 1997 from 9 to 11 A.M., noon to 2 P.M., and 3 to segment than can be accommodated. Flow 5 P.M., and the volumes in the highest hour (four is extremely unstable. Long queues form consecutive 15-minute periods) were chosen for in the traffic stream, and operations are analysis. These times represented the morning, characterized by stop-and-go waves, with midday, and evening peak hours. All four inter­ vehicles perhaps progressing at reason­ sections operated at LOS A or B (very low able speeds for several hundred feet, then delays) in each peak hour. stopping in cyclic fashion. At this level the experience is so compromised that many visitors may reconsider their route or destination and make comments about

52 Transportation and Circulation: Transportation Service Quality of Park Roads

Traffic Accidents vehicles were fewer and smaller, so the road width and hairpin turns from Ash Mountain Traffic accident statistics on NPS roads are com­ (milepost 1) to the Wolverton Road junction piled in the Systemwide Traffic Accident Re­ (milepost 19) were not as hazardous for drivers porting System (STARS). The system assists in as they are today. Now larger vehicles often the compilation and analysis of high-accident need to use part of the oncoming traffic lane to locations. The most recent comprehensive study negotiate a turn, creating a safety risk. of road accidents was completed in 1995 and covered 1990 through 1993. The study reviewed Many accidents occurred at or near roadside the progress of the NPS traffic safety program pullouts and could be attributed to the pullout and compared accident records with those from design and use. Most pullouts are on the fill side 1982 through 1984. The study identified 20 of the road, but traffic volumes and use patterns high-accident locations (18 road segments and 2 indicate a need for more pullouts on the cut side intersections) and made detailed recommen­ of some roads. Poor design or marking creates a dations to improve the two intersections. Table 7 potential hazard in terms of sight distance, as shows the 1990–93 accident statistics for well as for bicyclists and pedestrians. roadway segments and Table 8 for intersections. Approximately 225 paved roadside turnout areas When Generals Highway was designed and in the parks are used as slow-vehicle refuge constructed in the 1920s and early 1930s, areas, resting places, viewpoints for scenic re-

TABLE 7: HIGH-ACCIDENT ROADWAY SEGMENTS, 1/1/1990 TO 12/31/1993

Length Density Severity Accident Rate High-Accident Roadway Segments Milepost (miles) Accidents (acc/mile) Index (acc/mvmt)* Generals Highway (Tunnel Rock)** 2.60–2.65 0.05 6 12.0 1.06 97.00 Generals Highway** 3.00–3.50 0.50 3 6.0 1.33 4.85 Generals Highway** 4.15–4.25 0.10 3 30.0 1.38 24.25 Generals Highway** 4.85–5.05 0.20 3 15.0 1.00 12.12 Generals Highway** 6.30–6.40 0.10 5 50.0 1.23 40.41 Generals Highway** 6.55–6.60 0.05 2 40.0 1.13 32.33 Generals Highway** 6.80–7.40 0.60 9 15.0 1.33 12.12 Generals Highway (Commissary Curve) 14.50–14.70 0.20 10 50.0 1.00 6.32 Generals Highway 14.85–15.08 0.20 3 15.0 1.44 10.85 Generals Highway (Buena Vista Point) 15.20–15.30 0.10 5 50.0 1.00 36.15 Generals Highway 15.60–16.40 0.80 6 7.5 1.06 5.42 Generals Highway 16.45–16.60 0.15 8 53.3 1.00 38.56 Generals Highway (Giant Forest) 16.80–17.50 0.70 22 31.4 1.25 21.10 Generals Highway (General Sherman Tree) 18.50–19.30 0.80 9 11.3 1.00 7.55 Generals Highway 24.10–24.90 0.80 2 2.5 1.00 2.38 Generals Highway 29.10–29.60 0.50 3 6.0 1.61 5.72 Generals Highway 45.25–45.40 0.15 2 13.3 1.00 11.51 Grant Tree Road 0.45–0.60 0.15 2 13.3 1.00 29.51 Source: “Traffic Safety Program Review for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.” * Road segment accident rates are expressed in terms of accidents per million vehicle-miles traveled. ** Because Generals Highway has been reconstructed from the Ash Mountain entrance to about milepost 11, the conditions at the first seven high-accident locations are no longer the same as during the 1990–93 study period.

TABLE 8: HIGH-ACCIDENT INTERSECTIONS

High Accident Intersections Accidents Average Daily Traffic Accident Rate (acc/mve)* Generals Highway at Lodgepole Campground 7 1,830 2.90 Generals Highway at Grant Grove Road ( the Wye)** 9 1,590 4.30 Source: “Traffic Safety Program Review for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.” * Intersection accident rates are expressed in terms of accidents per million vehicles entering. ** The Wye intersection was reconstructed in summer 2002 to a new design, so a lower accident rate than observed in the 1990– 93 study can be expected.

53 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT sources, and chain-up areas in winter; 165 of the phone lines that run along the road are to be turnouts are on Generals Highway. Most turn­ placed underground. outs are 105–158 feet long and 10–20 feet wide, but some are as short as 52 feet, and less than 10 Previous pavement overlays have raised the feet wide. Many more informal pullouts are un­ roadbed over existing drainage ditches and catch paved shoulder areas created by years of con­ basin inlets, creating a safety hazard at the edge tinued use. Some of the paved pullouts began as of the roadway. Certain drainage features are informal ones. Recent roadway construction being reconstructed to address this problem. projects have closed some pullouts and “formalized” others. Other Road Improvements

Planned and Ongoing Transportation A structurally deficient bridge at Cedar Grove Improvements needs to be replaced.

Reconstruction of Generals Highway PARKING To address safety and operational problems, Generals Highway has been reconstructed from Existing Conditions Ash Mountain to Big Fern Spring. The traveled way was widened to a consistent 22 feet (two Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have 11-foot lanes), with a 1- to 2-foot paved at least 37 parking areas. Parking is provided at shoulder on the cut side of the roadway, and most major activity areas and attractions, as well several other improvements were made. as most trailheads. Some areas have recurring capacity problems, and the capacity of some lots The reconstruction project improved several is diminished by snow accumulation. access roads and parking areas along the high­ way, including the power plant road, Chief The 1998 “Visitor Use Study” examined occu­ Sequoia entrance sign parking area, the Syca­ pancy (spaces used at a given time), duration more Drive intersection, the Cammerer Way (length of time a single vehicle is parked), and approach and parking area, and visitor parking turnover (number of times a space is used in a areas at the Foothills visitor center. A new en­ given time) at 19 lots with an approximate total trance road (with a 22-foot paved traveled way capacity of 900 spaces (capacity was not mea­ and 1-foot dirt shoulders) is being developed sured at two of the lots). Of the lots studied, from Generals Highway to the Potwisha camp­ those at General Sherman Tree (including the ground. As part of the reconstruction, the one- roadside pullout), Big Stump, and the Grant lane, one-way bypass road at Tunnel Rock was Grove visitor center all overflowed at least once reconstructed as a standard 22-foot road with 1­ during the study period (BRW, Inc., and Lee foot shoulders to accommodate two-way traffic. Engineering 1999). The lot at General Sherman Tree has perhaps the most severe shortage; this The reconstruction project is also removing lot is scheduled to close (see “Planned and unsafe pullouts, improving (or formalizing) Ongoing Parking Improvements” below). several existing informal pullouts, and correct­ ing several sight-distance hazards. For pedes­ Parking activity at trailhead locations is charac­ trian safety reasons, Generals Highway is terized by longer stays and lower turnover, as scheduled to be rerouted at the General Sherman hikers tend to spend more time out of their cars Tree so that the shuttle stop and the only parking than do other visitors. While parking at Mineral area will be on the same side of the highway as King Valley trailheads exceeds demand on some the General Sherman Tree (east of the highway). summer holidays, the rest of the trailhead park­ In addition, the existing aerial power and tele­

54 Transportation and Circulation: Parking ing areas do not exhibit capacity problems, even museum parking and museum overflow parking during the busiest summer months. areas. The museum parking area would be open year-round with 107 spaces for cars, 2 spaces for When parking overflows, safety, resource pres­ visitors with disabilities, and 10 spaces for buses ervation, and visitor experience problems occur. or RVs. The overflow parking area would be Visitors unable to find a space in a designated open from late May through September (depend­ parking area may either park in an undesignated ing on snowfall) and would accommodate area or leave the area without being able to see approximately 71 cars. Additionally, adjacent to the attraction. Undesignated parking creates a the museum are two government vehicle parking safety problem when parked vehicles block spaces and seven spaces for visitors with traveled ways or access to routes or amenities. disabilities. Near General Sherman Tree, all Such blocking of travel lanes is a particular parking is to be removed and a new, larger problem at roadside turnouts, especially those on parking area (called Upper Sherman Tree) is to the primary roads in the parks. The winding be provided near Wolverton Road. This area character of these roads limits sight distance, would have 230 vehicle spaces, 5 spaces for and parked vehicles even partially blocking the visitors with disabilities, and 12 spaces for buses road can present a potentially serious hazard. or RVs; a safe pedestrian trail would provide Vehicles parked outside designated areas may access to the General Sherman Tree. The also park on or near sensitive resources and Pinewood picnic area would have 34 vehicle cause damage. Visitors who are unable to spaces and 2 spaces for visitors with disabilities. experience an attraction or are forced to wait because of parking capacity deficiencies are was not completed when the probably more likely to have negative 1998 “Visitor Use Study” was undertaken, so impressions of their visit. parking capacity and occupancy data were not available. All parking to support future buildout at Wuksachi has been completed, and no Planned and Ongoing Parking additional parking is anticipated on the site. Improvements

Since the 1998 “Visitor Use Study,” new park­ ing has been planned for the Giant Forest

55 Visitor Experience

Visitor experiences in the parks include many established activities may have been moved different elements — the character of the parks, or modified to improve resource conditions the visitation patterns, educational and recrea­ or experiences and to meet newer laws and tional opportunities, and visitor services as well policy. For example, campgrounds, lodging, as affordability. and other facilities were removed from the Giant Forest to restore the sequoia grove. Backcountry use permits are required so that PARK CHARACTER use can be dispersed and tracked. More space is being provided between campsites Park character is comprised of both the setting when campgrounds are redeveloped to (the natural and built environment) and the improve experiences. Some visitor facilities human activities that are associated with it. have been made more accessible to users There are rustic, basic, and traditional com­ with disabilities. ponents of park character at Sequoia and Kings • Traditional patterns of use that date from the Canyon. late 1890s through the 1960s continue, but • Rustic refers to the character and quality of in very modified forms. Hiking, stock, and the built environment (both site and archi­ vehicles are still the three primary ways that tecture) as maintained by various guidelines. people enjoy the parks. But in the first half Visitors continue to enjoy park facilities and of the 20th century smaller groups visited site elements evoking the CCC era. New the parks and stayed overnight for longer public use facilities continue this rustic periods of time. Since the 1960s new groups heritage. Rustic architecture often uses of visitors are using the parks. Backcountry natural materials such as wood and rough, use peaked in the 1970s. The regional irregular, and occasionally massive stone­ population has doubled since 1980 and is work. Building forms are generally simple expected to double again within 10 years. and small, with steeper roof lines, some Changing vacation patterns have resulted in overscaled and textured elements, as well as shorter and more numerous vacations, more informal wrought-iron metal work. Signs, day use, and increased spring and fall use. benches, fencing, drinking fountains, walls, Overnight visitors stay for shorter periods in overlooks, pavement, bridges, and other site both the front- and backcountry. While the elements may also reflect a rustic character. backcountry still comprises approximately 97% of the land in the parks, backcountry • Basic character of the parks includes the use accounts for only 2%–3% of the setting and customary or historical activities visitation. While virtually all visitors (hiking, camping, lodging, backcountry use, continue to arrive by private vehicles, there and scenic driving through the parks). Other has also been an increase in tour buses. established activities include cave tours, Grant Grove is congested during the summer winter recreation, water play, and fishing. and has driving experiences similar to urban Visitors have access to many areas with areas. Waits and delays of up to a half hour examples of natural and cultural resources are common at the Big Stump entrance for which the park is significant — sequoia station during summer. Parking at groves, designated wilderness, range of eco­ Lodgepole is inadequate during summer. To systems and terrain (from foothills to al­ protect resources, visitors are no longer pine), regionally or locally significant his­ permitted to park in sensitive sites such as toric structures or districts, wild and scenic meadows, so finding a parking spot may be rivers, and caves. While basic activities difficult during high-use times. Giant Forest remain, some facilities related to these is now a day use area — a significant

56 Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Patterns

change from its past overnight uses. The Dillonwood. In 1992 the counting procedures conversion of Giant Forest to a day-use area were changed to reduce the likelihood of double has resulted in the replacement of parking, counting. A further complication is that visitors and eventually the use of a summer shuttle to the northern unit of Giant Sequoia National system will be required. Recreational stock Monument and some of Sequoia National Forest use has declined substantially since 1955 areas must pass through the park’s Big Stump and is more regulated to protect resources. entrance station. Recreational communities, comprised of privately owned cabins, continue but are As shown in Table 9, annual visitation has subject to land protection plans, easements, fluctuated over the last two decades, reaching a and permit conditions. high of 2.2 million in 1987 and 1991. Visitation in 2001 was estimated at 1.4 million. The lowest visitation recorded over the 20-year period was VISITATION 1.35 million in 1996.

Visitation is estimated by multiplying the num­ ber of vehicles entering by an average number of VUISITOR SE P ATTERNS passengers per vehicle, currently estimated at 2.3. Counting the number of visitors is compli­ Visitation is heavily seasonal, with most visits cated because there are two parks with multiple occurring in the summer months. Figure 4 shows entrance stations, and visitors can be double average visitation trends graphically. July and counted or not counted at all. The primary August are typically the most popular months, entrances are at Big Stump and Ash Mountain. followed by June, May, September, and Other access points by way of local roads do not October. Winter use depends on the weather and have entrance stations — North Fork, South snow conditions, with the lowest visitation Fork, Redwood Canyon, Mineral King, and levels in December, January, and February.

TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF ANNUAL VISITATION

Kings Canyon National Park Sequoia National Park Total for Both Parks Percentage Percentage Percentage Year Actual Use Change Actual Use Change Actual Use Change Comments 1985 874,456 939,486 1,813,942 1986 1,028,785 17.6% 1,056,527 12.5% 2,085,312 15.0% 1987 1,081,172 5.1% 1,139,389 7.8% 2,220,561 6.5% 1988 1,007,695 -6.8% 1,031,129 -9.5% 2,038,824 -8.2% 1989 1,037,349 2.9% 1,056,020 2.4% 2,093,369 2.7% 1990 1,062,867 2.5% 1,063,538 0.7% 2,126,405 1.6% 1991 1,120,278 5.4% 1,120,278 5.3% 2,240,556 5.4% 1992 637,446 -43.1% 961,095 -14.2% 1,598,541 -28.7% Counting procedures changed 1993 636,515 -0.2% 1,066,649 11.0% 1,703,164 6.5% 1994 725,930 14.1% 1,034,133 -3.1% 1,760,063 3.3% 1995 832,794 14.7% 844,582 -18.3% 1,677,376 -4.7% Road construction begins on Generals Highway 1996 502,749 -39.6% 838,060 -0.8% 1,340,809 -20.1% 1997 484,718 -3.6% 1,008,931 20.4% 1,493,649 11.4% 1998 540,212 11.5% 861,663 -14.6% 1,401,875 -6.1% Giant Forest Lodge shut down 1999 559,534 3.6% 873,229 1.3% 1,432,763 2.2% 2000 528,987 -5.5% 838,947 -4.1% 1,367,934 -4.5% 2001 541,787 +2.4% 870,327 3.7% 1,412,114 3.2% Source: NPS Statistics Office, 1979–2001 data.

57 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

FIGURE 4: AVERAGE VISITS BY MONTH TO SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON — 1992–2001

300 276 254 250

193 200 182 168

150 120

100 91 Average Visits (000) 55 59 44 50 38 39

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month

Source: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/stats/

Dispersal of Visitation visitors stayed four days or longer. The overall average summer length of stays in the parks was Frontcountry areas (about 2.5% of the parks) 2.6 days. Mineral King visitors tend to stay for receive around 98% of the use, and backcountry longer periods of time, with over half of the areas about 2%. These roadless areas can only visitors staying three days or longer. reached by trails and include designated wilderness. This relationship means that heavily Summer use contrasts sharply with use during used frontcountry areas are likely to be crowded, other times of the year. In spring the majority of especially during the summer. Crowding in the visitors (78%) are day visitors, while 19% backcountry is a different order of magnitude, stayed two or three days, and only about 4% and just seeing other backcountry users can be stayed four days or longer (BRW and Lee perceived as too many people for some visitors. Engineering 1999).

Population growth in the Central Valley and Length of Stay changing visitor populations have resulted in different park uses. Historically park visitors In summer 1997 a survey of visitors was came for longer periods (a week), were pre­ conducted to determined the length of stay by dominantly Caucasian, well educated, included surveying visitors as they left the park at either smaller size nuclear family or same-age back­ Ash Mountain, Big Stump, or Mineral King. A packing groups, and were interested in hiking comparable survey of spring visitors was con­ and seeing resources for which the parks are ducted in March and May 1998. About 45% of known. Observation and surveys suggest that the summer visitors exiting at Ash Mountain, Big visitor mix now includes more diverse racial Stump, or Mineral King were day visitors who groups, more multi-generational groups, and stayed an average of 4.5 hours (BRW and Lee larger families. Larger family camping, picnick­ Engineering 1998). About 14.6% stayed two ing, and day use facilities are in demand. days, and 14% three days. About a quarter of all

58 Visitor Experience: Visitor Use Projections

Opportunities for Visitors with Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Disabilities Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and Because of the rugged terrain in the parks, all Wisconsin; 6% came from other states; caves, and most alpine areas, natural features, and 14% from other countries. Regarding and trails are inaccessible to a great many users the foreign visitors origins: 35 % came with disabilities. Accessible parking is striped / from Germany, 16% from the United signed at paved parking lots. Projects to make Kingdom, 12% from Switzerland, 11% comfort stations and visitor centers more from the Netherlands, 13% from other accessible are programmed. At renovated European countries, and 13% from other campgrounds sites are being provided that meet countries. new accessibility guidelines. Stock use could • Sequoia and Kings Canyon were the trip provide accessibility for users with disabilities in destinations for 79% of the respondents. both the front- and backcountry, and one stock concessioner has made modifications to • First-time visitors were 45% of those accommodate disabled users. interviewed, and the rest were repeat visitors, with 14% having visited the park 10 or more times. VISITOR PROFILE • Of the respondents, 51% entered at Ash Mountain, 46% at Big Stump, 2% at A 1994–95 visitor use survey revealed the Mineral King, and 1% at other places. following visitor profile (NPS 1995e): • Respondents were highly educated: 20% VISITOR USE PROJECTIONS had completed graduate school, another 41% were college graduates, and an In 1993 errors in how the parks were counting additional 20% had completed some visitors were corrected. Unreliable traffic college. counters have been a continuing problem, and • Of the survey respondents 83% listed caution must be exercised when forecasting themselves as white, 9% Hispanic, and future visitor use. Historically, the data show a 8% other groups. slight downward trend in visitation: an average of -0.5% for Kings Canyon and -1.0% for • Visitors speak a variety of languages — Sequoia from 1993 to 2000. For future projec­ 80% English, 7% German, 6% Spanish, tions, it was assumed that visitation growth and French more than 1%. would likely fall within a plus 10% to a minus • Families were the predominant group 10% range (a simple linear projection), and that type, with nearly 39% of the respondents the average visitation for the past eight years visiting as a family with children and 28% (605,666 for Kings Canyon and 920,762 for as family groups without children. Family Sequoia) were reasonable starting positions. The and friends groups accounted for almost projections shown in Figure 5 for Kings Canyon 14% of the respondents. Groups of friends National Park and Figure 6 for Sequoia National made up 12% of the total, and people Park offer a reasonable forecast of visitation one visiting alone were only 5% of the groups. to five years into the future. These charts show a wide range of possible values for 2005. It is • About 8.5% of the respondents had some unlikely that visitor use would either rise or fall form of impairment (mobility, vision, at a steady 10% rate or remain exactly the same hearing, other) that limited their visit. over the next few years. A more likely scenario • Visitor origins were as follows: 62% from would be random increases or decreases from California; 2% each from New York and year to year averaging 1% to 3% over a five- Texas; 1% each from Alabama, Arizona, year period, with extraordinary spikes of plus or

59 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT minus 10%, much like the patterns of the actual seminars, guided activities, and overnight trips, visitor use data. as well as running bookstores in park visitor centers and educational tours of Crystal Cave.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Visitor Outreach Educational Facilities The park has a small community outreach pro­ Visitor educational facilities interpret different gram, providing information and programs to aspects of the parks. The Cedar Grove visitor those outside the parks. Interpretive staff visit center provides an information desk and a sales schools and community groups in the region, area, but no interpretive exhibits. The Grant provide environmental education programs for Grove visitor center interprets history and schools at the parks in the spring and fall, and logging. The Lodgepole visitor center focuses on work with educational partners such as the the forests and alpine regions, and the Walter Heritage Project and the University of Fry Nature Center at Lodgepole has numerous California, Merced. interactive exhibits, many especially appealing to children. A historic building is being adap­ tively reused as the Giant Forest museum, with a RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES focus on sequoias. The Beetle Rock education center in the former assembly hall serves group Recreational opportunities are provided in a needs. The recently remodeled Foothills visitor range of front- and backcountry settings — center at Ash Mountain focuses interpretation on foothills, canyons, wild and scenic rivers, granite the foothills environment. The Mineral King domes, caves, chaparral, sequoia groves, visitor contact station interprets a variety of mountain meadows, pine/fir forests, and alpine historic stories and natural features. areas. While trail-based activities are the most common, other activities are allowed or facilitated. Interpretation, Waysides, and Exhibits Historically established activities include hiking, Educational programs include ranger-led walks, backpacking, horseback riding / pack trips, campfire programs, Junior Ranger programs, caving, picnicking, fishing, sightseeing, and late and exhibits at the Grant Grove, Lodgepole, and season water play in rivers, and some use of Foothills visitor centers, the Mineral King ranger nonmotorized watercraft. Several types of / visitor contact station, and the Walter Fry guided Crystal Cave tours are available for a fee Nature Center. There are fewer interpretive through the Sequoia Natural History Asso­ walks and programs than in the past. Interpretive ciation, which also offers guided tours and other media include the park newspaper, limited programs. The parks also have three concession- numbers of waysides at park features such as the operated stables /pack stations that offer a Sherman and Grant Trees, and self-guided variety of riding and backcountry packing literature (the Grant Tree area and the Big services. Commercial business permits are Stump Basin near Grant Grove village, and issued to service providers of pack operations Congress Trail, Hazelwood, and Big Trees Trail (horse, mule, llama), backpacking, and guided at Round Meadow in Giant Forest). Recently, hiking or ski tour trips. wayside exhibits have been added to explain the move from Giant Forest. The Sequoia Natural History Association also provides educational

60 Visitor Experience: Recreational Opportunities

FIGURE 5: ACTUAL AND PROJECTED USE — KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK

900,000 851,939 832,794 800,000 774,490 704,082 725,930 700,000 640,074 636,515 581,886 600,000 559,534 540,212 528,987 528,987 500,000 502,749

Recreation Visits 484,718 476,088

400,000 428,479 385,632 347,068 300,000 312,362

200,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Actual Visitor Use Low Projection -10%

Medium Projection No Change High Projection +10%

Source: Data from NPS, Public Use Statistics Office, WASO-TNT.

FIGURE 6: ACTUAL AND PROJECT USE — SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK

1,600,000

1,482,897 1,400,000 1,348,088

1,225,534 1,200,000 1,114,122 1,066,552 1,034,133 1,008,931 1,012,838 1,000,000 920,762 873,589 838,947 844,582 861,303 800,000 838,060 828,686 Recreation Visits 745,817

600,000 671,236 604,112 543,701 400,000

200,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Actual Visitor Use Low Projection -10% Medium Projection No Change High Projection +10%

Source: Data from NPS, Public Use Statistics Office, WASO-TNT.

61 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Additional Activity Information Winter Use

Stock Opportunities Cross-country skiing, snow play, snowshoeing, and sledding are popular activities for regional Stock use is allowed in the parks with regula­ visitors. Both Grant Grove and Wolverton have tion, and a monitoring program based on snow play areas that attract hundreds of users. standards and indicators has been established Cross-country skis and snowshoes can be rented that has allowed both administrative and other at Grant Grove and Wuksachi, and cross-country stock use to continue at sustainable levels. ski lessons are provided at Lodgepole. Lower Stables and corrals where horses or mules may winter use levels mean visitors may find solitude be rented for guided day or backcountry use once they are outside the heavily used snowplay include Cedar Grove, Grant Grove, and areas. Snowmobiles are allowed on private roads Mineral King. Pack operations at Wolverton for use by inholders and on public roads for were suspended in 2002 due to safety consid­ permit holders to reach their cabins. erations and other uses for the site. The opera­ tion would be relocated if an appropriate site could be found. Fishing

Stock use trails may be heavily eroded in some Sport fish were stocked in previously fishless frontcountry areas like Wolverton / Giant backcountry lakes beginning in the 1870s and Forest. There are three kinds of stock use — have contaminated native fish stocks in the rivers commercial, private, and administrative. (Knapp 1996). They are being removed from Monitoring and research are continuing to some areas. Recreational fishing primarily takes define the stock carrying capacity of areas, the place in the Marble and Middle Forks of the use an area is capable of supporting without Kaweah River and the South Fork of the Kings resource impairment. Current regulations open River. Fishing is highly regulated, but is not and close meadows based on precipitation, supported by any facilities. residual forage, and use. Trailhead and back­ country rangers record data on stock use, along with mailback cards available at wilderness Activities on Adjacent Federal and Private Land permit-issuing stations. Around half of the stock users enter from adjacent USFS areas, so Some visitors enjoy activities in the adjacent not all stock use may be reported. national forests and Giant Sequoia National Monument. Backcountry trailheads that provide Facilities for Stock Use. Many backcountry access to the parks include the very popular trails were built and are maintained to Mount Whitney trailhead in Inyo National Forest. standards needed for stock use. Other facilities Boat and bicycle rentals are available at Hume include hitch posts, drift fences, bridges, and Lake, which is also a popular swimming and parking sized for stock trailers at trailheads. fishing location. Boyden Cave provides guided tours for a fee. Montecito-Sequoia Lodge offers a Type of Stock. Horses, mules, burros, and variety of recreational programs, including winter llamas are the only stock permitted. No other activities and guided programs. Hunting, camping, domestic animals are allowed. Goats are not fishing, and snowmobiling are allowed on USFS allowed because bighorn sheep populations are land, but hunting and snowmobiling are not extremely vulnerable to introduced disease. allowed in the park. However, most of the national forest was designated as Giant Sequoia National Monument in April 2000, and it is managed under a plan released in 2004.

62 Visitor Experience: Recreational Opportunities

Trail Systems Backcountry Use

Trail-based activities are the most common Backcountry users hike to their destinations or use recreational activity. The extensive trail system a variety of stock — horses, mules, burros, and and opportunities for cross-country exploration llamas. Commercial operators also carry packs to attract hikers from around the world. However, predetermined campsites while their clients hike the parks’ elevation ranges from 1,300 feet to in. Fees are charged for overnight backcountry over 14,000 feet, so trails are often very steep, permits (both hiking and stock trips). Five ranger and elevation changes may negatively affect stations issue permits (Cedar Grove, Grant Grove, the capability and health of some visitors. Lodgepole, Ash Mountain, and Mineral King). There are over 800 miles of frontcountry trails, There are 42 trailheads (25 in the parks and 17 on including about 26 miles of paved trails (see adjacent USFS lands) that provide 852 parking Table 10). In very heavily used areas, some spaces for backcountry users. The number of frontcountry trails are paved and edged by visits by backcountry users has declined slightly fencing to protect soil and vegetation. There since 1992, according to backcountry permits, as are about 842 miles of backcountry trails. shown in Figure 7. Because of the terrain, very few trails are accessible to the majority of disabled visitors. In 2001 there were 23,099 users; the average hiker group size was 2.91, and the average number of

TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF TRAILS

Location Comments / Popular Trails Kings Canyon National Park Backcountry Pacific Crest trail Cedar Grove area Zumwalt Meadow trail Grant Grove area General Grant Tree area has paved trails. Big Stump area is a mile and a half. Redwood Mountain 10+ miles Generals Highway Big Baldy Little Baldy Sequoia National Park Backcountry Pacific Crest trail John Muir trail Dorst area / Chimney Rock trail Wuksachi Lodgepole Tokopah Falls trail — very heavil y used (1.7 miles) Wolverton Popular backcountry trailhead to , Heather, Emerald and Pear Lakes Giant Forest Large day use trail system (40+ miles) includes: Trail system being renovated “Big Trees Trail” — a ¾-mile paved accessible trail. Congress Trail Hazelwood self guided nature trail Crescent Meadow day-use trails Trail center at the Giant Forest museum Trail center at Sherman Tree? Ash Mountain / Foothills Marble Falls trail Paradise Creek trail Middle Fork trail North Fork Colony Mill Road South Fork Ladybug trail Garfield Sequoia Grove trail Trailhead to Hockett Meadow area Mineral King Popular day use trails to hydro dams Backcountry trailheads to Farewell Gap, Franklin Pass, and Sawtooth Pass Dillonwood

63 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT people in stock parties was 5. Most of the Bicycling is allowed only on park roads and is backcountry is untrailed, and experienced most common within campgrounds. Bicycling visitors can hike or ride cross-country where may be dangerous on major park roads, such as permitted. Some high-use backcountry areas Generals Highway, because of narrow shoulders have designated campsites with bear-proof and hairpin curves where vehicles commonly food storage boxes and toilets to protect overlap lanes. resources and visitors. There is one high Sierra camp at Bearpaw Meadow, a concessioner run Snowmobiling is only allowed on those public tent-hotel that provides food service and roads that provide private landholders and permit showers. August is the most popular month for cabin users access to their cabins or private backcountry use, followed by July and property. September, June and October. Nonmotorized watercraft. In the last five years, when water conditions are high enough, visitors Backcountry Stock Use have introduced kayaking to the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River. The river has class IV condi­ Backcountry stock use has decreased from tions, appropriate only for expert kayakers. Use of nearly 45,000 stock nights in 1955 to 5,714 in the Middle Fork inside the park by kayakers is 2000. The amount of stock use stayed near 4% seasonal, but is subject to growth. NPS staff are of backcountry use between 1998 and 2000. In monitoring use and the associated impacts along 2000 there were 936 stock users, and the the river. number of stock per person in a group averaged 1.5. Stock users stayed on average a No air tour companies currently operate in the little over four days, a half day longer than parks, although two companies have applied to the hikers stayed. Federal Aviation Administration for operating authority.

New or Non-established Recreational Activities VISITOR SERVICES

New activities are assessed using federal The parks provide numerous facilities and regulations and NPS policy guidelines. services for visitors. Both food service and

FIGURE 7: BACKCOUNTRY OVERNIGHT STAYS — 1992–2001

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

64 Visitor Experience: Visitor Services overnight stays can be accommodated within a Sheep Creek — around 15,000 overnight stays variety of price ranges. and around 4,000 RV stays.

Grant Grove Campgrounds Azalea — around 14,600 overnight stays, and over 4,700 RV overnight stays Frontcountry Camping Crystal Springs — around 6,700 overnight There are 1,284 frontcountry campsites in 14 stays and over 1,900 RV stays campgrounds within the parks. All front- Sunset — over 12,500 tent, over 3,700 RV, country campgrounds can be reached by and 125 group overnight stays automobile, and the size and character of these campgrounds vary from small and primitive Sequoia National Park. There are seven front- (with 10 sites and pit toilets) to large and country campgrounds in Sequoia National Park developed (over 200 sites with pull-through that had over 128,000 overnight stays in 2000: sites and nearby free RV dump stations). Dorst — around 32,000 overnight stays, 9,300 Several campgrounds (Azalea, Lodgepole, RV stays, and 226 group overnight stays Potwisha, and South Fork) remain open year- round, while Dorst, four campgrounds at Cedar Lodgepole — around 30,000 overnight stays Grove, two at Grant Grove, and two at Mineral and 23,000 RV overnight stays King are closed from late fall until late spring. Buckeye Flat —over 6,500 overnight stays Azalea and Lodgepole have winter camping in snow conditions. Public showers are close to Potwisha — over 11,500 overnight stays and campgrounds in Cedar Grove, Grant Grove, over 5,200 RV overnight stays Lodgepole and Mineral King. Laundry South Fork (no RV sites) — around 500 facilities are nearby at Lodgepole and Cedar overnight stays Grove. Prices are comparable to those offered regionally and depend on the location and Atwell Mill (no RV sites) — around 2,000 services provided. overnight stays Cold Springs (no RV sites) — 8,000 overnight Kings Canyon National Park. There are stays seven frontcountry campgrounds in Kings Canyon with over 113,000 overnight stays in U.S. Forest Service. Additional camping 2000.* Campground use appears generally opportunities are provided in the adjacent national consistent but depends on the weather. forests, with 291 campsites in nine campgrounds Overnight stays for 2000 were as follows: Cedar Grove Backcountry Camping Canyon View (only campground that does not allow RVs, but has group sites) —over Over 20,000 backcountry permits are issued 5,900 group overnight stays annually for parties traveling by foot or stock animal. Some heavily used backcountry areas Moraine — over 4,100 overnight stays and have designated campsites, but in other areas more than 700 RV stays visitors are free to camp where they desire. Sentinel — over 17,200 overnight stays in Designated wilderness campsites exist in the 2000, and around 6,100 RV overnight stays following areas: Paradise Valley, Emerald Lake, Pear Lake, Bearpaw, Kern Hot Springs, Upper Funston, and Lower Funston. Sites are not specifically assigned, but established camping * One person staying one night equals one overnight stay. areas are marked, and camping must be confined to these locations.

65 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Lodging the most popular months, with lodging occupancy rates at 95% or better. From November through There are over 200 rooms / cabins available in March occupancy rates are around 33%. the parks (see Table 11). Concession contracts also allow lodging to be expanded or reno­ Cedar Grove has motel lodging, generally from vated. Kings Canyon Park Services provides April through October or November. Its annual lodging at Cedar Grove and Grant Grove. occupancy rate was 76% to 86% for 1998–2000, Delaware North Parks Services provides averaging 5,000–7,700 overnight stays annually. lodging at Wuksachi village and the Bearpaw Grant Grove had an annual occupancy rate of 58% high Sierra camp. to 66% for 1998–2000, averaging 25,000–36,000 overnight stays annually. Winter season use occupancy at Grant Grove is 20%–40%. Types of Facilities Wuksachi replaced Giant Forest Lodge in 1999. In Concession lodging facilities range from the 2000 Wuksachi had around 51,000 overnight Bearpaw high Sierra camp (a remote back­ stays (compared to about 120,000 annual stays at country camp with tent-top cabins) to rustic the larger Giant Forest Lodge). Non-peak season cabins with or without baths, to lodge rooms annual occupancy at Wuksachi averages over and suites. Historically, the parks have had 60%. Like Grant Grove, winter season use small cabins with baths, rustic cabins or tent occupancy is 20%–40%. tops without baths, and medium size lodges. The John Muir Lodge at Grant Grove and three The Bearpaw high Sierra camp operates from lodge buildings at Wuksachi village offer new June through September. Occupancy in July and medium size facilities that continue the rustic August is typically in mid 90% range, while occu­ architectural traditions of the parks. pancy in June and September depends on the weather. Typically there are over 1,000 overnight stays at Bearpaw; in 1996 there were over 2,000. Lodging Availability / Seasonality / Occupancy Non-Park Public Lodging in the Area Two frontcountry areas provide year-round lodging — Grant Grove village in Kings Additional lodging can be found in the adjacent Canyon National Park, and Wuksachi village national forest / monument at Montecito-Sequoia in Sequoia National Park. July and August are Lodge and Stony Creek Lodge south of Grant

TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF LODGING AVAILABLE IN 2000

Location / Quantity Type Daily Rate / Comment Cedar Grove Lodge $90 • 20 rooms Grant Grove • John Muir Lodge – 30 lodge rooms / suites • Bath cabins • $88 • 9 cabins with bath • Bath cabin #9 • $93 • 43 cabins with central bathhouses • Remodeled rustic cabins • $55 with central bathhouse • Future permitted buildout includes 9 • Rustic cabins • $45 with central bathhouse additional cabins and 19 renovated cabins • Tent cabins • $38 with central bathhouse • Lodge • $128 • Suite • $215 Wuksachi Village • 102 rooms • Standard room • $120 • Future buildout include 312 additional • Deluxe room • $135 rooms • Superior Room • $165 Bearpaw Camp (11-mile hike to backcountry Tent cabins $150 includes breakfast and dinner. camp) Central bathhouse. • 12 beds

66 Visitor Experience: Visitor Services

Grove; Kings Canyon Lodge on the Kings City Resort, and Montecito-Sequoia. Hours and Canyon Highway; and the Silver City Resort in days of service may be limited. the Mineral King area. There are also several private organizational camps and the Hume Lake Christian Camp. Gift Shops, Stores, Supplies, Post Offices, and Gasoline Stations

Other Visitor Services and Facilities Supplies may be purchased at Grant Grove, Lodgepole and Cedar Grove. Gift shops are Food Service located at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, Cedar Grove, and Wuksachi. Post offices are located at Grant Concession-owned restaurants operate at Grant Grove and Lodgepole. Limited supplies can also Grove and Wuksachi (see Table 12); limited be obtained at Silver City Resort and Stony Creek food service such as snack bars / market or deli Lodge (which is outside the parks). Gasoline is service are available at Lodgepole, Grant no longer available in the parks but may be Grove, Wolverton (winter only), and Cedar purchased at Kings Canyon Lodge and Hume Grove (summer only). Outside the parks, Lake, and at Stoney Creek along the Generals several seasonal and year-round facilities Highway between Dorst and Quail Flat. provide various types of food service: Stony Creek Lodge, Kings Canyon Lodge, Silver

TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF VISITOR FACILITIES

Cedar Grant Dorst / Lodgepole / Ash Mountain / Mineral Grove Grove Wuksachi / Giant Forest Foothills King NPS Facilities • Visitor use buildings 2 2 10 4 2 • Visitor centers / museums / 1 4 1 education facilities • Visitor Contact Station 1 1 •Comfort Stations/ 24 21 36 5 14 Restrooms •Picnic Areas 1 2 2 • Campgrounds 4 3 2 3

Concession Facilities • Lodging X X X (Wuksachi only) • Food Service X X X (Lodgepole, Wolverton [winter] and Wuksachi only) • Gift Shops X X X (Lodgepole and Wuksachi only) • Store / Supplies X X X (Lodgepole only) • Laundry / Showers X X (Lodgepole only) • Gas / Service Stations • Post Office X X (Lodgepole)

Inholdings or Giant Sequoia National Monument (Silver City Resort, Montecito-Sequoia, Kings Canyon Lodge, Stony Creek Lodge) • Lodging X • Food Service X • Gift Shops X • Store / Supplies X • Laundry /Showers X

67 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land

National parks are publicly owned lands set willing sellers in order to restore the land to aside to protect our nation’s most precious natural conditions (NPS 1986c). The Land natural and cultural resources. In addition to Protection Plan does not allow commercial use public lands within Sequoia and Kings Canyon of private property. Today private landowner­ National Parks, there are two types of non- ship encompasses 190 acres and 56 tracts. The public ownership or use — private land (referred National Park Service owns 92 tracts, 10 of to as inholdings) and permitted special park uses which have a reservation of use and occupancy (e.g., permits for utilities, non-profit uses, and by the former owner. Some government-owned private cabins at Mineral King). Additionally the properties contain structures contributing to the adjacent Alley property is considered in the historic district, and those structures have been general management plan. retained pending the completion of a new land protection plan following approval of the gen­ eral management plan. PRIVATE LAND The Grant Grove area has limited water supplies Wilsonia (Kings Canyon National but Wilsonia has no impact on the NPS public water supplies. Water in the Grant Grove area is Park) ultrapure, which results in the leaching of copper from the distribution system. Potable water When General Grant National Park (later Kings comes from 11 wells and 8 storage tanks scat­ Canyon National Park) was established in 1890, tered throughout Wilsonia. There is no informa­ a 200-acre area inside the park boundary was tion about wastewater systems. The Park Service privately owned. Later the tract was subdivided provides utilities to facilities that it owns and and sold and is now known as Wilsonia. The maintains. subdivided land contains primarily seasonal use cabins. Grant Grove village is adjacent to the Snowmobiles are allowed on private land and private land in Wilsonia. Wilsonia is hidden roads, but a snowmobile trail through the park to from public view since it is off the Kings what is now Giant Sequoia National Monument Canyon Highway and is not within public use is no longer accommodated. areas. Most visitors would not be aware of it. Early in the 20th century a goal was identified to purchase all private inholdings, but that goal was Oriole Lake (Sequoia National Park) not accomplished. Since then the National Park Service has purchased private land in Wilsonia Oriole Lake is a rare lake in the foothills envi­ from willing sellers and managed the area in ronment in a remote area of Sequoia National accordance with a Land Protection Plan (NPS Park; it is surrounded by designated wilderness. 1986c). In many cases multiple generations of Originally there were eight tracts of privately families have enjoyed their cabins, in other cases owned property on 9 acres; currently there are the owners are relatively new. Some seasonal four private landowners and five cabins, and the cabins are being converted for year-round use. National Park Service owns four tracts. Access Current estimated average property value is is by way of a primitive narrow dirt road that is $60,000; total property taxes (paid to Fresno gated, restricting public access. The Park Ser­ County) amount to around $93,000. vice has negotiated with landowners to provide public pedestrian access to Oriole Lake. At one The 1986 Land Protection Plan predates time there was a small airplane runway, which Wilsonia’s 1996 designation as a historic has been removed and the area returned to more district, so the National Park Service’s stated natural conditions. goal is still to acquire private property from

68 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Special Use Permits on Park Land

The 1986 Land Protection Plan proposes the Bavarian-style lodge (over 5,000 square feet of purchase of land in Oriole Lake from willing living space), a small guest or caretaker’s house, sellers so that the area can be returned to natural and a hydroelectric system using a 3,800-gallon conditions (NPS 1986c). The area is potential tank. The property is off the Mineral King Road wilderness, and the removal of development and cannot be seen from the road. Residents would allow the area to become wilderness. The have keys permitting access when the Mineral value of each property (land plus improvements) King Road is closed. Snowmobiles are allowed is estimated at $40,000, and property taxes only on the road to provide winter access to totaled $3,000. The Park Service provides private facilities / land. minimal services. The condition of water and sewer facilities is unknown. The 1984 Land Protection Plan envisions a continuation of the present residential use of the lodge (NPS 1984). The lodge was purchased by Silver City (Sequoia National Park) a private owner in 2002 and is expected to remain in residential use. Silver City was one of the earliest settlements along the Mineral King Road, dating from 1884. It evolved from a lumber and mining support Mineral King Valley Private community into a seasonal recreation commun­ Properties (Sequoia National Park) ity. The 160-acre area has 35 tracts with approximately 40 cabins, as well as a small A total of 29 acres in two tracts are privately resort north of the road with 14 rental cabins, owned in the Mineral King Valley — the Cedar public showers, and a restaurant / store. Silver Point mine and mill site, and No. 1 North on the City is visible to visitors on the Mineral King Empire mill site. Trailhead parking is located on Road. The National Park Service has acquired one tract, as well as two cabins with 99-year four large tracts in Silver City, and it maintains leases. Residents have keys for access when the the Mineral King Road and provides emergency Mineral King Road is closed, and as described response. The road is closed seasonally and for Silver City and Kaweah Han, snowmobiles gated but residents have keys for access. are allowed only on the road to provide winter Snowmobiles are allowed only on the road to access to private facilities / land. The structures provide access to private facilities / land. can be seen by trailhead users and constrain access near the trailhead. The property is valued The 1984 Land Protection Plan does not at $227,461; property taxes are $2,400. envision additional purchase of land, and it proposes scenic easements to retain the area’s rustic character (NPS 1984). The current SPECIAL USE PERMITS estimated value for each lot and improvements range from $40,000 to $60,000. About $39,000 ON PARK LAND in total property taxes are collected from the area. Silver City has its own water and sewer Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities systems, and electricity for the resort is provided by a generator. In the early 1900s Congress authorized the development of hydroelectric facilities along forks of the Kaweah River adjacent to and Kaweah Han, Sequoia National Park within Sequoia National Park. Congressional reauthorization is required every 10 years for the Adjacent to and below Silver City is Kaweah facilities to continue to operate, with the present Han, a 60-acre privately owned property that permit due to expire on September 8, 2006. The straddles the East Fork of the Kaweah River. It facilities, which are owned, maintained, and was constructed in 1937 and consists of a large operated by Southern California Edison, are

69 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT listed on the National Register of Historic The camp is near an old road (now a trail) that Places. Facilities include several hydroelectric connects Lodgepole with the Sherman Tree area plants outside the park that seasonally generate of Giant Forest. It covers approximately 2 acres 50,000 kilowatts of power, and the park receives of coniferous hillside and includes a water a rebate on its electricity use. distribution system, pit toilets, group campsites, and parking. Water use is metered and is billed Stone, concrete, and masonry facilities in the to the Boy Scouts by the National Park Service park include two dams, flumes, and channels in (in 2000, 18,000 gallons of water were used at a the Ash Mountain / Potwisha area. Above the cost of $358.20). Garbage collection is provided Mineral King area are four concrete dams that by contract. have created small lakes — Monarch, Eagle, Franklin, and Crystal Lakes. The lakes are used The camp is authorized through an NPS special as camping areas. A 1992 report of these dams use permit, renewable every five years, with an classified them as a “significant-hazard facility,” annual permit fee of $100. The council has a a statement of the potential adverse impact on written non-discrimination policy in place. The human life and downstream development if a permit conditions state that the camp shall be dam should fail” (NPS 1992b). Failure of these made available on a space available basis for dams “has the potential to jeopardize lives in at non-profit recreational and educational purposes. least one dwelling in the community of Mineral Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts from the region use King” and “the potential to jeopardize lives at the facility 90% of the time. During the rest of Cold Spring Campground” (NPS 1992b). the season, Camp Wolverton is used by university researchers and park volunteers. There are also wood / metal and concrete flumes While some visitors using the Wolverton picnic in and adjacent to Sequoia National Park. Water area drive by the location, it is not obvious or impoundments outside the park are used for visible to the majority of park visitors. local and park fire fighting. In addition to concerns about the structural integrity of the concrete dams, there are also concerns about Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin introduced sport fish and the impact of fire (both Cove, West Mineral King, East natural and prescribed) and earthquakes on Mineral King flumes and facilities in remote and difficult-to- reach locations. The Mineral King area was first opened to public use in 1879 with the construction of a Facilities are visible from the Potwisha camp­ road. Many early visitors were local Tulare ground, and the access route to the Potwisha County residents escaping summer heat in the dam is used for hiking by campers. Motorists Central Valley. Most of the cabins in this area driving the Generals Highway are generally not date from the USFS cabin program of the 1920s aware of these facilities. Many users in the to 1940s. The 1978 legislation that added the Mineral King area may not know that these Mineral King area to Sequoia National Park lakes are part of the hydroelectric system and authorized the continuation of permits for cabins were formed by concrete dams. on public land, but only for the life of the permittee of record in 1978. Special use permits are renewable by the park every five years. Nonprofit Use — Camp Wolverton Cabins are to be removed at the end of the life of (Sequoia National Park) the original permittee. In 1999 the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District was estab­ Since 1937 the Western Los Angeles County lished, with many cabins listed as contributing Council of the Boy Scouts of America has elements (see the discussion under the “Historic operated Camp Wolverton a mile or so from the Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes” Generals Highway and adjacent to Giant Forest. section, beginning on page 38).

70 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Potential Boundary Adjustments

There are now 62 active permits in three areas No floodplain studies have been done to deter­ — Cabin Cove, West Mineral King, and East mine if cabin structures are within the 100-year Mineral King. There are also a few cabins that floodplain. were not removed when the permittee of record died, pending the outcome of the general man­ The Mineral King Road is closed seasonally and agement plan. Fees for the special use permits gated but permit holders have a key authorizing consist of a use fee ($386 in 2001) that is access. Snowmobiles are allowed only on the forwarded to the U.S. Treasury and an admin­ road to provide winter access to privately owned istrative fee ($374 in 2001) that remains in the facilities. park, for a total fee of $760 in 2001. The fees were set in a 1994 appraisal and have been Many of the privately owned structures are increased annually in accordance with the con­ adjacent to the Mineral King Road, making them sumer price index. Tulare County possessory visible to all visitors, and various signs suggest interest taxes paid annually amount to around private land or ownership. The location of some $4,900. cabins may physically constrain access within the area. Special use permit cabins often bring West Mineral King has a potable community into question private ownership within park water system, developed by the permittees and boundaries. maintained by the National Park Service; it also supplies Cold Spring campground and the ranger station. Wastewater disposal is provided by POTENTIAL BOUNDARY individual private systems. In East Mineral King ADJUSTMENTS and Cabin Cove, wells or surface water diver­ sions provide water, and individual septic The Alley property is ranch property along the systems provide sewage treatment. Virtually all North Fork of the Kaweah River. The Colony permittees have toilets, sinks, and showers in Mill Road trail, which is used for park access, their cabins, and many retain an outhouse for cuts through the property. emergency use. In some cases wastewater from sinks is thrown into gravel sumps. Most facilities are close to water sources.

71 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities

STAFFING provides staff at visitor centers and contact stations. While popular with the public, the In FY 2001 full-time employees (FTEs) num­ number of interpretive staff has been reduced as bered about 262, up from around 220 for 1999 staffing needs for other programs have in­ and 2000 (see Table 13). Typically during the creased. As a result, the program relies more summer 250 to 300 seasonal employees are heavily on volunteers and the cooperating brought on, plus over 1,400 volunteers. Addi­ association. The parks have a small staff of tionally there are about 26 cooperating associa­ cultural resource specialists to manage archeo­ tion employees, 45 interagency staff and logical artifacts, ethnographic resources, historic researchers, and 250 concession employees. structures and districts, cultural landscapes, and museum collections, as well as participate in Native American consultations. As part of the Park Staff Divisions parks’ cultural resource program, the 1999 Natural and Cultural Resources Management Park Management and Administration Plan called for additional staffing

The superintendent, five division chiefs, and administrative staff comprise park management. Division of Fire Management and Visitor Administrative functions are primarily located at Protection the Ash Mountain headquarters. Rangers are responsible for protecting visitors and park resources and for enforcing park rules Division of Interpretation and Cultural and regulations. They staff entrance stations, Resources Management maintain mounted units, provide law enforce­ ment, search-and-rescue, and emergency The Division of Interpretation and Cultural medical services. Resources offers programs and activities and

TABLE 13: STAFFING SUMMARY 2001

NPS Staff Number of FTEs Percentage of FTEs Park Management 7 2.6% Park General 13 5.0% Administration 20 7.6% Interpretation and Cultural Resources 21 8.0% Fire Management and Visitor Protection 45 17.2% Ranger Fees 18 6.8% Science 22 8.4% Maintenance Operations 79.2 30.2% Maintenance SPEC 37 14.1% Total FTEs 262.2 100%

Estimated Seasonal Staff 290.4 Estimated Volunteers in the Parks 1,432.8

Other (Research) 25 NA Interagency staff (fire crew) 20 NA Sequoia Natural History Association 26 NA Concession 100 KCPS NA 140 DNPS ±24 horse

72 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Staffing

Helicopters are used for fire suppression and Historic Structures. Structures that are eligible monitoring, search and rescue, emergency for historic recognition are to be maintained medical, and snow surveys, and occasionally for according to the “Secretary of the Interior’s supplying backcountry ranger stations. Standards.” Maintaining historic facilities is Snowmobiles are used primarily to facilitate expensive and labor intensive, and if and when research, snow surveys, and winter search and they are altered, law requires them to be made rescue. accessible to people with disabilities. When a historic facility that provides public services, Fires are monitored and managed or suppressed such as a restroom, cannot be made accessible to protect life, private property, and public (possibly due to type of construction and narrow resources and facilities. In order to restore a entrances) additional facilities are provided to natural fire regime, fire history is mapped and meet that need. some areas are purposefully burned when condi­ tions permit in order to improve resource con­ Utilities. When a system fails or reaches the end ditions and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic of its life cycle, or the demand changes, there fires. Interagency firefighters are based may be conflicts between preserving natural and seasonally in the parks at the Swale fire camp in cultural resources and providing services that Grant Grove village. meet all environmental regulations. Increasingly stringent state codes result in higher operating and maintenance costs and may lead to utility Division of Natural Resources system closures. The National Park Service is responsible for utility systems to support Staff in the Natural Resources Division do acquired private property. In some areas, due to research and protect and monitor diverse re­ tighter state standards, terrain, and soil condi­ source conditions. The Resources Management tions, vault toilets are being used, resulting in Plan and annual work plans guide the work of increased park maintenance budgets due to this division. Number of staff in this division has pumping/transport expenses. increased with a stronger emphasis on informa­ tion in the national parks. Tree crews assess the Frontcountry Facilities. In the frontcountry the condition of trees in developed areas, and those Maintenance Division is responsible for approxi­ that pose a public safety hazard are removed on mately 258 miles of paved two-lane roads and a priority basis. Storms, wind, insects, and dis­ about 38 miles of unpaved roads (generally less ease all cause tree maintenance work. Enormous than two lane), 26 miles of paved trails, 497 sequoia trees with their shallow root systems, buildings, over 1,400 campsites, 50 picnic sites, have been known to topple without warning, and 23 water systems, 5 wastewater systems, and leaning sequoias are closely monitored. approximately 60 septic systems, as well as signs and benches. Special measures are taken to protect sequoia trees (fencing, paving, and Division of Maintenance and Construction armoring path edges to contain the impacts of pedestrian trampling) and to minimize human / The Maintenance Division carries out vital park bear encounters (providing bear-proof storage functions, operating heavy equipment and utility boxes in frontcountry campgrounds, along with systems and maintaining roads and facilities, as maintaining bear-proof refuse containers and well as providing janitorial services such as dumpsters). cleaning restrooms. Mountainous terrain, aging infrastructure / facilities, seasonal closure of Backcountry Facilities. In the backcountry the facilities all affect maintenance operations. Road Maintenance Division is responsible for over maintenance, snow removal, and hazard tree 842 miles of unpaved trails. Trail maintenance removal are time and labor intensive. supplies and equipment are transported by stock and helicopter to remote locations, and some

73 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT mechanized equipment is used to provide the Grant Grove, Wolverton, and Mineral King. maximum amount of public access by reducing Concessioner facilities are further discussed the amount of time and labor required to keep up beginning on page 78. the trail system. Bear-proof storage boxes have been installed in popular backcountry areas. Backcountry toilets have been provided in some Partners and Volunteers areas to protect resources, requiring routine maintenance and periodic relocation or Over 1,400 volunteers serve in the parks in a replacement. variety of capacities.

Administrative Stock Use. The parks have established a monitoring program based on Commercial Permit Holders standards and indicators to allow both adminis­ trative and other stock use to continue at sus­ Approximately 60 commercial or incidental tainable levels. NPS administrative stock use business permit holders provide services for comprised 43% of total stock use in 1999 (the visitors. Most of these permits are for bus tours, percentage of use has gradually increased as backpacking services, horseback riding, guiding commercial stock use has fallen). Administrative services, llama packing, and skiing services. use includes stock-supported ranger stations These enterprises use park resources to offer (Roaring River, Kern, and Hockett) and trail recreational opportunities to the public that crew use. The administrative pasture at Ash otherwise may not be available, and they must Mountain may have up to 90 horses and mules comply with park regulations. grazing at any one time. Most administrative stock winter outside the park. The effect of seasonal grazing at Ash Mountain is moderate. Inholder and Permit Holder Groups

Administrative Helicopter Use. Helicopters are Groups of inholders and permit holders provide used by staff for deliveries of backcountry sup­ some educational services and help maintain and plies and crews. They are considered the mini­ operate some utility systems. mum tool necessary for trail maintenance.

PARK FACILITIES PARTNERS AND OTHER ENTITIES Utilities Sequoia Natural History Association Water The association runs bookstores, educational events, and cave tours. Water supply and treatment facilities are pro­ vided for park developments and some back­ country areas. Water supply depends on annual Concessioners precipitation, and local recharge may be limited at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, and Ash Mountain. There are two primary concessioners in the (Water use and wastewater data are summarized parks. Kings Canyon Park Services provide in appendix E.) lodging and other facilities in Kings Canyon National Park. Delaware North Parks Services in Water usage depends on the type of plumbing Sequoia runs facilities at Wuksachi, Lodgepole, fixtures. In facilities with older fixtures an and Wolverton, as well as the Bearpaw high estimated 64 gallons of water are used per Sierra camp. Two other concessioners provide overnight visitor. In areas with low-flow day rides and pack operations at Cedar Grove, fixtures, demand falls to about 42 gallons per

74 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Park Facilities overnight visitor. Day use demand is about 10 Roads gallons per person per day. In campgrounds water use is in-between. There are around 258 miles of paved two-lane roads in the parks, and about 38 miles of un­ paved roads (generally less than two lane). Wastewater / Sewer Generals Highway is being rebuilt, continuing the two-lane width, which limits the number of The Cedar Grove wastewater treatment facility people who can access the parks. Road character was replaced in 1998. The Giant Forest facility guidelines have been developed to support the has been relocated to the Clover Creek waste­ reconstruction. water treatment plant near Wuksachi. A few areas cannot be easily connected to wastewater Ongoing Giant Forest construction projects have treatment plants, and appropriate conditions for reduced the number of parking spaces inside the sewage leachfields may not exist. In such cases sequoia grove, but a similar number of parking they are being replaced by vault toilets, which spaces overall are being provided at other require regular pump out and increased sewage locations outside the grove. The limited parking handling expenses. that remains in the grove is in previously disturbed areas.

Electrical Power Cedar Grove is closed at the end of November and reopened in early April. Mineral King is Overhead power lines have been replaced in closed at the first of November and reopened on most areas or are scheduled to be replaced. An Memorial Day, snow conditions permitting. underground route through Giant Forest, which Unpaved portions of the Mineral King Road is difficult to maintain because it goes directly require heavy annual maintenance. The higher through the grove, is scheduled to be replaced by elevations of the Generals Highway are periodi­ the longer but more accessible route that follows cally closed by snow; however, roads are opened the road system. Solar and wind power are used as soon as possible. at some of the more remote locations, such as the government pack station in Cedar Grove, the Lookout Point entrance station in Mineral King, Parking and Dorst campground. Generators are used at other remote locations, such as the Cold Spring Table 14 shows the location of the approxi­ ranger station and Crystal Cave. mately 2,600 public parking spaces (excluding campgrounds); the majority of public parking spaces are in year-round paved areas. Telecommunications The Ash Mountain headquarters area has All frontcountry areas have phone systems. parking for staff and other needs. A total of 87 There are radio repeaters and microwave striped staff spaces at Ash Mountain are equipment in the frontcountry and backcountry. supplemented by additional paved and unpaved areas in residential and operational areas to meet needs of small offices, motor pools, maintenance Gas yards, delivery areas, and storage areas. Staff Propane is used in all frontcountry development parking at headquarters is insufficient and areas. Often screening is used to reduce the carpooling is encouraged. visual impact of tanks in more public areas. Other developed areas have similar residential, operational, and concession parking needs.

75 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR PARKING AREAS

Lodging Areas Location Public Parking / Trailheads (not campgrounds) Road Pullouts Staff Parking Cedar Grove (seasonal) 335 (8 accessible ) Grant Grove 370 (9 accessible) 33 (including accessible) Lodgepole Area* • Lodgepole 109 •Giant Forest / 497 (33 accessible, 22 Sherman RV / bus) •Wolverton 300 •Crescent Meadow / Moro Rock 108 •Crystal Cave 141 Wuksachi 258 Generals Highway 60 (including North and South Fork areas Ash Mountain 154 35 112 (including 25 at recreation hall) Mineral Ki ng ( seasonal) 92 (all gravel) Totals 2,106 291 95 112 Note: Accessible means accessible for people with disabilities. * Includes unofficial spaces.

NPS Non-Residential Facilities Historic Facilities

There are numerous public, administrative, and Rental cabins at Grant Grove are maintained by operational facilities in the parks (see Table 15). the concessioner. Most park use is seasonal, requiring extensive preparation to open facilities and to close them The Giant Forest market and the Beetle Rock down for the winter. Many park facilities have assembly hall are being adaptively reused as a outlived their expected life. Facilities eligible for museum and classroom. The restroom at Giant historic status require special care. Forest has been renovated. Historic features (such as Tharp’s Log, the Moro Rock stairs,

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF NPS FACILITIES

Lodgepole Wuksachi Cedar Grove Wolverton Giant Mineral King Type of Facility (seasonal) Grant Grove Forest Ash Mountain (seasonal) Total Visitor Use 3 3 13 5 3 27 Comfort Stations 25 21 36 5 14 100 Admini strat i on 7 7 2 23 6 45 Maintenance 17 28 25 27 12 109 Garages 7 4 16 1 27 Fire / Fire Lookout Fire station Fire station Fire station Fire station Fire station 5 fire stations Swale interagency Lookout 2 lookouts fire camp Lookout Campgrounds 4 3 2 2 2 13 Campsites • Tent only 37 17 168 28 61 • Tent or RV 314 262 84 52 •RV only 20* 72 • Accessible 1 6 9 1 1 352 305 333 81 61 1,132 * Self-contained RVs only.

76 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Park Facilities

Cattle cabin, restrooms, benches at Giant Forest; on site to provide essential services, (2) housing the fishing cabin at Cedar Grove; the Gamlin is not available in the local market, or (3) no cabin and log at Grant Grove) receive regular housing is available within a reasonable com­ preventive maintenance. mute distance. As a result, former residences within the parks have been converted to office, Some buildings in Wilsonia provide additional multi-purpose, and storage spaces, sometimes seasonal housing. Five NPS-owned facilities at detracting from a cohesive residential character, Wilsonia are in poor to fair condition. especially in the Ash Mountain headquarters area. Grant Grove has the most unified residen­ There are several historic facilities in the Ash tial area, with housing between the visitor cen­ Mountain area, including structures from a CCC ter, maintenance operations, and Wilsonia. The camp at Sycamore. housing area at Lodgepole has some park opera­ tions facilities and is close to campgrounds and At Mineral King, a cultural landscape district visitor use areas. Often housing is tucked into has been recognized that includes seven contri­ available space, so a picnic area at Cedar Grove buting NPS-owned facilities (two garages, one became a concessioner trailer housing area. Con­ ranger station foundation, three water troughs, cession housing is usually separate from NPS and the roadbed itself). housing. Housing is summarized in Table 16.

Backcountry ranger cabins and other historic An inadequate housing supply makes hiring facilities receive preventive maintenance. seasonal staff and volunteers difficult. In the summer 2001 there were over 80 requests for 40 seasonal park housing units, and it is often Natural Resource Protection difficult for seasonal staff and volunteers to find affordable housing in local communities. Con­ Fence lines and other work at the Grant and cession housing is also limited, with around 30% Sherman Trees have facilitated sequoia grove of staff having to commute from the outside. and meadow restoration. To date, 231 acres of sequoia grove in Giant Forest have been Gateway communities provide services for park restored, and over 1 million square feet of staff, but local real estate values make housing asphalt have been removed. too expensive for some staff. While road access to the parks has been improved, the commute to Lodgepole / Wuksachi is still long and arduous. NPS Residential Facilities Mineral King is not considered within a reason­ able commute distance due to the terrain and By Department of the Interior policy, housing is road conditions. Carpooling is used to ease provided only when (1) personnel are required parking demand and the lack of onsite housing.

TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES IN THE PARKS

Cedar Lodgepole / Giant Grove Grant Grove Forest Ash Mountain Mineral King Backcountry National Park Service • Permanent NA 18 21 20 NA 15* •Seasonal 21 23 31 26 7 32 Concessioners ±70 ±107 Inholdings 190 ±40 Silver City 92** 8Oriole Lake Permit Cabins (active) 62 Total (783) 21 ±393 ±174 46 ±117 32 * RV optional concession. ** NPS-owned tracts.

77 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Estimated average daily water requirements for operations do not require or authorize an residential use is 64 gallons per day for older expansion of services or the construction of new plumbing fixtures and 42 gallons per day for facilities. Silver City Resort is a private inhold­ low-flow fixtures. Estimated average daily ing in the Mineral King area that offers visitor wastewater capacity for housing is similar for accommodations, food, and supplies. overnight and day use.

Kings Canyon Park Services CONCESSION FACILITIES The Kings Canyon Park Services contract runs Concessioners in the parks are listed in Table 17. through October 1, 2011. Contractual obliga­ Kings Canyon Park Services operates in Kings tions require the concessioner to accomplish the Canyon National Park, and Delaware North following (common to all alternatives because of Parks Services in Sequoia National Park. The contractual requirements): concession permits for day rides and pack

TABLE 17: SUMMARY OF CONCESSION AND PRIVATE FACILITIES

Kings Canyon Horse / Mule Pack Station, Horse Riding National Park Kings Canyon Park Services Station — Loverin Cedar Grove 21 room 3 story lodge Cedar Grove Pack Station Snack bar / market • 9 buildings (including 1 residence, 2 staff 4 trailers (housing), 1 comfort station cabins, 2 bunkhouses with bath) 1 public shower / restroom / laundry • 1 public restroom Grant Grove 30 rooms in two-story lodge Grant Grove Stables Market / post office • 3 buildings (including residence and Gift shop / restaurant bunkhouse, each with bath) 9 cabins with bath 43 cabins with two central bathhouse / shower buildings 4 storage buildings / canopies 1 public comfort station 1 employee comfort station 3 office buildings Staffing 15 employee cabins with central bathhouse (2–3 employees (100 employees; each) housing for about 8 dorm rooms with shared bath 70) 10 employee trailers with baths Personal RV spaces as needed Sequoia National Horse / Mule Pack Station, Horse Riding Park Delaware North Parks Services Station — Page Lodgepole Market/food service Public laundry and showers 1 service station (currently not in service) Wuksachi 3 two-story lodges with 102 rooms 1 two-story restaurant / kitchen / admin / gift shop Wolverton 1 storage facility 1 snack bar Equipment rental building Staffing 30 rooms (duplex cabins w/central baths) - 2 per (140 employees; 13 dorms w central baths housing -2-3 per unit housing for about 2 apartments (each for 2–4 people) 107) RV spaces as needed 15 staff live in Three Rivers area and commute Bearpaw Meadow 6 guest tents Camp 3 toilets / showers Kitchen / dining tent Storage cabin Mineral King Silver City Resort (privately owned) Mineral King Pack Station • 1 public restroom •1 resdencei •1 tack shed

78 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Concession Facilities

Grant Grove Delaware North Parks Services • Removal of 19 tent-top cabin units The Delaware North Parks Services contract • Construction of 28 cabins with bath runs through October 31, 2028, and the • Replacement of the bathhouse at Meadow following items are required: Camp Wuksachi • Construction of employee housing and recreation facilities, as needed Construction of housing for 12 employees has been recently completed. Additional phases • Construction of a maintenance facility could allow up to 312 lodging units, additional • Renovation of assigned historic buildings restaurant space, and employee housing. Other projects that are not included in the contractual obligations include the renovation of the Cedar Grove Lodgepole market and the possible use of the • Construction of employee housing and Lodgepole gas station building as a food service recreation facilities, as needed outlet.

79 Socioeconomic Environment

Sequoia and King’s Canyon National Parks are County, one of the 58 counties in California, entirely contained within Fresno and Tulare ranked 10th in population in 1999. From 1980 to Counties, California, and most visitors pass 1990 this county grew by nearly 29.8%, slowing through these two counties because of relatively to about 19% in the 1990s. Tulare County easy access on California 180 from Fresno and ranked 21st in population in 1999. Its growth on California 198 from Visalia. was about 26.9% during the 1980s, slowing to about 17% during the 1990s. The growth rates Inyo County borders the parks on the east. This for both counties exceeded that for California side of the parks is much farther from population and the United States. In 2000 the combined centers and more difficult to get to because road population of the two counties was 1,167,428. access through the Sierra Nevada is limited. A small proportion of visitors access the park for wilderness trips from Inyo County but only by Income foot or horse after passing through Inyo National Forest and the John Muir Wilderness. Total personal income for Fresno County in­ creased by nearly 103.1% during the 1980s (see Tourist-related infrastructure in and around the Table 19), and it further increased by nearly parks caters to visitors coming from the west. 41.8% in the 1990s. In 1999 total personal in­ The parks’ commercial and economic influence come accounted for 1.6% of the state total, and on the local environment is heavily skewed the county ranked 13th in the state. toward Fresno and Tulare Counties. For these reasons the description of economic and social During the 1980s total personal income for impacts related to this planing effort focus on Tulare County nearly doubled and grew another Fresno and Tulare Counties. 48.7% by 1997. The county’s total personal income ranked 24th in the state in 1999 and made up 0.7% of the state total. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS In the 1980s, California’s total personal income Population increased by 129%, compared to 111% for the entire country. From 1990 to 1999, state total In 2000 California was the most populous state personal income increased by 51% and national in the United States (see Table 18). Fresno personal income by 59%.

TABLE 18: POPULATION

1980 1990 2000 Fresno County 517,679 671,709 799,407 Tulare County 247,426 313,907 368,021 California 23,800,800 29,925,531 33,871,648 United States 227,224,719 249,438,712 281,421,906 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Census

TABLE 19: TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME

1980 1990 1999 Fresno County $5,603,436,000 $11,380,484,000 $16,135,625,000 Tulare County $2,331,687,000 $4,661,069,000 $6,928,875,000 California $286,228,598,000 $655,567,167,000 $989,590,237,000 United States $2,313,921,000,000 $4,885,525,000,000 $7,784,137,000,000 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

80 Socioeconomic Environment: Demographic Characteristics

To get a better perspective on the population and importance, and farming declined. As shown in income situation, per capita personal income Table 21, the largest economic sectors for figures are displayed in Table 20. Over the years Fresno County in 1999 were services (23.5% of both counties have lagged far behind the state in total earnings), state / local government (16.4%), terms of per capita personal income. Fresno and retail trade (10.3%). County’s 1999 per capita personal income ranked 41st in the state; it was only 71% of the In Tulare County the average annual growth rate state average and 74% of the national average. for earnings (1989 to 1999) was 5.5%. Total For the same year, Tulare County’s per capita earnings increased from about $2.7 billion to personal income ranked 48th in the state; it was $4.6 billion. The three largest economic sectors only 65% of the state average and 68% of the in 1989 were state and local government national average. Relatively low per capita (19.2%), services (15.3%), and farming (13.6%). income in these two counties in a state that has a The situation for farming had improved by 1999, history of outperforming the national average as the largest industry sectors were state and indicates a less than robust local economy. local government (19.7%), services (16.3%), and farming (15.3%).

TABLE 20: PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME The $15.9 billion in earnings in the two counties 1980 1990 1999 is a substantial economic force. Other economic Fresno County $10,824 $16,944 $21,146 Tulare County $ 9,424 $14,849 $19,329 indicators described below provide additional California $12,029 $21,889 $29,856 insight into the functioning of this economic United States $10,183 $19,584 $28,546 area. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Major Industries by Earnings Major Industries by Employment

For Fresno County earnings increased from $7.4 In 1999 the economy of Fresno County provided billion in 1989 to $11.3 in 1999, an average 406,823 full- and part-time positions and Tulare annual growth rate of 4.3%. In 1989 the largest County 173,455 total positions (see Table 22). sectors were services at 20.7% of total earnings, Together this local area provided 580,278 jobs. state and local government (14.8%), and farming (11.2%). Over the next 10 years the services and For both counties the service and the retail trade state / local government sectors gained in sectors provided the most jobs. Fresno County

TABLE 21: EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY (1999)

1999 Earnings Industry Sectors Fresno County Tulare County Farm $639,565,000 5.66% $699,030,000 15.33% Agricultural Services, Forestry, & Fishing $597,736,000 5.29% $340,324,000 7.47% Mining $15,614,000 0.14% * – Construction $735,035,000 6.50% $259,171,000 5.69% Manufacturing $1,049,730,000 9.28% $445,477,000 9.77% Transportation & Public Utilities $720,477,000 6.37% $257,086,000 5.64% Wholesale Trade $635,316,000 5.62% $177,968,000 3.90% Retail Trade $1,160,647,000 10.26% $491,261,000 10.78% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $709,237,000 6.27% * – Services $2,660,734,000 23.53% $740,912,000 16.25% Federal Government $508,751,000 4.50% $65,825,000 1.44% Military $22,774,000 0.20% $9,148,000 0.20% State & Local Government $1,851,879,000 16.38% $898,332,000 19.71% Total $11,307,495,000 100.00% $4,558,793,000 100.00% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. * = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

81 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 22: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY (1997)

Number of Full- and Part-time Jobs Industry Sectors Fresno County Tulare County Farm 35,944 8.84% 25,689 14.81% Agricultural Services, Forestry, & Fishing 39,858 9.80% 21,954 12.66% Mining 441 0.11% (D) – Construction 20,188 4.96% 7,520 4.34% Manufacturing 29,759 7.31% 13,268 7.65% Transportation & Public Utilities 16,002 3.93% 5,795 3.34% Wholesale Trade 16,490 4.05% 5,104 2.94% Retail Trade 61,243 15.05% 25,254 14.56% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 27,357 6.72% (D) – Services 100,133 24.61% 32,611 18.80% Federal Government 9,590 2.36% 1,244 0.72% Military 1,535 0.38% 689 0.40% State & Local Government 48,283 11.87% 25,325 14.60% Total 406,823 100.00% 173,455 100.00% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. had more than 100,000 jobs in services (nearly 25% of the total), 61,000 jobs in retail trade Unemployment went from 11.8% in 1990 to (over 15%), and more than 48,000 jobs in state 15.9% in 1996 and then fell slightly to 15.4% in and local government (11.9%), and 40,000 jobs 2000. Compared to the California average rates in agricultural services, forestry, and fishing of 5.8% in 1990 and 7.2% in 1996 and 4.9% in (9.8%). In Tulare County the service sector 2000, unemployment rates are twice as high as provided more than 32,600 jobs (18.8% of the the state levels and 2½ to three times the total), the farming, state and local government, national level, indicating that the local economy and retail trade sectors each accounted for over was performing relatively poorly. 25,000 jobs (14.5% each).

Poverty Unemployment For 1989, 1993, and 1995, Fresno and Tulare Unemployment is another indicator of the health Counties had poverty rates that significantly of an economy. In Fresno County the unem­ exceeded the state and national averages (see ployment rate was twice as high as the national Table 24). In 1995, both counties had poverty average in 1990 and 1996, and three times as rates that exceeded one person in four living high in 2000 (see Table 23). An increasing below the poverty line. A quarter of the popu­ unemployment rate and increasing population lation living below the poverty rate and high means that even greater numbers of individuals unemployment indicate that this is an eco­ in the workforce were unable to find work in nomically and socially depressed area. 2000 than in 1990. In Tulare County the situation has been relatively worse. TABLE 24: ESTIMATED PERCENT OF PEOPLE OF ALL AGES IN OVERTY TABLE 23: UNEMPLOYMENT RATES P

1990 1996 2000 1989 1993 1995 1997 2000 Fresno County 11.7% 13.0% 14.3% Fresno County 21.4% 28.1% 25.2% 25.6% na Tulare County 11.8% 15.9% 15.4% Tulare County 22.6% 28.2% 28.2% 27.9% na Cali fornia 5.8% 7.2% 4.9% California 12.5% 17.4% 11.3% 16.0% 12.9% U.S.A. 5.6% 5.4% 4.0% U.S.A. 13.1% 15.1% 13.7% 13.3% 11.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. na = not available.

82 Socioeconomic Environment: Regional Communities

PBARK UDGET AND PARK Local Property Taxes EMPLOYMENT Inholders, Mineral King cabin permit holders, and concessioners pay real estate taxes to Fresno In 1999 the budget for Kings Canyon and and Tulare Counties for land and/or buildings Sequoia National Parks was approximately they own or use within the parks. Table 25 $10.9 million. In 2000 the budget was increased shows the approximate amounts of tax paid. to approximately $11.4 million (the 4.8% increase was just enough to cover increased labor costs.) The budget covers the goods and TABLE 25: LOCAL PTROPERTY AXES services (including staff labor) necessary to Fresno County Tulare County manage the parks. Infrastructure improvements, Silver City $ 39,000 new construction, and major maintenance items Oriole Lakes $ 3,000 Disney $ 2,400 are not included. As is true of most units of the Mineral Ki ng Special Use national park system, the parks have a backlog Permits $ 4,900 of needs for many infrastructure items such as Wilsonia $93,000 housing, water system improvements, and other Delaware North (1999) $150,400 Kings Canyon Park utility upgrades. Services (1999) $22,650 $ 16,160 Total $115,650 $252,860 In FY 2001 the parks employed approximately Source: Fresno and Tulare Counties. 262 permanent staff. In the summer 250–300 seasonal employees are added. The parks also have an extensive volunteer program, with over REGIONAL COMMUNITIES 1,400 unpaid volunteers in 2001. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks’ 500–600 perma­ Three Rivers nent and seasonal positions are 0.1% of the total two counties’ employed work force of 552,661 Three Rivers is the gateway community just (1997 data). outside the Ash Mountain entrance to Sequoia National Park. This community offers food (from grocery stores and several restaurants), MKINERAL ING SPECIAL USE lodging at motels and bed-and-breakfast inns, PPLERMITS ON ARK AND gasoline, and other goods and services. The community is growing, supported by its In Mineral King there are 62 active permits (out proximity to the park. of 66 total permits) for private cabins on public land in three areas. Each cabin permit holder pays a use fee based on the appraised value of Squaw Valley and Dunlap the privilege ($386 for 2001) and the administrative cost based on the park’s labor Squaw Valley is a small community on Cali­ costs associated with administering the permits fornia 180 about 23 miles from Grant Grove. A ($374 for 2001); fees are escalated each year for library, post office, and about 10 other small inflation by the consumer price index. In 2001 businesses offer limited services, including food, the annual fee was $760, for a total of $47,120. groceries, some lodging, and a doctor’s office. Part of this amount goes to the U.S. Treasury ($23,188) and the park keeps the remainder to A half-dozen businesses (e.g., grocery store, cover administrative costs ($23,932). Tulare mobile home park, etc.) are found closer to the County receives approximately $4,900 annually park near Dunlap. The USFS Hume Lake ranger for unsecured property tax on the cabins owned district office in Dunlap is about 16 miles from by the permit holders. the Big Stump park entrance.

83 Environmental Consequences

85 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

86 Introduction

This part of the document analyzes the potential GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR effects of the five management alternatives on ANALYZING IMPACTS natural resources, wild and scenic rivers, wilder­ ness, cultural resources, transportation, visitor experiences, private land and special use The following definitions were used to evaluate permittees, park operations, and the socio­ the context, intensity, duration, and cumulative economic environment. These effects provide a nature of impacts associated with project basis for comparing the advantages and alternatives: disadvantages of the alternatives. Context — Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed. In this The alternatives provide broad management environmental impact statement, the intensity directions; therefore, the environmental con­ of impacts is evaluated within a local and sequences can only be analyzed in qualitative parkwide context, while the intensity of the terms. Thus, this environmental impact state­ contribution of effects to cumulative impacts ment should be considered a programmatic are evaluated in a regional context (i.e., for analysis. Prior to undertaking specific develop­ the Sierra Nevada region). ments or other actions as a result of the approved general management plan, park managers will Impact Intensity — The impact intensity is have to determine the need to prepare more the degree to which a resource is positively detailed environmental documents, consistent or negatively affected. Specific thresholds are with the provisions of the National Environ­ defined for each impact topic. Unless other­ mental Policy Act. wise stated in the impact analysis, all impacts are assumed to be adverse. The methodologies used in the impact analysis Impact Duration — Impact duration de­ are described, including the definition of terms. scribes how long an impact would last. For The alternatives are then analyzed in the order the purposes of this document, the planning they appear in the “Alternatives” chapter. Each team used the following terms to evaluate the impact topic describes the beneficial and adverse natural resource, visitor experience, and effects of the alternatives, as well as cumulative socioeconomic topics in the alternatives: effects, if any. For the analysis of impacts, the planning team assumed that mitigating measures Short term — The impact would last less described in the alternatives, such as implement­ than one year, or it would be transi­ ing protective measures to protect sensitive cave tional, such as impacts associated with resources, would already have been taken. construction. Long term — The impact would last At the end of the impact analysis is a discussion more than one year and could be of unavoidable adverse effects, effects from permanent, such as loss of soils and short-term uses and long-term productivity, and vegetation within the footprint of a irreversible and irretrievable commitments of building. resources. (The matrix at the end of the “Alternatives” chapter compares and summarizes the impacts of each alternative.) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts on the environment result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts

87 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES can result from individually minor but collec­ now the Giant Forest museum (opened in 2002) tively significant actions taking place over a and the Beetle Rock assembly hall, which is period of time. The purpose of this analysis is to being reused as a community building. Other evaluate (1) whether the resources and human historic buildings (ranger residence and community have already been affected by past restrooms) have been rehabilitated. Museum or present activities, and (2) whether other exhibits, waysides, and trail centers have been agencies or the public have plans that could built. Area trails are being improved, and com­ affect resources in the future. fort stations replaced. Replacement parking is located outside the grove, and visitation to the For this planning effort, actions within the parks area will depend on a shuttle system to be or by others that have occurred within the region developed over the next several years. or would occur in the foreseeable future were identified. For natural resources, findings from Grant Grove Lodging. Concession facilities the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project were used include the 30-room John Muir Lodge, which to provide the overall regional context for cumu­ was constructed in the 1990s. Contractual lative effects. Specific actions that could affect obligations allow the replacement of 28 cabins natural resources within the parks and in their with bath, the replacement of bathhouse, and the vicinity were also considered. For example, air construction of employee housing and a quality impacts affecting the parks result from maintenance facility. Work will take place in actions throughout the entire airshed, so the previously disturbed areas. cumulative impact area for this topic is the airshed including the San Joaquin Valley. Wuksachi Village / Red Fir. Facilities were constructed in the 1980s and 1990s in a red fir Likely future actions in the park and surrounding forest to replace those removed from Giant lands were determined by reviewing the plans Forest, based on the 1980 Development Concept and activities of local counties and communities, Plan (NPS 1980a). Recent NPS facilities include federal agencies such the U.S. Forest Service, the Red Fir maintenance building, wastewater and Bureau of Land Management, and the treatment plant, seasonal housing, bathhouse for National Park Service within Sequoia and Kings concession use, road system, utilities, permanent Canyon National Parks. From these, a list of staff housing, parking lots, propane fuel area / projects and plans was developed for considera­ distribution system, and a firehouse. Concession tion in determining cumulative impacts. facilities already built include three lodges with 102 rooms, restaurant/store/administration building, bathhouse, and staff cabins. Conces­ National Park Service Plans and Programs sion contracts call for 312 additional lodging units and additional employee housing. Giant Forest. A 1980 Development Concept Plan (NPS 1980a) and the 1996 Interim Man Wolverton. A water treatment plant to support agement Plan (NPS 1996a) called for removing the Wuksachi development was constructed. concession and NPS facilities from the Giant Visitor parking for Giant Forest is being built Forest and relocating them to Wuksachi so the nearby, and the shuttle system light maintenance forest could be restored to more natural condi­ facility will be located at the site of a stable. tions. During 1998–99 hundreds of structures in two historic districts were removed in accor­ Generals Highway. The reconstruction of the dance with an agreement with the California historic Generals Highway has been going on state historic preservation officer. The project since the 1980s, starting near Three Rivers. This has also included removal of hundreds of project is being phased over many years; concession lodging buildings, roads, and 18 currently work has been completed from Ash parking lots. Historic buildings that are being Mountain to Big Fern Springs. adaptively reused include the market which is

88 General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Campgrounds. Campgrounds are being gradu­ Plans and Programs of Other Federal Agencies ally renovated throughout the parks. Dorst Creek was completely redeveloped by 1990. At Lodge­ Wilderness Management Plans. The Ansel pole campsites are being renovated in phases, Adams, John Muir and Dinkey Lakes wilderness sites within the 100-year floodplain are being areas surround park land and will remain in an relocated out of the floodplain, and an internal undeveloped state. circulation system is likely to be redesigned. The Cedar Grove campgrounds are also being (Terminus Reservoir). This redeveloped, and sites are being moved out of Army Corps of Engineers project will raise the the floodplain. The Buckeye campground has reservoir on the lower Kaweah River west of been recently renovated. Three Rivers by 20 feet, increasing storage by 42,000 acre-feet. NPS staff are not aware that Small Projects. New exhibits have been in­ this project will have any direct effect on the stalled at the Foothills Mountain visitor center parks. and are being planned for Grant Grove and Cedar Grove. Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration. The Sierra Framework Utility system replacements have occurred provides general guidance for all national forest throughout the parks (Cedar Grove, Ash lands in the Sierra Nevada. All USFS land that Mountain, Giant Forest) to bring aging systems immediately adjoins Sequoia and Kings Canyon up to state standards. is either designated wilderness or is part of Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Private Land within the Parks Giant Sequoia National Monument. Giant Sequoia National Monument now surrounds the Wilsonia. Some seasonal cabins in the historic entire Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon district are being remodeled and converted for National Park, including both sides of the year-round use. The county has zoned the land Redwood Canyon/Redwood Mountain parklands as residential, and the NPS Land Protection corridor that connects Grant Grove to Sequoia Plan (NPS 1984) limits expansion to no more National Park. Generals Highway passes than 25% based on square footage. There are through national monument lands between the small lots and individual water and wastewater two parks. California Highway 180 east of Grant systems. Wilsonia is a historic district on the Grove passes through monument lands on its National Register of Historic Places, with a way to Cedar Grove and Kings Canyon National majority of the cabins as contributing elements. Park. National monument lands also adjoin Sale prices on cabins have been increasing. Sequoia National Park in the Stony Creek area and south of Sequoia National Park. Silver City. Silver City is essentially built out, with almost all privately owned lots now There are a number of visitor destinations and occupied by summer residences. Little change is facilities in Giant Sequoia National Monument expected in this area in the near future. — Montecito-Sequoia Resort (provides year- round programs), Hume Lake Christian Camp, Kaweah Han. The Kaweah Han property was Stony Creek Lodge, Kings Canyon Lodge, and purchased in 2002 and will remain as a private Boyden Cave. Portions of California 180 will be residence for the foreseeable future. rehabilitated in the area, improving access to the Hume Lake and the Cedar Grove area. Giant Oriole Lake. Four private properties and cabins Sequoia National Monument and Kings Canyon remain within a potential wilderness area, and a National Park are both entered by way of number of facilities have been removed. California 180, with impacts on Grant Grove village.

89 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In January 2004 the Forest Service issued the Three Rivers as an amenity-based residential Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment to community with the natural environment as the improve the protection of old forests, wildlife primary amenity. Before it becomes official, habitats, watersheds, and communities in the however, the plan will need to be approved by Sierra Nevada and the Modoc Plateau (USFS the Tulare County Planning Department and the 2004). Board of Supervisors. This process has yet to be completed, and no date for completion has been The new plan will reduce the number of acres made public. burned by severe wildfires by more than 30% within the next 50 years. It will double the acres Squaw Valley. Squaw Valley in Fresno County of large old-growth trees and California spotted is the most clearly defined community along owl nesting habitat over the next 50 years. California 180 as it approaches Kings Canyon Around communities, fuels will be reduced on National Park from the west, but it is less clearly about 700,000 acres over the next 20 years, defined than Three Rivers. According to the helping to protect them from severe wildfires. 2000 census, it had a population of 2,691, but the level of commercial development is much less than Three Rivers. There is no significant Local Plans and Programs tourist development in the Squaw Valley area, and it appears that the community does not Three Rivers. The current local planning docu­ depend on tourist traffic for its livelihood. ment for Three Rivers is the 1981 Community Plan. This plan forecast that the community Tulare and Fresno Counties. Regional growth would grow from 1,645 persons in 1980 to 3,445 continues to be very strong in both Tulare and in 2000; however, the 2000 census reported that Fresno Counties, growing at rates exceeding Three River’s population was only 2,248. As an 10% per decade, with resulting demands on unincorporated community, Three River’s roads and services. According to the 2000 growth has been incremental, consisting of many census, Tulare County had a population of small projects, each with its own utility infra­ 368,021 and Fresno County, 799,407. The structure, since there are no community water or current planning document for the foothills area wastewater systems. In recent years, one large of Tulare County is the 1981 Foothills Growth (100+ rooms) national chain motel has been Management Plan. constructed, adding to the dozen or so motels that provide visitor lodging. Otherwise, com­ California Department of Transportation mercial development within the community (Caltrans) The November 2002 California State remains small-scale. Most development is in the Transportation Improvement Plan proposes a form of upscale residential homes, with new number of projects that are related to the future residences occupying multi-acre tracts. Gener­ of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: ally, Three Rivers is one of the most prestigious • California Highway 180, which leads to and expensive places to live in Tulare County. A the Big Stump entrance in Kings Canyon spa has been under development for several National Park, is slated for improvement. years, a local winery has been established, and The project will widen the highway to a there is a golf course. Seasonal river rafting has six-lane freeway to Centerville and to a been introduced, diversifying recreational four-lane expressway to the foot of the opportunities. Sierra east of Minkler. At this time the A new community plan is being drafted by a following four segments have been volunteer group of Three Rivers residents, but it funded: (1) Chestnut Avenue to Clovis will not be approved until the Tulare County Avenue, scheduled for the summer of plan has been finished. A preliminary draft has 2005; (2) Clovis Avenue to Temperance been released for public review, and it envisions Avenue (which would connect the free­ way to Kings Canyon Road), summer

90 Impairment of Park Resources or Values

2007; (3) Temperance Avenue to Acad­ consideration of the park’s legislative mandates emy Avenue, summer 2008; and (4) (purpose and significance), and resource Academy Avenue to Trimmer Springs management objectives as defined in its general Road (four lanes), summer 2008. The management plan or other relevant plans. segment from Trimmer Springs Road to Frankwood has not yet been funded, but NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid could occur in 2010. or minimize to the greatest degree practicable adverse impacts on park resources and values. • California Highway 65 from Bakersfield However, the laws do give NPS managers dis­ is slated for improvements to divert traffic cretion to allow impacts to park resources and from California 99. Caltrans has held values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill scoping meetings about extending Cali­ the purposes of a park, as long as the impact fornia 65 to the north along the foothills does not constitute an impairment of the affected as far as Madera County. This “Sierra resource and value. However, the authority Foothill Freeway” could greatly increase given to NPS managers is limited by the access and development west of the parks. statutory requirement that the National Park • Increased train service has been proposed Service must leave park resources and values between central California, Los Angeles, unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and and the Bay Area (Caltrans 2002a). High- specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited speed rail transit service connecting impairment is an impact that, in the professional central California with both the Bay Area judgment of the responsible NPS manager, and the Los Angeles area is the subject of would harm the integrity of park resources or a bond issue scheduled for a statewide values, including opportunities that would vote in November 2004. otherwise be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES However, as stated in the Management Polices, OR VALUES an impact would more likely constitute an im­ pairment to the extent that it affects a resource or The National Park Service is prohibited from value whose conservation is impairing park resources and values by the • necessary to fulfill specific purposes National Park Service Organic Act. The NPS identified in the establishing legislation or Management Policies 2001 (section 1.4.5) state proclamation of the park; “an impairment . . . is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible • key to the natural or cultural integrity of National Park Service manager, would harm the the park or to opportunities for enjoyment integrity of park resources or values, including of the park; or the opportunities that otherwise would be • identified as a goal in the parks’ general present for the enjoyment of those resources or management plan or other relevant NPS values.” In addition, the Management Policies planning documents. state “whether an impact meets this definition depends on the particular resources and values Impairment may result from NPS activities in that would be affected; the severity, duration, managing park resources, visitor activities, or and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect activities undertaken by concessioners, contrac­ effects of the impact; and the cumulative effects tors, and others operating in the park. A determi­ of the impact in question and other impacts.” nation of impairment is made for each impact topic for natural and cultural resources, because The determination of impairment is closely tied these are the resources and values that could be to the outcome of the resource impact analysis. impaired for future generations. This determination is also made with a parallel

91 Natural Resources

CAVE RESOURCES Impact Thresholds for Cave Resources Context Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection or not measurable. The two parks contain some of the most exten­ Minor — A cave feature or environment might sive and least impacted caves in the western suffer some slight alteration that would be United States. Many caves are in isolated areas noticeable. and are not well known to the general public. Moderate — Cave features or the environment Crystal Cave is the only cave now open to would be obviously altered, or a number of guided cave tours, and improvements have been features would show changes. made to facilitate visitation and resource pro­ tection (e.g., paved walkways, lighting, railings). Major — Impacts on cave features or the envi­ Crystal Cave tours are the only opportunities for ronment would result in the permanent loss of an important cave feature or in highly notice­ the general public to experience and learn able, widespread changes in many cave firsthand about cave environments. Present features or the environment. management programs control visitor-related impacts, localizing effects such as dust and lint Criteria for Determining Impairment accumulation. Several caves, including Clough Cave (which was formerly used commercially), An impact would more likely constitute an im­ have been affected by past use. However, rubble pairment to the extent that it affects a resource removal and other restoration efforts are or value whose conservation is underway. • necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden­ tified in the parks’ enabling legislation, • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Impacts of the No-Action Alternative parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of the parks, or Analysis. Public access to Crystal Cave would continue, and the development that supports • identified as a goal in this general manage­ cave tours would remain. Long-term alterations ment plan or other relevant NPS planning of the natural cave environment in the portion documents that is developed for visitor use would continue. Existing management programs to control im­ cave management plans and protective measures pacts (e.g., designated trails, visitor education on would help protect the integrity of these cave the fragility of caves, guided/supervised tours) resources. Restricting access to many features, would help avoid or minimize additional im­ including bat colonies, invertebrate populations, pacts that could occur, such as trampling or the delicate cave formations, archeological sites, and breaking or touching of speleothems (NPS paleontological materials, would help protect 1992a). these resources. Set numbers of permits and requirements for qualified trip leaders would Public use of a limited number of other caves limit access to caves with delicate features, and would continue. The potential for impacts from caves with particularly sensitive features and trampling or disturbance to fauna and habitat, fauna would remain closed to recreational use. destruction or damage of cave formations, Other existing management provisions to protect deposition of dust and lint, and degradation of resources include (1) no camping, removal of water quality would be minimal. Most of the cave features, or depositing of human wastes; parks’ other caves are not well known and are (2) guidelines to minimize disturbance to cave­ not visited by the general public, and existing

92 Natural Resources: Cave Resources — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative dwelling animals; (3) inventorying and moni­ would be minor to moderate, beneficial, and toring of resource conditions, along with identi­ long term. fying impacts and mitigation; and (4) gating of entrances. Consequently, most caves would In accordance with the criteria for impairment of remain unaffected; a few caves could sustain resources, the no-action alternative would not localized negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impair park resources or values associated with impacts from limited and highly regulated caves. recreational use.

Cumulative Impacts. Most caves in the parks Impacts of the Preferred Alternative retain their natural character and have not been altered. Varying degrees of disturbance from Analysis. As described for the no-action past use have occurred in some caves, particu­ alternative, the vast majority of caves within the larly the larger and more accessible caves, such parks would remain in good condition and as Crystal, Clough, White Chief, and Soldiers. would retain their natural integrity, protected by Past damage includes broken speleothems, their isolation and existing cave management trampled invertebrates, compacted soils, sedi­ plans and protective measures. Permitted use in ment transport on clothes, litter, deposits of toxic a few caves would be limited, but it could result spent carbide, and the alteration of airflow and in long-term damage to cave resources as de­ microclimates due to digging. Crystal Cave and scribed for the no-action alternative (such as the formerly commercialized Clough Cave con­ trampling or disturbing of fauna and habitat, tain extensive areas of disturbance from past destroying or damaging cave formations, de­ trail construction and blasting. Rubble deposits positing dust and lint, and degrading water from blasting create unnatural habitats, alter quality). With continued implementation of microclimates, and have broken fragile cave management provisions to protect resources, features. Management provisions to maintain such as access restrictions and requirements for and improve conditions over the long term qualified trip leaders, any adverse impacts to would continue (e.g., removing rubble, cleaning caves where limited recreational use was dispersed sediments, gating). No future develop­ allowed would be localized and negligible to ment of caves is proposed. Most caves would minor in extent. remain unaffected and in good condition, and restoration efforts would continue, so the As described for the no-action alternative, the cumulative impacts for all caves in the parks long-term alteration of the natural cave environ­ would be beneficial, minor to moderate, and ment in the portion of Crystal Cave developed long term. for visitor use would continue. Existing manage­ ment programs to control impacts (e.g., desig­ Conclusion. At Crystal Cave limiting use and nated trails, visitor education on the fragility of pursuing existing management programs to caves, guided/supervised tours) would help to control impacts would not result in any addi­ avoid or minimize additional impacts that could tional long-term impacts, which would remain occur, such as trampling, breaking, or touching negligible. A few caves could sustain localized speleothems. negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impacts from limited recreational use. Most of the parks’ Cumulative Impacts. As described under the other caves, including those with particularly no-action alternative, varying degrees of sensitive resources, would remain unaffected. disturbance from past use have occurred in some caves (for example, Crystal, Clough, White Most caves in the parks retain their natural Chief, and Soldiers). Management programs to character and have not been altered. The minimize and repair damage would continue, cumulative effects on all park caves (including resulting in improved conditions over the long those that would be open to recreational use) term. However, most caves in the parks retain

93 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES their natural character and have not been altered. While the portion of Crystal Cave developed for No future development affecting caves within public tours would continue to be open to the parks is proposed, most caves would remain visitors under alternative A, present programs unaffected and in good condition, and restora­ and measures would ensure that any future tion efforts would continue, so the cumulative impacts were negligible. impacts for all caves in the parks would be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term. Cumulative Impacts. While some caves have varying degrees of disturbance from past use, Conclusion. The preferred alternative would management programs to minimize and repair provide a high degree of protection for the vast damage would improve conditions over the long majority of high-quality caves in the parks, with term. Most caves retain their natural character a standard of visitor use for the others that would and have not been altered. No future projects ensure protection of their natural integrity. Most affecting caves within the parks are proposed. caves, including those with particularly sensitive The overall cumulative effect would be minor to resources, would remain unaffected. Limiting moderate, beneficial, and long term for caves in use and undertaking management programs to the parks. control impacts would continue in Crystal Cave, and any additional long-term impacts would be Conclusion. Impacts would be similar to the no- negligible. In other caves where limited recrea­ action alternative. Limiting use and undertaking tional use was allowed, impacts would be local­ management programs to control impacts would ized, negligible to minor, and long term. continue at Crystal Cave, and any additional long-term impacts would be negligible. In other Most caves in the parks retain their natural caves where use would be restricted to special­ character and have not been altered. The cumu­ ists, impacts would be reduced compared to the lative effects on all park caves would be minor no-action alternative and would be localized, to moderate, beneficial, and long term. The negligible to minor, adverse, and long term. preferred alternative would contribute a Most of the parks’ caves, including those with localized minor adverse impact to only a few particularly sensitive resources, would remain select caves to the overall cumulative effects. unaffected.

The preferred alternative would not impair park Most caves in the parks retain their natural resources or values associated with caves. character and have not been altered. The cumulative effects on all park caves would be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term. Impacts of Alternative A Alternative A would contribute a minor beneficial effect to the overall cumulative Analysis. The vast majority of the parks’ caves effects. would continue to remain in good condition and retain their natural integrity, protected by their There would be no impairment of park resources isolation and more restrictive access provisions. or values associated with caves. Use in a limited number of caves would be restricted to specialists, which would help limit some long-term damage to cave resources (such Impacts of Alternative C as trampling or disturbance to fauna and habitat, destruction or damage of cave formations, depo­ Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, sition of dust and lint, and degradation of water long-term alteration of the natural cave envi­ quality). Compared to the no-action alternative, ronment in the portion of Crystal Cave devel­ impacts would be reduced and would be negli­ oped for visitor use would continue. As a result gible to minor, beneficial, and long term. of continued management actions to limit the potential for additional impacts (e.g., designated

94 Natural Resources: Cave Resources — Impacts of Alternative D trails, visitor education on the fragility of caves, adverse impacts, but a careful selection process guided/supervised tours), any additional long- would ensure that only the more resilient caves term impacts would be negligible. (those with less sensitive or unique features and fauna) would be candidates for tours, resulting Providing guided public tours of additional in minor, long-term impacts. Most of the parks’ caves under this alternative would increase the other caves, including those with particularly potential for adverse impacts. As under the no- sensitive resources, would remain unaffected. action alternative, recreational use in other caves Impacts would be negligible to minor, adverse, could result in long-term damage to cave re­ and long term from limited recreational use, sources (e.g., trampling or disturbing fauna and including guided tours. habitat, destroying cave formations, depositing dust and lint, and degrading water quality). To Most caves in the parks retain their natural char­ minimize impacts, additional tours would occur acter and have not been altered. The cumulative only after an evaluation of cave resources, an effects on all park caves would be minor to analysis of the impacts of such access, and the moderate, beneficial, and long term. Alternative identification of protective measures. Only more C would contribute a localized minor adverse resilient caves (those with less sensitive or impact to the overall cumulative effects. unique features and fauna) would be considered for tours. There would be no impairment of park resources or values associated with caves. In general, the parks’ caves would continue to remain in good condition and retain their natural integrity, protected by their isolation and exist­ Impacts of Alternative D ing cave management plans and protective measures. Consequently, most caves would Analysis. This alternative would allow more remain unaffected, although a few could sustain tours within the developed portion of Crystal localized, negligible to minor, adverse, long- Cave. However, existing management programs term impacts from increased recreational use. to control impacts (e.g., designated trails, visitor education on the fragility of caves, guided / Cumulative Impacts. As described under the supervised tours) should avoid or minimize no-action alternative, varying degrees of distur­ additional impacts, such as trampling, breaking, bance from past use have occurred in some or touching speleothems. Consequently, long- caves, particularly in the larger, more accessible term adverse impacts would be negligible. ones (Crystal, Clough, White Chief, and Soldiers). Programs to minimize and repair Providing guided public tours of additional damage would improve conditions over the long caves as proposed under this alternative would term. However, most caves in the parks retain increase the potential for adverse impacts, such their natural character and have not been altered. as trampling or disturbing fauna and habitat, No future projects affecting caves within the destroying or damaging cave formations, parks are proposed. Even though increased depositing dust and lint, and degrading water recreational use in a few caves could result in quality. To minimize impacts, additional tours negligible to minor, adverse impacts, the overall would occur only after cave resources were cumulative effect would be minor to moderate, evaluated, impacts of increased access analyzed, beneficial, and long term for caves in the parks. and protective measures identified so that only the more resilient caves, those with less sensitive Conclusion. Limiting use and controlling or unique features and fauna, would be selected. impacts at Crystal Cave would ensure that any additional long-term impacts would be negli­ Most of the parks’ caves would continue to gible. Providing guided public tours of addi­ remain in good condition and retain their natural tional caves would increase the potential for integrity because they are isolated and because

95 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES existing cave management plans and protective WRATER ESOURCES measures would minimize further impacts.

Cumulative Impacts. As described under the Regional Context no-action alternative, varying degrees of distur­ Water quality in the Sierra Nevada region has bance from past use have occurred in some been adversely affected downstream from urban caves, particularly in the larger more accessible centers, mines, and intensive land-use zones. caves (Crystal, Clough, White Chief, and Other impacts include the accumulation of near Soldiers). Programs to minimize and repair toxic levels of mercury in low and middle ele­ damage would improve conditions over the long vation reservoirs of the western Sierra Nevada; term. However, most caves in the parks retain widespread biological contamination by human their natural character and have not been altered. pathogens; increased salinity in eastside lakes; No future projects affecting caves within the and widespread excessive sediment yield into parks are proposed. Even though providing streams. Water quality impacts from regional guided tours of additional caves could result in development include increased contaminants minor, adverse impacts to cave resources, the such as heavy metals, pesticides, and petroleum overall cumulative effect would be minor to products from larger impervious surfaces and moderate, beneficial, and long term. runoff and higher risk of ground and surface Conclusion. At Crystal Cave use would con­ water contamination from septic effluent dis­ tinue to be limited and impacts controlled; any posal. Water diversions and dams have also additional long-term impacts as a result of highly altered natural water flows and hydrol­ increased use would be negligible. Providing ogy, indirectly changing the biological re­ guided public tours of more caves would sources. Beneficial effects are expected from increase the potential for adverse impacts, but a some actions to address ecosystem management careful selection process would ensure that only issues on lands adjacent to the parks (including the more resilient caves would be opened for the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation tours, with minor, long-term impacts. Most of and Collaboration, as well as management plans the parks’ other caves, including those with for adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant particularly sensitive resources, would remain Sequoia National Monument). unaffected. Impacts from limited recreational use, including guided tours, would be negligible to minor, adverse, and long term. Park Context

Most caves in the parks retain their natural Within the parks the primary threat to water character and have not been altered. The cumu­ quality is air pollution from external sources. lative effects on all park caves would be minor Surface waters within the parks are quite pure to moderate, beneficial, and long term. Alter­ and may be at risk if air pollution and acidic native D would contribute a localized minor deposition increased in the future, particularly adverse impact to the overall cumulative effects. the highly oligotrophic, poorly buffered higher elevation waterbodies. Loss of natural fire has There would be no impairment of park resources also affected water characteristics such as nutri­ or values associated with caves. ents and sediments. The parks’ fire management program has reestablished fire as a natural component of the ecosystem.

Localized effects within the parks are associated with park facilities and the use and operation of hydroelectric facilities. Infrastructure that sup­ ports park facilities includes the withdrawal of water and the discharge of treated effluent that

96 Natural Resources: Water Resources — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impact Thresholds for Water Resources Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower Analysis. Slight increases in levels of sediment, levels of detection or not measurable. fuels, turbidity, and nutrients in park waters Minor — Changes in water resources would be from greater use of facilities, parking areas, measurable and localized to specific stream roads, picnic areas, and trails would result in reaches, and they would involve sources of localized, indirect effects on water quality. pollution that do not persist in the environment. Vehicle use along roads and parking areas would deposit petroleum products that could be washed Moderate — Changes in water resources would be clearly detectable, would cause an appreci­ into nearby waters. Increased soil compaction, able change in water resources in a localized vegetation trampling, and loss of vegetation in area, and would involve sources of pollution some areas could lead to greater erosion and the that are persistent in the environment. addition of sediment to nearby waters. Water pollution (e.g., elevated nutrient or bacterial Major — Changes in water resources would levels or reduction in biological oxygen de­ occur on a regional or watershed scale and mand) would also occur from trash or human/ would involve sources of pollution that are stock wastes deposited in or near streams. With persistent in the environment. increased use along some streams, particularly more popular day use areas associated with river Criteria for Determining Impairment access (e.g., the Middle Fork of the Kaweah An impact would more likely constitute an im­ River), some localized decreases in water quality pairment to the extent that it affects a resource would likely occur as a result of visitors causing or value whose conservation is soils to erode and disturbing stream bottom sediments. Mitigation would help to minimize • necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden­ visitor impacts (e.g., visitor education programs, tified in the parks’ enabling legislation; placement of sanitation facilities, setbacks from • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the water for camping, washing, and human waste parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of disposal). Impacts on water quality would be the parks; or localized, minor, and adverse over the long term. • identified as a goal in this general man­ agement plan or other relevant NPS Beneficial effects on water quality would result planning documents from redesigning some developed areas (e.g., rebuilding portions of the Lodgepole camp­ ground, redesigning/relocating bridges over the locally affects hydrology, biology, and nutrient South Fork of the Kings River) and removing levels immediately downstream. Kaweah facilities (e.g., permit cabins at Mineral King, hydroelectric plant no. 3 on the Middle Fork of structures on inholdings that were purchased the Kaweah River just outside Sequoia National from willing sellers). Beneficial effects would Park draws water from the Middle and Marble result from reduced understory trampling and Forks by means of a diversion dam on each fork compaction and subsequent soil erosion, and from and flumes. Seasonal minimum release require­ more opportunities to revegetate disturbed areas ments have been established for each fork to and to restore more natural conditions. The oper­ prevent diversions when flows decrease below ating status of private septic systems (Wilsonia, seasonal minimum levels. The Kaweah no. 1 Mineral King) are unknown; however, eliminat­ generating facility draws its water below the ing septic systems associated with the Mineral park but uses four storage dams above Mineral King permit cabins and private inholdings King. acquired from willing sellers in the Mineral King area and Wilsonia would eliminate a po­ tential localized source of pollution. These actions would affect a few, relatively small sites

97 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES within the parks, reducing but not eliminating present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in use and development in the areas, resulting in the Sierra Nevada region, in combination with localized, minor, beneficial effects to water the potential effects of this alternative. Whereas quality over the long term. Moderate localized widespread, more intensive impacts have beneficial effects might occur if private waste occurred on a regional scale, this alternative’s disposal did not meet state water quality contribution to those effects would be incre­ standards. mental and localized.

Park wastewater treatment facilities need to be As described in the “Context” section, there upgraded to minimize potential impacts and to have been major water quality impacts in the meet new state effluent disposal regulations. Sierra Nevada region from various causes. Environmental constraints such as adequate Within the parks some ongoing and future soils, slopes, and distance to waterbodies may restoration projects (e.g., the Giant Forest preclude the expansion of some disposal development area) and proposed development operations. Even with proper waste disposal, projects (e.g., expanded visitor facilities at Grant elevated nutrient levels and conductivity above Grove and Wuksachi village per the concession natural background levels would continue within a contract, and construction related to the Giant the immediate downstream reaches. A minor Forest transit system) would contribute to both increase in these effects might occur if disposal beneficial and adverse effects. Water usage operations were expanded because of increased would be substantially reduced as a result of visitor use within the parks. removing development at Giant Forest, more than offsetting expected increases in water use Based on existing floodplain information, relo­ from future development at Wuksachi. Some cating campsites more than 100 feet from the localized, minor impacts such as erosion or river would leave only a small portion of the sedimentation from construction would be Cedar Grove and Cold Spring campgrounds mitigated by using best management practices within the 100-year floodplains. Localized (such as sediment fences and revegetation). impacts to floodplain characteristics like water Also, actions by the U.S. Forest Service that recharge capacity and flood dissipation would be would address ecosystem management issues on negligible. The redesign or relocation of bridges adjacent lands could have cumulative beneficial over the South Fork of the Kings River and the effects by reducing water resource impacts from removal of the dams and hydroelectric diver­ such activities as logging (e.g., the Sierra sions on the Middle, Marble, and East Forks of Nevada Framework for Conservation and the Kaweah River would have localized, minor Collaboration; wilderness management plans for to moderate benefits on hydrological processes, the John Muir, Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, increasing the free-flowing condition of the and Monarch Wildernesses; and a Giant Sequoia river. Additional minor alterations to natural National Monument management plan). hydrology and biological communities of some streams would occur as water diversions Even though some actions would have bene­ increased over time with more visitation. Moder­ ficial, long-term effects in the parks and region, ate, adverse impacts could occur to some river there would continue to be major, adverse, reaches during drought periods. Water conserva­ cumulative water resource impacts in the Sierra tion actions would still be implemented during Nevada region from various causes, with the drought or low-flow periods to minimize with­ greatest impact to waters within the park posed drawals and impacts. Downstream impacts by regional air pollution. The no-action alterna­ would decrease because more tributaries aug­ tive would contribute a minor to moderate, ad­ ment streamflow below the point of withdrawal. verse increment to these effects over the long term as a result of accommodating increased use, Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on but it would contribute a minor to moderate, water resources are based on an analysis of past,

98 Natural Resources: Water Resources — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative beneficial, long-term impact because some decrease impacts such as soil compaction, vege­ facilities would be removed or redesigned. tation trampling, and loss of vegetation that leads to erosion and the addition of sediment to Conclusion. The no-action alternative would nearby waters. In addition, a number of actions have minor to moderate, beneficial effects as a would reduce the localized indirect effects from result of removing and redesigning facilities. runoff containing sediments, fuels, or nutrients. Continued use and development, along with Actions would include limiting backcountry use increased visitation, would have localized, minor in some areas, relocating facilities such as the to possibly moderate, adverse, long-term Mineral King pack station to improve resource impacts on water quality, hydrologic processes, conditions, and possibly expanding the shuttle and biological communities. system and reducing private vehicle use. These actions would result in minor, beneficial, long- On a cumulative basis, even though the no- term, primarily localized effects on water action alternative would result in localized, quality. minor to moderate, beneficial effects, and some minor adverse impacts, the net major impact on As under the no-action alternative, increased use regional water resources would be adverse and of facilities, parking areas, roads, picnic areas, long term, primarily because of impacts from and both frontcountry and backcountry trails land use and development outside the parks. would continue to have localized, minor, ad­ verse effects from sediment, fuels, turbidity, and In accordance with the criteria for determining nutrients. However, under the preferred alterna­ impairment, there would be no impairment of tive actions such as modifying backcountry use park resources or values. and relocating facilities like the Mineral King pack station to improve resource conditions, as well as possibly expanding shuttle systems to Impacts of the Preferred Alternative reduce vehicle use, would reduce those impacts, a minor, beneficial effect compared to that under Analysis. Under the preferred alternative no the no-action alternative. New facility construc­ increase would be allowed in existing net aver­ tion would affect vegetation and soils in the age water withdrawals during the low-flow vicinity, resulting in temporary water quality season to support park development and use. impacts (e.g., erosion-induced sedimentation and Facilities would be limited in some areas to turbidity). Mitigation would help to minimize those that can be sustained by current water visitor impacts (e.g., visitor education programs, supply (e.g., Grant Grove and Ash Mountain), placement of sanitation facilities, setbacks from and water conservation programs would be water for camping, washing, and human waste expanded to limit and reduce water demand. disposal). Impacts would be localized and Compared to the no-action alternative, the pre­ negligible to minor in intensity after mitigation. ferred alternative would have minor to moderate beneficial effects to the natural hydrology and The operating status of private septic systems biological communities of some streams, de­ (Wilsonia, Mineral King) are unknown. How­ pending on the extent that water flow diversions ever, eliminating septic systems associated with would be reduced. the Mineral King permit cabins and with private inholdings acquired from willing sellers in the Providing better located and designed trails and Mineral King area and Wilsonia would eliminate defining river access points, particularly along a potential localized source of pollution, and the South Fork, Marble Fork, and Middle Fork thus decrease potential impacts to water quality of the Kaweah River near major developed and biological communities. This would be a areas, along with concentrating use in specific minor, beneficial, long-term effect, although areas, would have localized, minor, beneficial moderate beneficial effects would result if water effects on water quality. The intent would be to quality standards were exceeded. The possibility

99 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES of water pollution is related to a number of Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on environmental constraints such as adequate water resources are based on an analysis of past, soils, slopes, and distance to waterbodies, as present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in well as to the adequacy of the design, operation, the Sierra Nevada region in combination with and maintenance of the septic or other disposal the potential effects of this alternative. Whereas systems. widespread, more intensive impacts have occurred on the regional level, this alternative’s As described for the no-action alternative, park contribution to those effects would be wastewater treatment facilities need to be up­ incremental and localized. graded to meet new state effluent disposal regulations and expanded to process increased As described in the “Regional Context” section, wastewater loads under this alternative. Envi­ there have been major water quality impacts in ronmental constraints (adequate soils, slopes, the region from various causes. Within the parks and distance to waterbodies) could preclude some ongoing and future restoration projects expanding some disposal operations. Even with (e.g., the Giant Forest development area) would proper waste disposal, elevated nutrient levels contribute beneficial effects. Water usage would and conductivity above natural background be substantially reduced with removal of devel­ levels would continue within the immediate opment at Giant Forest, more than offsetting an downstream reaches. A minor increase in the expected increase in water use from future extent of this effect could occur due to the development at Wuksachi. Proposed projects disposal of additional treated wastewater. (e.g., expanding visitor facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi village, and constructing the No new or relocated facilities would be placed Giant Forest transit system and associated within currently mapped 100-year floodplains, facilities) would cause localized, short-term and no impacts to floodplains are expected. impacts such as erosion or sedimentation during More detailed floodplain analyses would be construction, which would be mitigated by using completed prior to any new construction or best management practices such as sediment property acquisition to confirm that facilities fences and revegetation. Also, actions by the were sited outside the floodplains. Redesigning U.S. Forest Service that would address eco- or relocating bridges over the South Fork of the system management issues on adjacent lands Kings River would have localized, minor bene­ could have cumulative beneficial effects by fits on hydrological processes, with resulting reducing water resource impacts from such benefits to biological communities. Adverse activities as logging (e.g., the Sierra Nevada impacts from facility removal would result in Framework for Conservation and Collaboration; short-term, minor, adverse impacts, such as bank wilderness management plans for the John Muir, disturbance and increased erosion potential. The Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch extent and duration of these impacts would be Wildernesses; and a Giant Sequoia National minimized by careful design and timing of Monument management plan). facility removal, temporary erosion control measures, and follow-up restoration efforts. Even though some actions would have bene­ ficial, long-term effects in the parks and region, Eliminating hydroelectric water diversions on there would continue to be major, cumulative the Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah water resource impacts in the greater Sierra River, along with decreasing other water Nevada region from various causes, with the diversions, would all have a minor to moderate, greatest impact to waters within the park posed localized, benefit on hydrological processes and by regional air pollution. The preferred alterna­ biological communities because more free­ tive would contribute minor to moderate, bene­ flowing conditions on the rivers and tributaries ficial, long-term effects as a result of limiting, would be reestablished. replacing, or redesigning facilities, and preclud­ ing increased water withdrawals. It would also

100 Natural Resources: Water Resources — Impacts of Alternative A contribute negligible to minor, short-term, ad­ Fork,) near major developed areas would help verse effects as a result of limited new reduce the extent of visitor degradation of stream- development. banks and channels, which in turn affects water quality and habitat for biological communities. Conclusion. The preferred alternative would result in minor to moderate, beneficial effects to Elevated nutrient levels and conductivity of the free-flowing conditions of park rivers, flood­ nearby streams below existing wastewater plains, water quality, and biological communi­ sprayfields should be reduced in extent. These ties. Contributing factors include no increased actions would result in localized, minor, bene­ water withdrawals, better located and designed ficial, long-term effects on water quality and trails and river access points, improved back­ biological communities, particularly where country conditions, removed water diversions facilities or high-use areas near streams were and dams, and redesigned or relocated facilities. reduced or eliminated (e.g., campgrounds at Site-specific, construction-related impacts would Lodgepole and Cedar Grove, Mineral King pack be minor, adverse, and short term. station).

On a cumulative basis, this alternative would Expanding the Cold Spring campground would primarily contribute minor to moderate, bene­ add to visitor-related impacts such as erosion and ficial cumulative effects. Adverse cumulative sedimentation, although the campground would impacts within the parks would be localized, remain relatively small and use low. Impacts short term, and minor. In conjunction with past, would likely be negligible to minor. present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, there would continue to be major, adverse, long- Temporary adverse effects on water quality term impacts on water resources in the region, (e.g., erosion, sedimentation, turbidity) and primarily from land use and development biological communities would occur within the outside the parks. parks as a result of removing facilities, con­ structing limited new facilities, or expanding Similar to the no-action alternative, there would existing facilities, and outside the parks as a be no impairment of park resources or values. result of relocating facilities. These effects would be localized and would be mitigated to the extent possible. Impacts would be minor and Impacts of Alternative A short term.

Analysis. In general, overall reductions in use A small portion of the Cedar Grove campground and development and the elimination of stock would be reduced or removed from within the use and pack stations would reduce erosion, 100-year floodplain, a localized negligible bene­ sedimentation, nutrients, bacteria, and turbidity fit to floodplain characteristics like water re­ associated with human and stock use. As a charge capacity and flood dissipation. Rede­ result, opportunities for revegetation and stream- signing or relocating bridges over the South bank restoration would be increased. Lower use Fork of the Kings River, removing Mineral King levels and concentrating trails and campsites dams on the East Fork of the Kaweah River throughout the backcountry would reduce the headwaters and hydroelectric diversions on the risk of changes to water quality resulting from Middle and Marble Forks, along with incre­ sediment transport or improper waste disposal mentally decreasing other water diversions, and would reduce impacts to sensitive shoreline would have localized, minor to moderate resources, including herbaceous meadow com­ benefits on hydrological processes and biolog­ munities and amphibian populations. ical communities because free-flowing condi­ tions would be reestablished on the rivers and Reduced use and fewer access points along tributaries. rivers (South Fork,, Marble Fork, and Middle

101 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on ment to these effects as a result of limited new water resources are based on an analysis of past, development. present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Sierra Nevada region in combination with Conclusion. Alternative A would result in the potential effects of this alternative. This minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term effects alternative’s contribution to those effects would on water quality, floodplains, biological com­ be incremental and localized. munities, and hydrological processes as a result of removing facilities, water diversions, and As described in the “Regional Context” section, dams, and reducing high-use areas near streams or there have been major water quality impacts in lakes. Adverse impacts from limited new the Sierra Nevada region from various causes. development and facility removal would be Within the parks ongoing and future restoration minor and short term. projects (e.g., the Giant Forest development area) would contribute beneficial effects. Water On a cumulative basis, even though alternative usage would be substantially reduced by remov­ A would result in an incremental beneficial ing development at Giant Forest, more than impact, when combined with past, present, and offsetting expected increased water use as a reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be a result of future development at Wuksachi. net major, adverse, long-term impact on regional water resources, primarily from land use and Proposed development projects (e.g., expanded development outside the parks. This alternative visitor facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi would contribute minor to moderate beneficial village, and construction of the Giant Forest effects to the overall cumulative impact. Ad­ transit system) would cause some localized, verse incremental impacts in the parks would be short-term impacts during construction, such as localized, minor, and short term. erosion or sedimentation, which would be mitigated by using best management practices As described for the no-action alternative, there (e.g., sediment fences and revegetation). Also, would be no impairment of park resources or actions by the U.S. Forest Service to address values. ecosystem management issues on adjacent lands could have cumulative beneficial effects by reducing water resource impacts from such Impacts of Alternative C activities as logging (e.g., the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration; Analysis. Increased levels of sediment, fuels, wilderness management plans for the John Muir, turbidity, and nutrients would be associated with Ansel Adams and Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch the increased use of facilities, parking areas, Wildernesses; and a Giant Sequoia National roads, picnic areas, and trails, with continued Monument management plan). indirect, localized effects on water quality. Vehicle-related petroleum deposits on roads and Even though some actions would have bene­ parking areas could be washed into nearby ficial, long-term effects in the parks and region, waters. Increased soil compaction, vegetation there would continue to be major, cumulative trampling, and loss of vegetation in some areas water resource impacts in the greater Sierra could lead to greater erosion and addition of Nevada region from various causes, with the sediment to nearby waters. Water pollution greatest impact to waters within the park posed would also occur from trash or human/stock by regional air pollution. Alternative A would wastes deposited in or near streams. Mitigating contribute a minor to moderate, beneficial, long- measures (e.g., visitor education, placement of term effect as a result of limiting, replacing, or sanitation facilities, setbacks from water for redesigning facilities, and precluding increased camping, washing, and human waste disposal) water withdrawals. It would also contribute a would help minimize visitor-related impacts. negligible to minor, adverse, short-term incre­ New facility construction would result in site­

102 Natural Resources: Water Resources — Impacts of Alternative C specific impacts to vegetation and soils, with property acquisition to confirm that facilities temporary adverse effects on water quality (e.g., were outside floodplains. Redesigning or relo­ erosion, sedimentation, turbidity). In general, cating bridges over the South Fork of the Kings increased use and new development in the parks River and eliminating hydroelectric water would result in localized, minor, adverse diversions on the Middle and Marble Forks of impacts on water quality over the long term. the Kaweah River would have a minor to moderate, localized benefit on hydrological Alternative C would also have negligible to processes and biological communities as a result minor localized benefits to water quality. The of increasing free-flowing conditions. Minor, expansion of shuttle services would decrease incremental effects to the natural hydrology and private motor vehicle use on some park roads, biological communities of some streams would potentially decreasing the deposition of petro­ continue due to increased water diversions. leum products and potential pollutant runoff. Downstream impacts would decrease as more Better locating and designing trails and river tributaries augmented streamflow below the access points, particularly along the South Fork, point of withdrawal. Marble Fork, and Middle Fork near major developed areas, would concentrate use in Cumulative Impacts. As described in the specific areas. This would decrease the current “Regional Context” section, major water quality extent of impacts such as soil compaction, impacts in the Sierra Nevada region have vegetation trampling, and loss of vegetation that various causes. Within the parks some ongoing lead to erosion and the addition of sediment to and future restoration projects (e.g., the Giant nearby waters. Dispersing use and reducing the Forest development area) would contribute extent of areas that allow more concentrated beneficial effects by reducing water usage, more human and stock use in the backcountry would than offsetting an expected increase in water use pose less risk of water quality changes due to from future development at Wuksachi. sediment transport or improper waste disposal and would reduce impacts to sensitive resources, Proposed development projects (e.g., expanded including herbaceous meadow communities and visitor facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi amphibian populations. village, and the construction of the Giant Forest transit system) would contribute some localized, As described for the no-action alternative, park short-term impacts from erosion or sedimenta­ wastewater treatment facilities need to be up­ tion, which would be mitigated by using best graded to meet new state effluent disposal management practices (e.g., sediment fences and regulations and expanded to process increased revegetation). Also, ecosystem management wastewater loads generated under this alterna­ actions by the U.S. Forest Service could have tive. Environmental constraints such as adequate cumulative beneficial effects by reducing water soils, slopes, and distance to waterbodies could resource impacts from such activities as logging. preclude the expansion of some disposal opera­ tions. Even with proper waste disposal, elevated Even though some actions would have benefi­ nutrient levels and conductivity above natural cial, long-term effects in the parks and region, background levels would continue within the major, cumulative water resource impacts in the immediate downstream reaches. The extent of greater Sierra Nevada region would continue, this effect could increase incrementally with the with the greatest impact to waters within the disposal of additional treated wastewater. park posed by regional air pollution. Alternative C would contribute a long-term, minor to moder­ Based on floodplain information, no new or ate, beneficial effect as a result of limiting, relocated facilities would be located within 100­ replacing, or redesigning facilities, and preclud­ year floodplains, and no impacts to floodplains ing increased water withdrawals. It would also are expected. More detailed floodplain analyses contribute a negligible to minor, adverse would be completed prior to new construction or

103 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES increment over the short term to these effects as a increased frontcountry use and new development result of limited new development. in the parks would result in localized, minor, adverse, long-term impacts on water quality. Conclusion. Alternative C would result in minor beneficial effects on the free-flowing condition In popular backcountry areas alternative D could of park rivers, water quality, and biological have minor to moderate, adverse, long-term communities as a result of providing better lo­ impacts to localized water quality and sensitive cated and designed trails and river access points, shoreline resources as a result of concentrating use expanded shuttle systems, and less concentrated and expanding the extent of use areas. In areas of backcountry use. Increased use and development more intensive use, the risk of impacts to water over the long term would have localized, minor, quality would be greater as a result of sediment adverse impacts on water quality and biological transport or improper waste disposal, and her­ habitat. Minor, short-term, site-specific impacts baceous meadow communities and amphibian would occur from construction activities. Minor, populations could be affected by trampling. incremental adverse effects to the natural hy­ Mitigating measures (e.g., visitor education, drology and biological communities of some placement of sanitation facilities/backcountry streams would occur due to increased water toilets, setbacks from water for camping, wash­ diversions. ing, and human waste disposal) would help minimize impacts. On a cumulative basis, alternative C would con­ tribute minor to moderate, beneficial impacts; Facility construction would result in impacts to adverse impacts within the parks would be nearby vegetation, soils, and aquatic resources, minor, localized, and short term. In conjunction with temporary adverse effects on water quality with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable (e.g., erosion, sedimentation, turbidity) and actions, there would be major, adverse, long- biological communities. Impacts would be term, cumulative impacts on water resources in mitigated to the extent possible, and the effects the region, primarily from land use and develop­ would be minor, localized, and short term. ment outside the parks, similar to the no-action alternative. Alternative D would have negligible to minor localized benefits to water quality. Expanding There would be no impairment of park resources shuttle services would decrease private motor or values. vehicle use on some park roads, potentially decreasing the deposition of petroleum products and pollutant runoff. Providing better located Impacts of Alternative D and designed trails and river access points, particularly along the South Fork, Marble Fork, Analysis. Increased levels of sediment, fuels, and Middle Fork near major developed areas turbidity, and nutrients would be associated with would concentrate use in specific areas. This greater visitor use of facilities, parking areas, would decrease the current extent of impacts roads, picnic areas, and trails, resulting in indi­ (such as soil compaction, vegetation trampling, rect, localized effects on water quality and and loss of vegetation) that lead to erosion and biological communities. Petroleum products the addition of sediment to nearby waters. deposited on the surfaces of roads and parking areas as a result of vehicle use could be washed As described for the no-action alternative, park into nearby waters. Increased soil compaction, wastewater treatment facilities need to be and vegetation trampling and loss in some areas upgraded to meet new state effluent disposal could lead to greater erosion and the addition of regulations and expanded to process greater sediment to nearby waters. Water pollution volumes of wastewater loads under this alterna­ would also occur from trash or human/stock tive. Environmental constraints such as adequate wastes deposited in or near streams. In general, soils, slopes, and distance to waterbodies could

104 Natural Resources: General Vegetation and Soils — Regional Context preclude the expansion of some disposal opera­ reasonably foreseeable actions throughout the tions. Even with proper waste disposal, elevated region, there would continue to be major, nutrient levels and conductivity above natural adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts to background levels would continue within the regional water quality, hydrology, and biological immediate downstream reaches. The extent of communities. this effect could increase incrementally with the disposal of additional treated wastewater. Conclusion. Alternative D would result in minor to moderate beneficial effects to the free- Based on floodplain information, no new or flowing condition of park rivers, water quality, relocated facilities would occur within 100-year and biological communities as a result of pro­ floodplains, and no impacts to floodplains are viding better located and designed trails and expected. More detailed analyses would be river access points, and expanded shuttle completed before any construction or property systems. Increased frontcountry use and acquisition to confirm that facilities were outside development and more concentrated back­ floodplains. Redesigning or relocating bridges country use would have minor, adverse, long- over the South Fork of the Kings River and term impacts on water quality and biological eliminating hydroelectric water diversions on the habitat in localized areas, while construction Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah River activities would have minor, short-term, site- would increase free-flowing conditions, result­ specific impacts. Minor, incremental adverse ing in minor, localized benefits on hydrological effects to the natural hydrology and biological processes and biological communities. Minor, communities of some streams would occur due incremental effects to the natural hydrology and to increased water diversions. biological communities of some streams would continue due to increased water diversions. On a cumulative basis, long-term impacts within Downstream impacts would decrease as more the parks under alternative D would be minor tributaries augmented streamflow below the and both adverse and beneficial. In combination point of withdrawal. with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be major, adverse, long- Cumulative Impacts. As described in the term, cumulative impacts on water resources in “Regional Context” section, major water quality the region. This would primarily be a result of impacts have been caused throughout the Sierra development actions outside the parks. Nevada region. Within the parks some ongoing and future restoration projects (e.g., Giant Similar to the no-action alternative, there would Forest) would contribute beneficial effects by be no impairment of park resources or values. reducing water usage, more than offsetting expected increased water use from future development at Wuksachi. Proposed develop­ GENERAL VEGETATION AND SOILS ments (concession facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi village, the Giant Forest transit Regional Context system) would contribute some localized, short- term, construction-related impacts such as Regional vegetation and soil resources have erosion and sedimentation. Also, U.S. Forest been historically altered by timber harvest, Service actions to address ecosystem manage­ grazing, agriculture, mining, development, water ment issues on adjacent lands could have diversions, loss of fire regime, and recreational cumulative beneficial effects by reducing water use. Regional population growth, development, resource impacts from activities such as logging. and air pollution, and possibly global warming, also adversely affect vegetation communities. Long-term impacts under alternative D would be However, beneficial effects are expected from minor to moderate and both adverse and some actions to address ecosystem management beneficial. In conjunction with past, present, and issues on lands adjacent to the parks (including

105 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impact Thresholds for Vegetation Criteria for Determining Impairment Negligible — The impact would be at the lower An impact would more likely constitute an im­ levels of detection or not measurable. pairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is Minor — The impact would be detectable and could affect the abundance or distribution of • necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden­ individuals in a localized area, but it would not tified in the parks’ enabling legislation, affect the viability of the local population or • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the overall community size, structure, or composi­ parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of tion. the parks, or Moderate — The impact would be clearly de­ • identified as a goal in this general manage­ tectable and could have an appreciable effect ment plan or other relevant NPS planning on the resource. This would include impacts that documents affect the abundance or distribution of local populations, but not the viabil ity of the regional population. Localized changes to community those taken in conjunction with the Sierra Ne­ size, structure, or composition and ecological vada Framework for Conservation and Collab­ processes could occur. oration, as well as management plans for Major — The impact would be severely adverse adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have National Monument). a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread influence, affecting the abundance or distribu­ tion of a local or regional populat ion to the Park Context extent that the population would not be likely to recover (adverse) or would return to a sustain­ While many of the parks’ native vegetation com­ able level (beneficial). Community size, struc­ munities are considered to be intact (with the ture, or composition and ecologica l processes exception of the foothills herbaceous compon­ would be highly altered, and landscape level ent), most have been altered to some degree by changes could be expected. post-settlement disturbance. This includes logging in some areas in the 1800s, domestic Impact Thresholds for Soils sheep and cattle grazing in all areas during the Negligible — The impact would be at the lower same period, and cattle grazing into the 1970s in levels of detection or not measurable. a few areas. Soils and vegetation have been Minor — The impact would be detectable, and locally altered or lost at various locations as a there could be changes in soil characteristics result of development and concentrated visitor (e.g., soil profile, productivity) in a relatively use, including a number of abandoned sites where small area, but the change would not increase soils have been disturbed. the potential for erosion of additional soi l. Air pollution, historic loss of natural fire re­ Moderate — The impact would be clearly de­ gimes, and invasion by exotic pathogens and tectable and could have an appreciable effect plant species have also altered and shaped the on the resource. Topsoil characteristics in a small area could be lost or altered. The change parks’ native vegetation at the landscape scale would increase the potential for erosion to (see “Ecosystem Stressors” at the beginning of remove small quantities of additional soil. the “Affected Environment” chapter). In more recent times, vegetation and fire management Major — The impact would be severely adverse efforts within the parks are restoring more or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have natural vegetation patterns and processes. The a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread parks have been leaders in aggressive fire influence. The action would result in a perma­ management and reestablishing fire as a natural nent loss or alteration of soils in a relatively component within the parks’ ecosystems. large area.

106 Natural Resources: General Vegetation and Soils — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative actions would affect a limited number of sites within the parks, reducing but not eliminating Analysis. Increased visitor use such as hiking, use and development in larger developed areas, camping, and horseback riding would contribute with minor, beneficial, long-term effects to to adverse impacts on park soils and vegetation vegetation and soils within the montane forest (such as soil compaction, erosion, trampling and and chaparral communities. loss of vegetative cover, and introduction and spread of nonnative species). However, in­ Removing hydroelectric facilities, particularly creased use would most likely occur in areas that flumes, would also allow for the reestablishment already experience high to moderate levels of of more natural conditions, contributing minor to activity. Limits on overnight backcountry use moderate, beneficial, long-term effects on would not change. Because management pro­ vegetation and soils. Adverse impacts from grams to minimize impacts would continue to be facility removal, such as increased slope used (e.g., visitor education on the impacts of disturbance and erosion potential, would be off-trail use, site hardening, trail paving, place­ minor to moderate and short term. The extent ment of fences to direct visitor use, designated and duration of these impacts would be trails and campsites, higher standard trails where minimized by careful design and timing of stock use is prevalent, and restoration of im­ facility removal, temporary erosion control pacted sites), any additional impacts from measures, and follow-up revegetation efforts increased use would likely be negligible to based on an approved restoration plan. minor. These impacts would become more ex­ tensive or moderate in intensity if use increased Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on in lightly used or undisturbed areas or where vegetation and soils are based on an analysis of trails were in poor condition or not clearly past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions defined. in the Sierra Nevada region, in combination with the potential effects of this alternative. Whereas Trampling of vegetation could lead to the devel­ widespread, more intensive impacts have oc­ opment of informal trails, resulting in vegetation curred throughout the region, this alternative’s loss and soil compaction and erosion, particu­ contribution to those effects would be larly in areas where soils are on slopes or are incremental and localized. easily erodible or saturated, or in areas where vegetation is less resistant or resilient. Increased As described in the “Regional Context” section, use could also spread exotic species from seeds lands within the greater Sierra Nevada region carried in on vehicles, clothing, or stock, affect­ have been and will likely continue to be altered ing local plant populations. However, most park by timber harvest, grazing, agriculture, mining, areas would remain undeveloped and without development, water diversions, loss of fire re­ trails; they would receive little, if any, use. gime, and recreational use, as well as regional population growth and air pollution. Impacts on Developed areas would total about 1,745 acres regional native vegetation patterns and soils (0.2% of total park acreage) under the no-action have been long term, major, and adverse because alternative. Some developed areas would be of displaced vegetation, reduced plant species redesigned or reduced in scale (e.g., rebuilding diversity and density, introduced exotic species, portions of the Lodgepole campground, remov­ fragmented habitats, and widespread erosion and ing permit cabins at Mineral King, potentially sedimentation. removing structures on inholdings that were purchased from willing sellers). Such actions Within the parks some ongoing and future res­ would reduce understory trampling, compaction, toration (e.g., the Giant Forest area), as well as and soil erosion associated with the use of these continued vegetation and fire management facilities, allowing for the revegetation and programs, would benefit resources by restoring restoration of more natural conditions. These more natural vegetation patterns and processes.

107 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Proposed development (e.g., expanded conces­ Impacts of the Preferred Alternative sion facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi village, the Giant Forest transit system) would Analysis. Under the preferred alternative there have minor, short-term impacts related to would be increased visitation and some addi­ construction that would be mitigated through tional development, primarily in the parks’ best management practices (e.g., erosion and frontcountry. Development zones would in­ sediment controls and revegetation). Other crease by 142 acres, to a total of 1,887 acres, an beneficial effects are expected from some 8% parkwide increase compared to the no-action actions to address ecosystem management issues alternative, but only about 0.2% of the total park on lands adjacent to the parks (including the acreage. The construction and use of new facili­ Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and ties would result in the compaction and displace­ Collaboration, as well as management plans for ment of soil and the loss of vegetation at the adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia proposed construction sites. Short- and long- National Monument). term adverse impacts would likely be minor because these developments would affect limited Even though some actions in and around the areas, would be located primarily within existing parks could have beneficial effects, long-term developed areas or previously disturbed sites, cumulative impacts on regional vegetation and and would be mitigated to the extent possible soils would continue to be major and adverse through the use of best management practices. because the regional ecosystems in the greater Sierra Nevada have been highly impacted by Increased use would most likely occur in past and continuing land use and development. developed areas, along existing higher use trails, The no-action alternative would contribute both and on the expanded frontcountry trail system. beneficial and adverse localized and primarily Resulting use impacts would be localized and minor impacts to the cumulative impacts. would include soil compaction, erosion, and trampling, resulting in vegetation loss. Because Conclusion. The no-action alternative would most of these areas already receive high to continue to have negligible to possibly moder­ moderate levels of use, and because measures to ate, localized, adverse, long-term impacts on minimize impacts (e.g., site hardening, fencing, vegetation and soils, primarily in existing areas designated trails and campsites, higher standard of concentrated use and development. trails where stock use is prevalent, and visitor education) would continue to be taken, On a cumulative basis, the no-action alternative additional impacts would likely be negligible to would contribute localized, incremental, minor minor and primarily associated with an to moderate, adverse effects and minor expanded trail system. beneficial effects on vegetation and soils. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably Limiting overnight backcountry use as needed to foreseeable future actions, there would be major, protect resources, along with refining the adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts to commercial stock use permit system, should vegetation and soils throughout the region result in fewer impacts to soils and vegetation. because of vegetation displacement, reduced Localized benefits to soils and vegetation would plant species diversity and density, exotic be negligible to moderate; the most improved species, habitat fragmentation, and widespread conditions would occur in more heavily im­ erosion and sedimentation. pacted areas where use was curtailed. An additional high Sierra tent camp would be In accordance with the criteria for determining assessed. If added to the Hockett Plateau area, it impairment, there would be no impairment of would likely result in localized, moderate, long- park resources or values. term impacts in the camp area, but related additional use on the plateau would be widely dispersed, with minor, adverse impacts.

108 Natural Resources: General Vegetation and Soils — Impacts of Alternative A

Cumulative Impacts. Whereas widespread, contribute a negligible to minor, adverse, short- more intensive impacts have occurred region­ term increment to these effects as a result limited ally, this alternative’s contribution to those new development. Increased development and effects would be incremental and localized. dispersal of backcountry use under the preferred alternative would have a minor, adverse, long- As described in the “Regional Context” section, term contribution to cumulative effects, while lands in the greater Sierra Nevada region have improving the trail system and reducing the been and will likely continue to be altered by extent of high-use backcountry areas would have timber harvest, grazing, agriculture, mining, a minor, beneficial, long-term effect. development, water diversions, loss of fire regime, and recreational use, as well as regional Conclusion. Limiting backcountry use to im­ population growth and air pollution. Impacts on prove resource conditions would result in minor regional native vegetation patterns and soils to moderate, localized, beneficial, long-term have been major, adverse, and long term because effects. The construction and use of new of vegetation displacement, reduced plant facilities would result in minor, site-specific, species diversity and density, exotic species, adverse, short- and long-term impacts. The habitat fragmentation, and widespread erosion development zone would increase by 142 acres, and sedimentation. an 8% increase, compared to the no-action alternative. Within the parks some ongoing and future restoration (e.g., the Giant Forest area), as well On a cumulative basis, the preferred alternative as continued vegetation and fire management would contribute minor to moderate beneficial programs, would benefit resources by restoring effects from improved conditions within the more natural vegetation patterns and processes. parks, as well as some site-specific, minor, Proposed development projects (e.g., expanded facility-related adverse impacts. In conjunction concession facilities at Grant Grove and with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Wuksachi village, and the Giant Forest transit actions, there would be a continuation of major, system) would have minor site-specific, short- adverse, long-term, cumulative impacts through­ term, construction-related impacts that would be out the region because of displaced vegetation, mitigated through best management practices reduced plant species diversity and density, (e.g., erosion and sediment controls and revege­ exotic species, habitat fragmentation, and tation). Beneficial impacts are also expected widespread erosion and sedimentation. from some actions to address ecosystem management issues on lands adjacent to the As described for the no-action alternative, there parks (including the Sierra Nevada Framework would be no impairment of park resources or for Conservation and Collaboration, as well as values. management plans for adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia National Monument). Impacts of Alternative A While some actions in the parks and region could have beneficial, long-term effects, overall Analysis. Alternative A would reduce use and impacts of past, present, and reasonably development within the parks, as developed foreseeable actions throughout the region in zones would decrease by approximately 435 conjunction with the impacts of the preferred acres, for a total of 1,310 acres (0.15% of total alternative would result in major, adverse, long- park acreage); this decrease would represent term cumulative impacts. Over the long term the approximately a 25% decrease in development preferred alternative would contribute a minor to compared to the no-action alternative. The re­ moderate, beneficial effect by limiting, replacing, moval of some facilities, along with reduced or redesigning facilities, and by precluding trampling of understory vegetation, and less soil increased water withdrawals. It would also compaction and erosion associated with facility

109 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES use and maintenance, would allow for the restora­ proved conditions occurring where high-use tion of landforms, soils, and vegetation in site- trails and use were removed. specific areas (primarily montane forest and foot­ hills communities and to a lesser extent alpine Stock use would be prohibited under this alter­ vegetation communities). Redesigning most native. The use of horses and mules causes campgrounds and some parking areas would result relatively more impacts on trails and campsites in similar benefits. Compared to the no-action than comparable use by humans — for example alternative, these actions would have minor to wider trails, much larger campsites, and greater moderate, long-term benefits to soils and vegeta­ exposures of bare mineral soils, greater com­ tion in localized areas. Because these benefits paction and loss of organic matter, and slower would be limited in extent, they would be infiltration rates (Cole 1989; McClaran and Cole negligible. 1993). Consequently, the extent of impacts such as trampling, root shearing, compaction, and Facility removal, as well as limited new con­ erosion would be reduced where stock campsites struction on previously disturbed sites, would were removed. The introduction of invasive disturb vegetation and soils in localized areas, plants from animal feed, pack equipment, and but with mitigating measures as described in the the animals themselves would also be elimi­ “Alternatives” chapter, impacts would be minor nated. Minor, beneficial, long-term impacts and short term. Impacts from removing hydro­ would result primarily at pack stations, corrals, electric facilities, particularly flumes, would be areas popular with stock users (such as the more extensive, and impacts would be minor to Hockett Plateau, the floor of the Kern Canyon, moderate, adverse, and short term. The extent Rock Creek, Crabtree Meadows, Roaring River, and duration of these impacts would be mini­ Bubbs Creek, Monarch Divide, Evolution Basin, mized by careful design and timing of facility and LeConte Canyon), and administrative stock removal, temporary erosion control measures, use areas (such as Lewis Camp, Hockett Plateau, and follow-up revegetation efforts based on an Horseshoe Meadow, Kern Bridge Camp, and approved restoration plan. upper Rattlesnake Canyon).

The extent and intensity of impacts from Cumulative Impacts. As described in the relocating NPS and concession operational “Regional Context” section, lands within the facilities outside the parks would depend on site- greater Sierra Nevada region have been and will specific conditions and project design, but with likely continue to be altered by timber harvest, careful siting and facility design, along with grazing, agriculture, mining, development, water mitigating measures to minimize long-term diversions, loss of fire regime, and recreational impacts, impacts would be site-specific and use, as well as regional population growth and minor to moderate in intensity. Further air pollution. Impacts on regional native vegeta­ environmental analysis would be completed tion patterns and soils have been major, adverse, prior to construction. and long term because of displaced vegetation, reduced plant species diversity and density, Reduced use and fewer trails in developed areas exotic species, fragmented habitats, and wide­ and in the backcountry would result in fewer im­ spread erosion and sedimentation. Beneficial pacts to soils and vegetation compared to the no- impacts are expected from some actions to action alternative. Banning firewood gathering address ecosystem management issues on lands and campfires in the backcountry would increase adjacent to the parks (including the Sierra sparse woody material, benefiting high-elevation Nevada Framework for Conservation and soils and plant communities through increased Collaboration, as well as management plans for soil nutrients and microhabitats for plants. Lo­ adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia calized benefits to soils and vegetation would be National Monument). negligible to minor, with some of the most im­

110 Natural Resources: General Vegetation and Soils — Impacts of Alternative C

Even though the actions of this alternative in backcountry areas. However, there would be a conjunction with other actions outside the parks greater focus under this alternative on improving would contribute beneficial, long-term effects in existing trail conditions, including measures to the region, overall there would be a net major, minimize impacts (e.g., site hardening, fencing, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on designated trails and campsites, higher standard vegetation and soil resources. trails where stock use is prevalent, visitor educa­ tion, and restoration of disturbed areas). Local­ Conclusion. Alternative A would result in ized impacts and the potential for social trails to localized, minor to moderate, beneficial, long- form would be slightly reduced compared to the term impacts from a reduction in use and no-action alternative, a negligible to minor development within the parks. The development benefit. zone would be reduced by 435 acres (25%). Facility removal and limited new development In the backcountry alternative C would reduce would result in minor to moderate, adverse, the amount of major trail corridors that allow short-term impacts. higher, more concentrated human and stock use. This would reduce long-term, site-specific, With regard to cumulative impacts, alternative A adverse effects such as trampling, compaction, would result in incremental beneficial impacts and erosion that are associated with these uses, a within the parks. On a regionwide basis, how­ minor localized benefit. This alternative would ever, there would continue to be major, adverse, also disperse use, which would likely result in long-term, cumulative impacts on vegetation and more widely dispersed impacts of lower inten­ soil resources. sity over a larger portion of the backcountry. Dispersed use would result in the creation of Similar to the no-action alternative, there would new campsites, accompanied by soil loss, com­ be no impairment of park resources or values. paction, and erosion. More cross-country travel could also result in the unintended development of new user-created trails. However, low use Impacts of Alternative C levels, smaller party size, emphasis on low- impact practices, educating visitors to select Analysis. Alternative C would expand overnight resistant camping surfaces, or other possible use and associated development, primarily with­ management techniques would help minimize in the parks’ frontcountry developed areas, impacts. It is likely that new sites would not resulting in increased use. Development zones have more than minor, adverse, localized would increase by 241 acres, encompassing impacts, and that disturbance at existing sites approximately 1,986 acres (approximately would not increase beyond what is present now. 0.23% of the total park acreage); this would be a Parkwide impacts to vegetation and soils from 14% increase in the development zone compared backcountry use would be negligible. to the no-action alternative. New facility con­ struction and use would cause soil compaction Cumulative Impacts. As described in the and displacement, as well as vegetation loss. “Regional Context” section, lands within the However, short- and long-term adverse impacts greater Sierra Nevada region have been and will would likely be minor because limited areas likely continue to be altered by timber harvest, would be affected, present developed areas or grazing, agriculture, mining, development, water previously disturbed sites would be used, and diversions, loss of fire regime, and recreational mitigating measures would be taken. use, as well as regional population growth and air pollution. Impacts on regional native Soil compaction and erosion, and vegetation vegetation patterns and soils have been long trampling and loss, would likely increase in term, major, and adverse because of displace­ developed areas and to a lesser extent along ment of vegetation, reduction in plant species other frontcountry trails and easily accessible diversity and density, introduction of exotic

111 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES species, fragmentation of habitats, and wide­ Impacts of Alternative D spread erosion and sedimentation. Beneficial effects are expected from some actions to Analysis. Alternative D would expand develop­ address ecosystem management issues on lands ment within the parks, primarily within front- adjacent to the parks (including the Sierra country developed areas. Development zones Nevada Framework for Conservation and would increase by approximately 388 acres, for Collaboration, as well as management plans for a total of approximately 2,133 acres (approxi­ adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia mately 0.25% of total park acreage); this would National Monument). be a 22% increase in development compared to the no-action alternative. New facility construc­ Alternative C would contribute a minor, bene­ tion and use would cause localized soil compac­ ficial, long-term impact by improving the existing tion and displacement and loss of vegetation. trail system and reducing the extent of high-use Because new development would be located backcountry areas. Increased development and primarily within existing developed areas and at dispersal of backcountry use would contribute a previously disturbed sites, and because impacts minor, adverse, long-term increment to cumula­ would be mitigated to the extent possible, short- tive effects. In conjunction with past, present, and long-term adverse impacts would be minor. and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there would continue to be long-term, major, adverse Constructing a Grant Grove bypass would likely impacts on regional vegetation and soils. require extensive cut-and-fill earthwork and vegetation removal. The degree of impact would Conclusion. Some negligible to minor, be related to the location of the roadway align­ beneficial, long-term impacts would occur as a ment and the site-specific conditions along the result of improving the frontcountry trail system. road corridor. The extent of adverse impacts Reducing the extent of high-use backcountry would be minimized through careful design areas would result in minor to moderate, local­ (e.g., siting to avoid sensitive plant communities ized, long-term benefits. New facilities, as well and to follow existing road corridors wherever as increased frontcountry use and dispersed possible) and the application of mitigating backcountry use, would result in minor, site- measures during construction (e.g., slope sta- specific, long-term impacts. The development bilization/erosion control measures, revegeta­ zone would increase by 241 acres, or 14%, tion). Adverse short-term impacts (during compared to the no-action alternative. construction) and long-term impacts (direct displacement of resources by pavement) would On a cumulative basis, alternative C would likely be minor to moderate in intensity along contribute a long-term, minor, beneficial effect by the road corridor. Further environmental anal­ improving the existing trail system and reducing ysis would be completed prior to construction. the extent of high-use backcountry areas. In­ The construction of a bypass within Giant creased development and dispersal of back­ Sequoia National Monument could be incom­ country use would contribute a minor, adverse, patible with the presidential proclamation long-term increment to cumulative effects. establishing the national monument. Combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, there would continue to be More visitors in developed areas, along higher major, adverse, long-term impacts on regional use trails (including an expanded frontcountry vegetation and soil resources. trail system), and at additional pulloffs on Generals Highway would result in increased Similar to the no-action alternative, there would localized soil compaction and erosion, plus be no impairment of park resources or values. vegetation trampling and loss. Most of these areas already experience moderate to high levels of use, and measures to minimize impacts (e.g., site hardening, fencing, designated trails and

112 Natural Resources: General Vegetation and Soils — Impacts of Alternative D campsites, higher standard trails for stock use, species diversity and density, introduction of visitor education) would continue to be em­ exotic species, fragmentation of habitats, and ployed, so additional impacts would likely be widespread erosion and sedimentation. negligible to minor. Most additional impacts Beneficial effects are expected from some would be associated with an expanded trail actions to address ecosystem management issues system and pulloffs on Generals Highway. on lands adjacent to the parks (including the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Greater use in the backcountry due to allowing Collaboration, as well as management plans for more concentrated human and stock use (i.e., on adjacent wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia major trail corridors), as well as allowing larger National Monument). groups in these high-use areas, would not sub­ stantially increase impacts on soils and vegeta­ Alternative D would contribute a negligible to tion because most campsite impacts occur at low moderate, adverse, long-term effect to cumulative levels of use (Cole 1989). However, larger effects on vegetation and soils in the region. parties in general increase resource impacts Combined with past, present, and reasonably since the rate and extent of impacts tends to foreseeable actions throughout the region, there increase with party size (Hammitt and Cole would continue to be major, adverse, long-term 1998). It is likely that backcountry impacts impacts on vegetation and soils. would increase to a negligible to minor degree. Establishing new high-use trail corridors and Conclusion. Constructing new facilities, includ­ campsites to disperse use, educating users about ing trails, would have negligible to minor, site- more resistant camping surfaces, maintaining specific, long-term impacts; however, construct­ higher standard trails, and providing facilities ing a Grant Grove bypass road (if allowed) like toilets and fire rings in high-use areas would could have moderate impacts, depending on site- help minimize and contain impacts, resulting in specific conditions and project design. The long-term, minor, adverse localized impacts. bypass could be incompatible with the purposes Adding a high Sierra camp in the Hockett of Giant Sequoia National Monument. Plateau area would likely result in long-term, Concentrating use and allowing higher levels of localized, moderate impacts at the camp area; use in the backcountry would result in an incre­ subsequent increased use throughout the plateau mental increase in minor, long-term, localized would be widely dispersed, with minor to impacts (e.g., compaction, erosion, trampling, moderate impacts. Separating trails and camping loss of vegetation), primarily in new high-use areas for stock and hikers should reduce impacts areas. Adding a high Sierra camp in the Hockett to a negligible to minor extent because horse and Plateau area could result in moderate impacts as mule parties cause more impacts to soils and use increased. Designating a few trails for foot- vegetation than humans on a per individual traffic only should reduce impacts associated basis. Parkwide, impacts to vegetation and soils with stock use to a negligible to minor level. The from backcountry use would be negligible. development zone would increase by 388 acres, or 22%, compared to the no-action alternative. Cumulative Impacts. As described in the “Regional Context” section, lands within the On a cumulative basis, alternative D would greater Sierra Nevada region have been and will contribute negligible to moderate adverse likely continue to be altered by timber harvest, impacts on vegetation and soils. In conjunction grazing, agriculture, mining, development, water with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable diversions, loss of fire regime, and recreational actions throughout the region, there would use, as well as regional population growth and continue to be major, adverse, long-term impacts air pollution. Impacts on regional native on vegetation and soil resources. vegetation patterns and soils have been long term, major, and adverse because of Similar to the no-action alternative, there would displacement of vegetation, reduction in plant be no impairment of park resources or values.

113 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

GSIANT EQUOIA GROVES Impact Thresholds for Giant Sequoia Groves Negligible — The impact would be at the lower Regional Context levels of detection or not measurable.

As a species, giant sequoias have been particu­ Minor — The impact would be detectable, but it larly affected by the loss of the natural fire would not affect the viability of the local population or overall community size, structure, regime since frequent fire reduces competition or composition. for scarce resources and prepares the conditions needed for giant sequoia reproduction. Due to Moderate — The impact would be clearly de­ fire suppression over the past century, giant tectable and could have an appreciable effect sequoia reproduction has virtually ceased in on the resource. This would include impacts that unburned groves. The ingrowth and accumula­ affect the abundance or distribution of local tion of shade-tolerant, but fire-intolerant species, populations, but it would not affect the viabil ity such as white fir, have resulted in conditions of the regional population. Localized changes hospitable to widespread, intense, and damaging to community size, structure, or composition and ecological processes could occur. fire events. The alteration of natural grove con­ ditions in many of the groves outside the parks Major — The impact would be severely adverse (both previously logged and non-logged) are at or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have risk due to the lack of giant sequoia regeneration a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread and hazardous fuel buildup, resulting in a major influence, affecting the abundance or distribu­ adverse effect. Management goals to protect, tion of a local or regional populat ion to the restore, and conserve giant sequoia ecosystems extent that the population would not be likely to should reduce the threat of intensive fires and recover (adverse) or would return to a sustain­ improve ecological conditions over the long able level (beneficial). Community size, struc­ ture, or composition and ecologica l processes term. would be highly altered and landscape level changes could be expected. About 30% of all naturally occurring sequoia groves have been logged, with the heaviest Criteria for Determining Impairment logging (including most or all of the large sequoias) occurring between 1880 and 1920. As An impact would more likely constitute an im­ the result of recent policy changes, the U.S. pairment to the extent that it affects a resource Forest Service and the National Park Service, or value whose conservation is which collectively manage just over three • necessary to fulfill specific purposes quarters of all sequoia groves, now share similar identified in the parks’ enabling leg islation, sequoia management goals to protect, restore, • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the and conserve giant sequoia ecosystems. parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of the parks, or Other continuing and future threats to sequoia ecosystems include air pollution, unnatural • identified as a goal in this general manage­ effects of pathogens, and anthropogenic climate ment plan or other relevant NPS planning change. These threats have the potential to result documents in major adverse impacts, such as the decline of several tree species that are part of the giant sequoia grove structure, foliar injury to sequoia seedlings, failure in sequoia reproduction, and Park Context increased mortality from prolonged droughts (NPS 1999d; SNEP 1996). Prior to being added to the parks, the Atwell Mill, Big Stump, Squirrel Creek, Redwood Mountain, and Dillonwood Groves were partially logged. Initial NPS efforts to preserve

114 Natural Resources: Giant Sequoia Groves — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative the groves, particularly individual specimen Roads, parking areas, and trails associated with trees, included protection from damage by sequoia groves would not change, except that natural processes such as fire. Since the advent facilities would continue to be removed from of ecologically based management in the 1960s, Giant Forest. Prescribed fires would continue to the giant sequoia groves have been managed as be used to preserve the groves’ ecological integral to the ecosystem, and natural processes integrity, to reduce the threat of damaging fires are allowed to shape the communities. caused by high fuel buildup, and to stimulate Prescribed fires for both fuel and ecosystem giant sequoia reproduction. Visitor use would management have led to reduced threats from continue to be managed in high-use areas to damaging fire, and the condition of giant minimize impacts from trampling and soil sequoia groves has been improved were fires compaction (e.g., paved trails, fencing in areas have occurred. In the 1980s the National Park of heavy foot traffic). These impacts have al­ Service began the removal of lodging and other ready occurred to varying degrees, with distur­ commercial facilities from the Giant Forest bance more prevalent in higher use groves (e.g., grove. Giant Forest, Grant Grove, Big Stump). Overall, impacts from increasing use are expected to Ground and surface water conditions are critical remain localized and negligible to minor. to the reproduction and maintenance of sequoias, particularly during the late summer and fall Surface and subsurface water withdrawals would period (Rundel 1972; NPS 1986a). If stressed by continue at Grant Grove and Atwell Mill. As drought, sequoia seedlings along the margins of described under the “Context” section, ground groves may die, and crown foliage of mature and surface water conditions are critical to the trees may brown. High mortality rates of first- reproduction and maintenance of sequoias, year seedlings can be attributed to desiccation particularly during the late summer and fall during the summer. Groundwater investigations Water consumption is relatively low at Atwell have been proposed to determine potential Mill (approximately 18,600 gallons/year) and is effects of groundwater levels or water with­ not expected to change under the no-action drawals on sequoia groves. Water withdrawals alternative. Water withdrawals at Grant Grove have been occurring for many decades, and the average 33,500 gallons/day during the peak effects on the viability or failure rates among season. Withdrawals are from the Sequoia sequoias are not evident, although effects could Creek, Mill Flat Creek, and Abbott Creek drain­ be subtle and could take decades or more to ages; the primary water source for the Grant become evident. Grove developed area is Round Meadow, which drains into Abbott Creek. There is no verified groundwater connection between Abbott Creek Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and the Mill Flat and Sequoia Creek drainage systems. However, if these drainage systems Analysis. Giant sequoia groves would continue were connected, then water withdrawals from to be managed as integral to the ecosystem, and Round Meadow could affect groundwater in the natural processes would be allowed to shape the Grant Grove and sequoia groves to the south communities. A number of large specimen trees (NPS 1988). (e.g., the General Grant and General Sherman Trees) and other sequoia snags, stumps, and logs Current programs to minimize impacts to the (e.g., Tunnel Log, Tharp’s Log) would continue hydrology at Grant Grove and potential impacts to be managed to perpetuate their condition and to other groves would continue. Passive conser­ appearance. To achieve these goals, fire fuels, vation measures (e.g., low-flow fixtures) have understory growth, and nearby viewsheds in been installed as facilities have been replaced or localized areas would continue to be managed, constructed. Active conservation measures (e.g., and there would be no additional impacts. closing public showers and laundry facilities) might have to be employed during drought

115 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES years. Continued replacement and rehabilitation the 1988 Grant Grove and Redwood Mountain of leaking water lines would also reduce usage. Development Concept Plan and Final Environ Based on these factors, peak-season water mental Impact Statement and subsequent conces­ consumption at Grant Grove under the no-action sion contract. The John Muir Lodge was com­ alternative is not expected to increase. pleted and opened in 2000. Full development includes additional rustic cabins and lodges. No Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on construction would occur within the grove; sequoia groves are based on an analysis of past, however, projected Grant Grove peak water present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in consumption is expected to increase to approxi­ the Sierra Nevada region. Whereas widespread, mately 53,650 gallons/day with full buildout. more intensive impacts have occurred on the Existing water withdrawals (averaging 33,500 regional level, this alternative’s contribution to gallons/day during the peak use season), plus 1.2 those effects would be incremental and million gallons of stored water, should be localized. sufficient to meet demand. The storage tank is filled during the peak runoff period (January to As described in the regional and park context April), thus avoiding increased water with­ sections, giant sequoia groves in the park as well drawals from Round Meadow during the peak as the region will continue to be affected by use season. While the storage tank is being various cumulative impacts. Ongoing threats filled, water flow into Abbot Creek is reduced include air pollution, unnatural effects of by about 10%, with negligible impacts. Water pathogens, and anthropogenic climate change. withdrawals would not be increased beyond Fire suppression over the past century has 35,500 gallons/day, and conservation efforts to especially affected sequoia reproduction and led minimize consumptive uses would be imple­ to an unnatural build-up of forest fuels. Current mented if water was insufficient to meet de­ ecosystem management goals for groves under mand. Additional active conservation measures the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and the would likely be necessary during drought years. National Park Service should reduce the threat of Consequently, no additional hydrological intensive fires and improve ecological condi­ impacts are expected during the peak use months tions over the long term. (also the dry season).

Over 1,800 acres in the Dillonwood Grove were Overall, past, present, and reasonably foresee­ added to the park in 2001, and experimental able future actions, in conjunction with the no- management techniques would be continued, action alternative, would have major, beneficial, which would also support expanding knowledge long-term effects due to reduced fire threats and about sequoia management. Also, the creation of improved ecological conditions. However, past Giant Sequoia National Monument under the actions have altered groves throughout the U.S. Forest Service would further protect region, making them more prone to intense sequoia groves and their ecosystem. wildfires and other threats, such as regional air pollution and anthropogenic climate change. The In the 1980s the National Park Service began to resulting impacts of these actions are long term, remove overnight lodging and other commercial major, and adverse. The no-action alternative facilities from Giant Forest in order to restore would contribute a minor, adverse, long-term more natural conditions. This restoration effect to the overall cumulative impact. program, which will continue day use in the area, will continue through about 2005. The Conclusion. Giant sequoia groves would con­ result should be a long-term, major benefit to the tinue to be managed as integral to the ecosystem. ecological integrity of Giant Forest. Grove conditions within some high-use groves would continue to be manipulated or altered to The expansion of overnight concession facilities maintain specimen trees or to accommodate at Grant Grove is continuing in accordance with visitor use and development but would not result

116 Natural Resources: Giant Sequoia Groves — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative in additional impacts. Impacts associated with known, there is no current evidence of major future visitor use increases would be mitigated effects. There would be no impairment of park to the extent possible, and impacts would be resources or values. negligible to minor, localized, long term, and adverse. Present water withdrawals at Atwell Mill, Redwood Mountain, and Grant Grove may Impacts of the Preferred Alternative be contributing to moisture stress within sequoia groves within affected drainages; however, there Analysis. Giant sequoia groves would continue is no direct evidence of impacts at present. to be managed as integral to the ecosystem; Water consumption is relatively low at Atwell natural processes would be allowed to shape the Mill and Redwood Mountain, and it is not communities. Because of the uncertainty of expected to change under the no-action alterna­ water withdrawal impacts on giant sequoia tive. More day use at Grant Grove would raise systems, water withdrawals at Grant Grove annual water consumption; but water during the peak season would not be increased, management and conservation measures should and additional conservation measures would be preclude higher summer water withdrawals, with implemented to reduce withdrawals if possible. no additional impacts. The preferred alternative should not result in any additional impacts and could result in potentially Because of the uncertainty of the impacts on minor benefits depending on the extent of the giant sequoia systems, no increased water with­ reduction in water withdrawals. drawals would occur until future studies had been completed and a monitoring program Use in the Atwell Mill Grove would be reduced implemented to determine impacts. Water and the campground removed, resulting in fewer system modifications or other mitigating localized user impacts, such as soil compaction measures to reduce or eliminate potential and trampling and displacement of vegetation, a impacts would be investigated. negligible to minor benefit. Removing the camp­ ground would also reduce water demand and On a cumulative basis, the addition of the withdrawals of surface and subsurface water at Dillonwood Grove to the park and the creation Atwell Mill. of Giant Sequoia National Monument under the U.S. Forest Service have increased the overall In conjunction with the interpretive program at protection of sequoia groves throughout the Big Stump, fire fuels, understory growth, and region. The no-action alternative would contri­ the viewshed would be manipulated at this grove bute incrementally to minor, adverse, long-term to help maintain the visibility of elements of past impacts on a cumulative basis because of in­ logging (e.g., sequoia stumps and mill sawdust creased use within some groves. Most of the piles). This manipulation would be limited in adverse cumulative impacts to sequoias through­ extent, and most of the grove would continue to out the region have resulted from past activities, be managed as part of the ecosystem, with nat­ such as logging and fire suppression, that have ural processes allowed to shape the communi­ caused widespread alteration of groves. Conse­ ties. Adverse impacts would be localized, minor, quently, groves are more prone to intense and long term. wildfires and other major threats (e.g., regional air pollution and climate change) that could Increased visitor use at Grant Grove and Big result in major adverse effects. Present programs Stump Basin would contribute to trampling and such as prescribed burning would continue to soil compaction. These impacts have already improve grove conditions. occurred to varying degrees, with disturbance more prevalent in higher use groves like Grant While the effects that water withdrawals may Grove. Visitor use would continue to be man­ have on hydrologic systems within sequoia aged to minimize impacts to sequoias, with groves and on the trees themselves are not higher use areas requiring more intensive

117 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES measures (e.g., paved trails and fencing in areas The continued expansion of concession facilities of heavy foot traffic). Impacts would be at Grant Grove is not expected to have addition­ localized and negligible to minor. al hydrological impacts during the peak use/drier months. Present water withdrawals (average At Dillonwood modest levels of day use and 33,500 gallons/day during the peak use season) education would be accommodated in addition and stored water (1.2 million gallons) should to research. Experimental sequoia forest man­ provide sufficient water to meet demand from agement techniques would be continued, and a expanded concession facilities. Water with­ plan for long-term management would be drawals would not be increased, and conserva­ developed. Grove health would be monitored. tion efforts to reduce consumptive uses would be Further planning at Dillonwood would identify implemented if water was insufficient to meet appropriate uses and facilities and mitigation demand. Additional conservation measures measures to protect grove health. Facilities would be necessary during drought years. While would not be placed in the grove. Any develop­ the water storage tank is being filled, water flow ment and use accommodated at Dillonwood into Abbot Creek would be reduced by a maxi­ would result in the permanent displacement of mum of 10%, with a negligible impact, the same soils and vegetation. With mitigation measures, as the no-action alternative. these long-term impacts would be localized and minor. As described under the no-action alternative, the addition of Dillonwood to Sequoia National Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on Park and the creation of Giant Sequoia National sequoia groves are based on analyses of past, Monument have increased the protection of present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in sequoia groves in the region. Experimental the Sierra Nevada region, in combination with sequoia forest management techniques would be potential effects of this alternative. Whereas continued in the Dillonwood Grove, which widespread, more intensive impacts have would support expanding knowledge about occurred on the regional level, this alternative’s sequoia ecosystem management. contribution to those effects would be incre­ mental and localized. Overall, past, present, and reasonably foresee­ able future actions, in conjunction with the As described in the regional and park context preferred alternative, could have major, bene­ sections, giant sequoia groves in the park and ficial, long-term effects due to reduced fire region will continue to be affected by various threats and improved ecological conditions. impacts on a cumulative basis. Fire suppression However, past management of giant sequoia over the past century has especially affected groves (e.g., logging, fire suppression) have sequoia reproduction, leading to an unnatural altered groves throughout the region and made build-up of forest fuels. Current ecosystem them more prone to intense wildfires and other management goals for groves managed by the threats, such as regional air pollution and U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service anthropogenic climate change. The resulting should reduce the threat of intensive fires and impacts of these actions are major and adverse. improve long-term ecological conditions. Other The preferred alternative would contribute a ongoing and future threats include air pollution, minor, beneficial, long-term effect as a result of the unnatural effects of pathogens, and anthro­ reduced water withdrawals, visitor use, and pogenic climate change. development within some groves. The preferred alternative would also contribute additional The ongoing restoration of Giant Forest would incremental minor, adverse impacts from in­ improve the ecological integrity of this grove, a creased use within some groves, which would be major, long-term benefit. mitigated.

118 Natural Resources: Giant Sequoia Groves — Impacts of Alternative A

Conclusion. Giant sequoia groves would con­ Impacts of Alternative A tinue to be managed as integral to the ecosystem. Not allowing development zones in sequoia Analysis. Alternative A would reduce use and groves would improve resource conditions. Not development in some areas of the Grant Grove increasing peak-season water withdrawals at and Atwell Mill Grove. This would result in Grant Grove, and implementing additional fewer user-related impacts such as soil com­ conservation measures to reduce withdrawals, paction and trampling of vegetation, a negligible could result in beneficial effects, depending on to minor benefit. Reducing parking and the trail the extent to which withdrawals were decreased. system at the Grant Tree, removing the Atwell Other actions under the preferred alternative Mill campground from a second-growth portion should not result in any additional impacts on of the grove, and restoring these areas would giant sequoia groves. result in localized minor benefits.

Manipulating or altering grove conditions at Big Reducing facilities and levels of use would re­ Stump to maintain site-specific conditions duce water demand and withdrawals of surface related to historic logging and to accommodate and subsurface water at Grant Grove and Atwell increased visitor use, along with limited new Mill. Reductions could be substantial due to the facilities in some groves, would result in negli­ removal of overnight facilities, which use up to gible to minor, localized, adverse impacts, with 75% more water than day facilities. Reducing intensive visitor management and other impacts to grove hydrology and potential contri­ measures used to minimize impacts. butions to moisture stress on the General Grant Grove, sequoia groves south of the Grant Grove, On a cumulative basis, the addition of the and the Atwell Mill Grove would be a long-term Dillonwood Grove to the park and the creation benefit. of Giant Sequoia National Monument have increased the overall protection of sequoia Low levels of use and education would be groves. The preferred alternative would con­ accommodated in the Dillonwood Grove, as well tribute incrementally to minor, beneficial, long- as research. The health of this grove would be term effects by prohibiting and removing protected by continuing experimental sequoia development in all sequoia groves, improving forest management techniques, developing a Grant Grove hydrology, and reducing develop­ plan for long-term management, and monitoring ment and use within the Atwell Mill Grove. The the grove’s health. Further planning at Dillon- preferred alternative would contribute incre­ wood would identify appropriate uses and mental, negligible to minor, localized impacts as facilities and mitigation measures to protect the a result of increased day use within some groves. grove. Any development accommodated at As described for the no-action alternative, most Dillonwood would result in the permanent dis­ major cumulative impacts have resulted from placement of soils and vegetation. With miti­ past management activities, such as logging and gation measures, these long-term impacts would fire suppression, which have altered sequoia be localized and minor. groves throughout the region, making them more prone to intense wildfires and other threats. Cumulative Impacts. As described in the More recent ongoing programs (such as pre­ regional and park context sections, giant sequoia scribed burning and restoration efforts) would groves in the park and region will continue to be continue to improve grove conditions. affected by various impacts on a cumulative basis. Ongoing threats include air pollution, There would be no impairment of park resources unnatural effects of pathogens, and anthro­ or values. pogenic climate change. Current ecosystem management goals for groves managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service should reduce the threat of intensive fires and

119 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES improve ecological conditions over the long Grove, and Atwell Mill Grove would be a long- term. term benefit.

The ongoing restoration of Giant Forest would On a cumulative basis, as described for the no- improve the ecological integrity of the grove, a action alternative, the addition of the Dillon- long-term major benefit. wood Grove to Sequoia National Park and the creation of Giant Sequoia National Monument The continued expansion of concession facilities have increased the overall protection of sequoia at Grant Grove is not expected to cause addi­ groves in the region. Alternative A would tional hydrological impacts during the drier peak contribute incrementally to a minor, long-term months because existing water withdrawals benefit to sequoia groves because development (average 33,500 gal/day) and stored water and use within some groves would be reduced. should meet demand. Water withdrawals would Most adverse cumulative impacts to giant not be increased, and conservation efforts to sequoias have resulted from past activities, reduce consumptive uses would be implemented which have altered groves throughout the region if water was insufficient to meet demand. Addi­ and made them more prone to intense wildfires tional active conservation measures would likely and other threats. Some ongoing programs (such be necessary during drought years. While the as prescribed burning) would continue to water storage tank is being filled, water flow improve grove conditions. into Abbot Creek would be reduced by a maxi­ mum of 10%, with a negligible impact, the same There would be no impairment of park resources as the no-action alternative. or values.

The addition of the Dillonwood Grove to Sequoia National Park and the creation of Giant Impacts of Alternative C Sequoia National Monument have increased the extent of giant sequoias being protected in the Analysis. Actions at Big Stump to support the region. Experimental sequoia forest management interpretive program (such as manipulating fire techniques at the Dillonwood Grove would fuels, understory growth, and viewsheds) would support expanding knowledge about sequoia be limited in extent, and most of the grove ecosystem management. would continue to be managed as integral to the surrounding ecosystem, with natural processes Alternative A would contribute a minor, bene­ shaping the communities. Adverse, long-term ficial, long-term increment to overall cumulative impacts would be localized and minor. impacts. Increased visitor use at Grant Grove, Redwood Conclusion. Giant sequoia groves would con­ Mountain Grove, Atwell Mill, Big Stump, and tinue to be managed as integral to the ecosystem. Dillonwood would contribute to trampling and Alternative A would have localized negligible to soil compaction. These impacts have already minor benefits on the General Grant and Atwell occurred to varying degrees, with disturbance Mill Groves because use and the amount of more prevalent in higher use groves like Grant facilities would be reduced, resulting in less Grove. Visitor use would continue to be man­ withdrawal of surface and subsurface water. aged to minimize impacts to sequoias, with Reductions could be substantial due to the higher use areas requiring more intensive mea­ removal of overnight facilities, which use sures (e.g., paved trails, fencing in areas of approximately 75% more water than day heavy foot traffic). Impacts would be localized facilities. Reducing impacts to grove hydrology and negligible to minor. and potential contributions to moisture stress on Grant Grove, sequoia groves south of Grant Expanding development within the General Grant Grove (shuttle stops, accessible parking/

120 Natural Resources: Giant Sequoia Groves — Impacts of Alternative C trails) and Atwell Grove (a campground), and threats include air pollution, unnatural effects of new development at Dillonwood would all pathogens, and anthropogenic climate change. permanently displace soils and vegetation. With Current ecosystem management goals for groves mitigation measures, these long-term impacts managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the would be localized and minor. National Park Service should reduce the threat of intensive fires and improve ecological Increased visitor use and development at Grant conditions over the long term. Grove and Atwell Mill would increase water consumption. As described under the “Context” The ongoing restoration of Giant Forest would section, ground and surface water conditions are improve the ecological integrity of the grove, a critical to the reproduction and maintenance of long-term major benefit. sequoias. Existing water consumption is rela­ tively low at Atwell Mill (approximately 18,600 The expansion of concession facilities at Grant gallons/year), and water consumption even with Grove is not expected to have additional hydro­ a larger campground would still be relatively logical impacts during the drier peak months. low. Existing water withdrawals at Grant Grove Existing water withdrawals and stored water average 33,500 gallons/day during the peak should meet demand from expanded facilities; season. Because of the uncertainty of water additional active conservation measures would withdrawal impacts on giant sequoia systems, likely be necessary during drought years. Water peak-season water withdrawals within the park withdrawals would not be increased, and would not be increased, and a monitoring conservation efforts to reduce consumptive uses program would be implemented. If it was would be implemented if there was insufficient determined that new water sources would be water to meet demand. During the filling of the sought outside the parks, studies would need to water storage tank, water flow into Abbot Creek be undertaken to ensure that there would be no is decreased by about 10%, with a negligible adverse effects on other sequoia groves. With impact, the same as the no-action alternative. mitigating measures and no additional peak- season water withdrawals at Grant Grove, The addition of the Dillonwood Grove to alternative C should not result in any additional Sequoia National Park and the creation of Giant impacts. Sequoia National Monument have increased the extent of giant sequoia protection in the region. Low levels of use and education would be Experimental sequoia forest management tech­ accommodated in the 1,800-acre Dillonwood niques at the Dillonwood Grove would support Grove, in addition to research. Experimental expanding knowledge about sequoia ecosystem sequoia forest management techniques would be management. continued, and a plan for long-term resource management would be developed. Grove health Alternative C would contribute incrementally to would be monitored. Further planning at Dillon- a minor, adverse, long-term impact on a cumula ­ wood would identify appropriate uses and tive basis. facilities and mitigation measures to protect grove health. Any development accommodated Conclusion. Giant sequoia groves would con­ at Dillonwood would result in the permanent tinue to be managed as integral to the ecosystem. displacement of soils and vegetation. With Localized manipulation or alteration of grove mitigation measures, these long-term impacts conditions at Big Stump to maintain conditions would be localized and minor. related to historic logging, along with limited new facilities within some groves to accom­ Cumulative Impacts. As described under the modate increased visitor use, would result in “Context” section, giant sequoia groves in the minor, adverse impacts. park and region will continue to be affected by various impacts on a cumulative basis. Ongoing

121 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Increased visitor use and development at Grant pling and soil compaction. These impacts have Grove and Atwell Mill would increase water already occurred to varying degrees, with consumption. Because of the uncertainty of disturbance more prevalent in higher use groves water withdrawal impacts on giant sequoia like Grant Grove. Visitor use would continue to systems, no increased peak-season water be managed to minimize impacts to sequoias, withdrawals would occur, and a monitoring with higher use areas requiring more intensive program would be implemented to determine measures (e.g., paved trails, fencing in areas of potential impacts. If it was determined that new heavy foot traffic). Impacts would be localized water sources would be sought outside the parks, and negligible to minor. studies would need to be undertaken to ensure that there would be no adverse effects on other Expanding development within the Grant Grove sequoia groves. With mitigating measures and (shuttle stops, accessible parking/ trails) and no peak-season increased water consumption at Atwell Mill Grove (a campground), along with Grant Grove, alternative C should not result in converting or adding facilities at Dillonwood, any additional impacts. would permanently displace soils and vegetation. With mitigating measures, the long- On a cumulative basis, as described for the no- term impacts would be localized and minor. action alternative, the addition of the Dillon- wood Grove to Sequoia National Park has Increased visitor use and development at Grant increased the overall protection of sequoia Grove and Atwell Mill would increase water groves. On a cumulative basis alternative C consumption. Present water consumption is rela­ would have a minor, adverse, long-term impact tively low at Atwell Mill (approximately 18,600 to sequoia groves because of increased develop­ gallons/year), and water consumption with an ment and use within some groves. Most adverse expanded campground would still be relatively cumulative impacts to giant sequoias have low. Existing water withdrawals at Grant Grove resulted from past activities such as logging and average 33,500 gallons/day during the peak fire suppression, which have altered groves season. Because of the uncertainty of water throughout the region and made them more withdrawal impacts on giant sequoia systems, no prone to intense wildfires and other threats. increased peak-season water withdrawals would Ongoing programs such as prescribed burning occur, and a monitoring program would be im­ would continue to improve grove conditions. plemented. If it was determined that new water sources would be sought outside the parks, There would be no impairment of park resources studies would need to be undertaken to ensure or values. that there would be no adverse effects on other sequoia groves. With mitigating measures and no peak-season water withdrawals at Grant Impacts of Alternative D Grove, alternative D should not result in any additional impacts. Analysis. At Big Stump local conditions (fire fuels, understory growth, and viewsheds) would Modest levels of day use and education would be manipulated to support the interpretive be accommodated in the Dillonwood Grove, in program. Impacts would be limited in extent and addition to research. Experimental sequoia forest most of the grove would continue to be managed management techniques would be continued, as integral to the ecosystem, with natural pro­ and a plan for long-term resource management cesses shaping the community. Long-term would be developed. Grove health would be adverse impacts would be localized and minor. monitored. Further planning at Dillonwood would identify appropriate uses and facilities Increased visitor use at Grant Grove, Redwood and mitigation measures to protect grove health. Mountain, Atwell Mill, Big Stump, Muir, and Any development accommodated at Dillonwood Dillonwood Groves would contribute to tram­ would result in the permanent displacement of

122 Natural Resources: Giant Sequoia Groves — Impacts of Alternative D soils and vegetation. With mitigating measures, Alternative D would contribute to a minor, these long-term impacts would be localized and adverse, long-term impact on a cumulative basis. minor. Conclusion. Giant sequoia groves would con­ Cumulative Impacts. As described in the tinue to be managed as integral to the ecosystem. regional and park context sections, giant sequoia Manipulating or altering grove conditions at Big groves in the park and region have been affected, Stump to maintain site-specific conditions re­ and will continue to be affected, by various lated to historic logging for interpretive pro­ impacts on a cumulative basis. Continuing and grams, along with limited new development in future threats include air pollution, unnatural some groves, would result in minor adverse effects of pathogens, and anthropogenic climate impacts. change. Current ecosystem management goals for groves managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Increased visitor use and development at Grant the National Park Service should reduce the Grove and Atwell Mill would increase water threat of intensive fires and improve ecological consumption. Because of the uncertainty of conditions over the long term. water withdrawal impacts on giant sequoia systems, no increased peak-season water with­ The ongoing restoration of Giant Forest would drawals would occur. If it was determined that improve the ecological integrity of the grove, a new water sources would be sought outside the major, long-term benefit. No additional hydro­ parks, studies would need to be undertaken to logical impacts are expected during the drier ensure that there would be no adverse effects on peak months with the continued expansion of other sequoia groves. With mitigating measures, concession facilities at Grant Grove. Present alternative D should not result in any additional water withdrawals (average 33,500 gallons/day) impacts. plus stored water should meet demand from expanded facilities. Water withdrawals would On a cumulative basis, as described for the no- not be increased; if there was insufficient water action alternative, the addition of the Dillon- to meet demand, conservation efforts to reduce wood Grove to Sequoia National Park and the consumptive uses would be implemented. creation of Giant Sequoia National Monument Additional active conservation measures would have increased the overall protection of sequoia likely be necessary during drought years. When groves in the region. Alternative D would con­ the water storage tank is filled during the peak tribute incrementally to a minor, adverse, long- runoff season, water flow into Abbot Creek is term impact to sequoia groves as a result of use decreased by a maximum of 10%, with a negli­ increases in some groves. Most adverse gible impact, the same as the no-action cumulative impacts to giant sequoias have alternative. resulted from activities such as logging and fire suppression, which have altered groves The addition of the Dillonwood Grove to throughout the region and made them more Sequoia National Park and the creation of Giant prone to intense wildfires and other threats. Sequoia National Monument have increased the Ongoing programs such as prescribed burning extent of giant sequoias being protected in the would continue to improve grove conditions. region. Experimental sequoia forest management techniques at the Dillonwood Grove would There would be no impairment of park resources support expanding knowledge about sequoia or values. ecosystem management.

123 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

MEADOW / RIPARIAN / AQUATIC Impact Thresholds for Meadow / Riparian / COMMUNITIES Aquatic Communities Negligible — The impact would be at the lower Regional Context levels of detection or not measurable. Minor — The impact would be detectable, but it As a result of past settlement and development, would not affect the viability of the local popu­ resource extraction, and human use, riparian / lation or overall community size, structure, or aquatic ecosystems have been affected through­ composition. out the Sierra Nevada. Specific aquatic and riparian habitats have been degraded by dams Moderate — The impact would be clearly de­ tectable and could have an appreciable effect and diversions, mining, forest management, on the resource. This would include impacts that development, introduced organisms, contami­ affect the abundance or distribution of local nant deposition, and overgrazing. Foothill areas populations, but it would not affect the viabil ity below 3,300 feet appear to have the greatest loss of the regional population. Localized changes of riparian vegetation of any region in the Sierra to community size, structure, or composition Nevada (SNEP 1996). The alteration and and ecological processes could occur. continued deterioration of aquatic and riparian habitats has affected native fish, amphibians, Major — The impact would be severely adverse and aquatic invertebrates. Many aquatic and or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread riparian dependent species (see “Threatened, influence, affecting the abundance or distribu­ Endangered, and Rare Species” in “The Affected tion of a local or regional populat ion to the Environment”) and communities have suffered extent that the population would not be likely to local extinctions and are threatened throughout recover (adverse) or would return to a sustain­ their range. able level (beneficial). Community size, struc­ ture, or composition and ecologica l processes The suppression of natural fires in historic times would be highly altered and landscape level is another stressor. Fire affects water quality and changes could be expected. quantity, sediment transport, the availability of woody debris, water temperature, and the struc­ Criteria for Determining Impairment ture and composition of riparian vegetation. In An impact would more likely constitute an im­ short, fire affects the habitat of aquatic fauna, pairment to the extent that it affects a resource especially in the foothills and in the conifer belt. or value whose conservation is • necessary to fulfill specific purposes identi­ Park Context fied in the parks’ enabling legislation, • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Within the parks, historical grazing by sheep and parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of cattle during pre-park periods (1860s through the parks, or 1940s, depending on area) altered meadow • identified as a goal in this general manage­ ecosystems. Riparian areas were trampled and ment plan or other relevant NPS planning illegally grazed by trespass cattle in certain documents areas. Invasive exotic plant species occur in some montane meadows and riparian corridors. In a few site-specific areas, exotic wetland include competition, predation, and genetic plants (Elodea sp.) have virtually displaced introgression (hybridization) from exotic spe­ native benthic plants (Isoetes sp.) that normally cies. Atmospheric contaminants are another dominate the lake bottoms, altering the structural major concern, especially pesticides and pol­ and floristic characteristics (e.g., Rae Lakes). lutants from regional air pollution. Polluted air The primary threats to native aquatic wildlife

124 Natural Resources: Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative contributes nutrients and causes episodic areas, and educating users about their impacts and acidification of park waters. the use of low-impact practices.

Numerous management actions have already Because many of the impacted areas already been taken to improve conditions within the experience moderate to high levels of use and parks (e.g., rerouting trails away from meadows, management actions to minimize impacts would prohibiting camping in meadows, closing back­ continue to be employed, additional impacts country campsites that are too close to water, from some increased use are likely to be negli­ revegetating impacted areas, and educating users gible to minor. Moderate levels of impact could about their impacts and the use of low-impact occur if more use affected lightly used or undis­ practices). A system of residual biomass stan­ turbed areas, resulted in shorelines becoming dards for meadows open to stock grazing has denuded and eroded, or intensified present been implemented, and the amount of grazing impacts. allowed during a given season is limited. This ensures that adequate residual matter remains at Even though most park meadows are open to a site each year. Annual grazing programs, grazing, some areas would continue to be closed including opening dates and total allowable use, to stock because they are heavily used by back ­ are based on monitoring. The implementation of packers for camping, they are small, they are grazing standards has reduced impacts. Allow­ designated for research purposes, or they are ing more natural fire regimes in the parks in relatively sensitive, including providing breeding recent years has also helped restore native habitat for declining amphibian species. In other vegetation patterns and processes. areas, stock are permitted, but feed must be packed in. All park meadows open to grazing are subject to residual biomass standards that set Impacts of the No-Action Alternative limits on the amount of grazing allowed during a given season(see “Park Context”). Analysis. Meadows, riparian areas, and aquatic communities around popular lakes and streams Localized, minor to moderate, long-term impacts and at stream crossings that receive more con­ to some meadows would continue to be caused centrated human use would continue to have by stock use. The severity of impacts and the localized, minor to moderate, adverse, long-term amount of disturbance would depend on the impacts. Increased use would contribute to the characteristics of pack stock use, management adverse effects. High and even moderate visita­ and handling techniques, and the nature of the tion at lakes and along streams would continue areas being used. Since the 1970s and 1980s, to result in localized trampling of vegetation and conditions in some meadows have generally loss of wetland flora due to social trails that improved as a result of declining use and greater form along their edges and often cut through compliance by stock users with minimum im­ wetland meadows. The number of user trails and pact guidelines. However, impacts in meadows their width could increase with more use, partic­ that continue to receive heavy stock use include ularly in popular day use areas. Swimmers, persistent hoof prints, streambank shearing, soil waders, and anglers would continue to trample pedestals, erosion, and other soil impacts. Vege­ streambank vegetation and disturb lake and tation is directly affected through defoliation, stream bottoms. trampling, and root shearing, and indirectly through changes in soil structure or nutrient Management actions continuing to reduce im­ status, shifts in species composition, and the pacts from visitor use would include rerouting potential introduction of exotic plant species. trails away from meadows, prohibiting camping Meadow animal life is also affected through the in meadows, closing backcountry campsites that removal of vegetative biomass (wildlife cover), are too close to water, revegetating impacted crushed rodent burrows, and disturbance by grazing stock. Even when grazed meadows are

125 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES healthy and productive, the removal of forage by nation with potential effects of this alternative. stock diverts nutrients and energy from the natural Whereas widespread, more intensive impacts system, depriving native herbivores and decom­ have occurred on the regional level, this alterna­ posers, and the predators that feed on them. tive’s contribution to those effects would be incremental and localized. Surface water would continue to be diverted from natural streams and springs in several Riparian / aquatic ecosystems are among the areas. Development areas either use water most impacted habitats in the Sierra Nevada, as storage and/or multiple sources to reduce the described in the “Context” section, with foothill extent of impacts on any one stream. Impacts areas below 3,300 feet appearing to have the would likely be moderate and long term, greatest loss of riparian vegetation of any region diminishing in intensity as more tributaries in the Sierra Nevada. augment streamflow below the point of withdrawal. However, a number of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the parks and sur­ Ongoing water conservation measures at Grant rounding lands could have cumulative beneficial Grove during the peak visitor use season would effects on aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the maintain the existing water withdrawals through long term. The USFS Sierra Nevada Framework use of stored water. No changes in the saturation for Conservation and Collaboration; manage­ levels in the meadow adjacent and below the ment plans for the John Muir, Ansel Adams and diversions would occur. Dinkey Lakes, and Monarch Wildernesses; and the management plan for Giant Sequoia National Relocating or redesigning bridges over the South Monument would all address ecosystem man­ Fork Kings River in the Cedar Grove area and agement issues of lands adjacent to the parks. removing dams in the upper Mineral King basin would provide opportunities to revegetate and Removing development and restoring Giant restore specific riparian areas, resulting in Forest is expected to substantially decrease localized minor to moderate, beneficial effects water demand from Wolverton Creek, resulting over the long term. Adverse impacts from in increased streamflows during the summer and facility removal (such as bank disturbance and helping restore the aquatic community to more increased erosion potential) would be minor to natural conditions. While concession develop­ moderate and short term. The extent and ment at Wuksachi would increase water with­ duration of these impacts would be minimized drawals from Wolverton and Silliman Creeks, by careful design and timing of facility removal, using multiple water sources would help ensure temporary erosion control measures, and follow- that minimum flows were maintained in each up restoration. stream (NPS 1979).

Removing hydroelectric water diversions would While concession development at Grant Grove reduce the amount of water diverted on the would increase, conservation measures during Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah River, the peak season would ensure that existing water thus allowing greater water flows downstream of withdrawals were maintained by using stored the diversions. Removing the Mineral King water to supplement water supplies. No changes dams would restore natural flows and riparian in the saturation levels in the meadow adjacent conditions. Beneficial effects would likely be and below the diversions would occur. minor to moderate and long term. Even though some actions in and around the Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects on parks could have beneficial, long-term, effects riparian / aquatic ecosystems are based on analy­ because regional riparian / aquatic ecosystems ses of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable have been highly impacted by past and continu­ actions in the Sierra Nevada region, in combi­ ing land use and development, there would

126 Natural Resources: Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative continue to be a net major, adverse, cumulative impacts to specific sites have occurred. Com­ impact on these communities over the long term. pared to the no-action alternative, restricting The no-action alternative would contribute river access point and potentially hardening localized minor to moderate incremental adverse some access points should reduce the extent of and beneficial effects. impacts and allow for riparian habitat to be re­ stored, a moderate, long-term benefit. Redesign­ Conclusion. Continued and slightly increased ing campgrounds at Cedar Grove and Lodgepole use and facility development would have minor (away from the rivers) and increasing visitor to moderate, adverse, long-term effects on education would also help control impacts. meadows, riparian, and aquatic communities, primarily in developed areas, around popular Expanded facilities such as lodging and camping lakes and streams, at stream crossings, and near the South Fork would be sited outside below water withdrawal diversions. Removing riparian areas and would not directly impact some facilities would likely have minor to those resources. Developing access points and moderate adverse, short-term impacts. launch sites for nonmotorized boats would result Removing hydroelectric water diversions and in minor, site-specific impacts, such as the tram­ the Mineral King dams, in accordance with a pling and uprooting of small amounts of vegeta­ restoration plan, would likely have minor to tion and localized erosion and compaction of moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on soil and bottom sediments. However, these water flows and riparian conditions. designated access points and launch sites would help contain and reduce the extent of the visitor- On a cumulative basis the no-action alternative related impacts noted above. would have an incremental minor to moderate, long-term contribution to overall impacts. The To a lesser degree, increased frontcountry use impacts of all other programs within the parks would be accommodated along the North Fork and throughout the region would have a net near the park boundary, along Shepherd Saddle major, adverse, long-term effect on regional Road, and along the upper reaches of the East wetland, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems, Fork of the Kaweah River (areas that are zoned primarily due to the widespread alteration and for high and low use). Increased use could result loss of these resources because of land use and in additional adverse, long-term impacts to development outside the parks. rivers and tributary streams in these areas. How­ ever, the extent and intensity of impacts would In accordance with the criteria for determining be limited and minor. Levels of use would still impairment, there would be no impairment of be low (areas zoned as low-use frontcountry), park resources or values. only limited reaches of the rivers and streams would be affected, and management actions to reduce impacts would be employed if necessary Impacts of the Preferred Alternative (e.g., designated river access points and stream crossings, and signs to direct visitors to areas Analysis. Under the preferred alternative actions that can withstand use). would be taken to reduce impacts to meadow, riparian, and aquatic communities and to restore The extent of site-specific, adverse effects such damaged areas. Increased frontcountry use of as trampling, compaction, grazing, and erosion aquatic and riparian communities is expected to should be reduced in some backcountry mead­ occur predominantly along the Marble Fork of ows and riparian areas where use would be the Kaweah River at Lodgepole, along the limited to protect resources. This would be a Middle Fork near Ash Mountain, and along the minor to moderate, long-term benefit, particu­ South Fork of the Kings River at Cedar Grove larly if some heavily grazed meadows received and Knapp’s cabin. Local areas currently substantially less use. experience high to moderate levels of use, and

127 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Relocating or redesigning bridges over the South contribution to those effects would be incre­ Fork of the Kings River in the Cedar Grove area mental and localized. (as described for the no-action alternative) would provide opportunities to revegetate and As described under the no-action alternative, a restore specific riparian areas, resulting in local­ number of reasonably foreseeable future actions ized, minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. proposed for the parks and surrounding lands Adverse impacts from facility removal, such as could have beneficial effects. The USFS Sierra bank disturbance and increased erosion poten­ Nevada Framework for Conservation and tial, would be minor and short term. The extent Collaboration, management plans for adjacent and duration of these impacts would be mini­ wilderness areas and Giant Sequoia National mized by careful design and timing of facility Monument would all address ecosystem man­ removal, temporary erosion control measures, agement issues of lands near the parks. and follow-up restoration efforts. Removing development and restoring Giant Surface water would continue to be diverted Forest is expected to substantially decrease from natural streams and springs in several areas water demand from Wolverton Creek, resulting of the parks. However, the amount of water in increased streamflows during the summer and diverted during the low-flow season would not helping restore the aquatic community to more increase. Because conservation would be em­ natural conditions. While transit support phasized in this alternative, withdrawals are facilities at Wolverton and concession develop­ expected to be reduced, allowing greater water ment at Wuksachi would increase water with­ flows downstream of the diversions. Reduced drawals from Wolverton Creek and Silliman withdrawals in springs at Grant Grove (Round Creek, using multiple water sources and Meadow and Merritt Spring) would improve conservation measures are expected to ensure local hydrology and could potentially decrease minimum flows in each stream (NPS 1979). No moisture stress within meadows adjacent to and new water diversion sites would be developed if below the diversions during droughts. These current multiple sources did not meet demand. actions would result in minor to moderate, Conservation efforts such as use of low-flow beneficial effects that would increase riparian fixtures would be implemented, as well as vegetation productivity and habitat for fish and educating staff and visitors to conserve water. other aquatic organisms in affected stream reaches over the long term. While concession development at Grant Grove would increase, conservation measures during Removing some hydroelectric water diversions the peak visitor use season would allow existing and returning areas to natural conditions, in water withdrawals to be maintained by using accordance with a restoration plan, would reduce stored water to supplement water supplies. No the amount of water diverted on the Middle and changes in the saturation levels in the meadow Marble Forks of the Kaweah River, thus adjacent and below the diversions would occur. allowing greater water flows downstream of the diversions. Beneficial effects would likely be Even though actions in and around the parks minor to moderate and long term. could have beneficial, long-term effects, the regional riparian / aquatic ecosystems in the Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- greater Sierra Nevada have been highly im­ action alternative, cumulative effects on riparian pacted by past land use and development. / aquatic ecosystems are based on analyses of Therefore, there would continue to be a net past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions major, adverse, cumulative impact on regional in the Sierra Nevada region, in combination with wetlands, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems over potential effects of this alternative. Whereas the long term. This alternative’s contribution to widespread, more intensive impacts have oc­ the cumulative impacts would be primarily curred throughout the region, this alternative’s beneficial due to improving aquatic and riparian

128 Natural Resources: Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities — Impacts of Alternative A conditions within the parks. This alternative lodging at Grant Grove, and cabins at West would also contribute some site-specific minor Mineral King; and limiting/directing river access adverse impacts. along those same areas, as well as along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah. Social trails would Conclusion. The preferred alternative would likely decrease in number and size with less use. result in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- Improving the condition of the remaining trail term impacts to meadow, riparian, and aquatic system would provide localized benefits, such as communities in localized areas, primarily at where trails cross through meadows. Banning Lodgepole, Cedar Grove, and Ash Mountain, stock use and grazing within the parks would and where resource conditions were improved in stop impacts to riparian and meadow vegetation the backcountry. Removing some hydroelectric and soils, such as root and streambank shearing, water diversions and returning areas to natural defoliation, changes in soil structure or nutrient conditions, in accordance with a restoration status, shifts in species composition, potential plan, would likely have minor to moderate, introduction of exotic plant species, removal of beneficial, long-term effects on water flows and wildlife cover, and wildlife disturbance. Major, riparian conditions. The preferred alternative long-term benefits could be expected as a result would also result in localized minor, adverse, of eliminating potentially irreversible impacts to long-term impacts such as vegetation trampling heavily grazed meadows. due to increased use in some areas. Facility removal would have minor to moderate, adverse, Relocating management facilities outside the short-term impacts. parks could result in impacts to wetlands. The extent and intensity of these impacts would The preferred alternative’s contribution to the depend on site-specific conditions and project cumulative effects to wetlands and riparian design. However, all possible measures would communities would be primarily beneficial. be taken to avoid wetlands or to minimize Some minor adverse impacts would occur in impacts. If wetlands could not be avoided, localized areas. In conjunction with other actions mitigating measures, including wetland restora­ in and outside the parks, there would be a net tion to compensate for any loss of wetlands, major, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on would reduce impacts to negligible to minor. wetlands and riparian communities in the region, principally because of the impacts from land use As described for the no-action alternative, relo­ and development outside the parks. cating or redesigning bridges over the South Fork in the Cedar Grove area and removing There would be no impairment of park resources dams in the upper Mineral King basin would or values. provide opportunities to revegetate and restore specific riparian areas, resulting in localized minor to moderate, beneficial effects over the Impacts of Alternative A long term. Adverse impacts from facility re­ moval (such as bank disturbance and increased Analysis. Removing facilities, decreasing use, erosion potential) would be minor to moderate and restoring areas would reduce impacts around and short term. The extent and duration of these some lakes and streams (such as trampled impacts would be minimized by careful design streambank vegetation, disturbance of lake and and timing of facility removal, temporary stream bottoms, loss of wetland flora), compared erosion control measures, and follow-up to the no-action alternative. Specific proposals restoration. include removing and restoring the Boy Scout camp along Wolverton Creek; reducing camp­ Surface water would continue to be diverted ground sizes along the South Fork of the Kings from natural streams and springs in several River at Cedar Grove and along the Marble Fork areas. However, the amount of water diverted at Lodgepole; removing maintenance and would be reduced under this alternative, thus

129 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES allowing greater water flows downstream of the Also as described for the no-action alternative, diversions. Reduced withdrawals in springs at the ongoing removal of development and restor­ Grant Grove (Round Meadow and Merritt ation at Giant Forest is expected to substantially Spring) would improve local hydrology and decrease water demand from Wolverton Creek, could potentially decrease moisture stress within resulting in more natural conditions. While meadows adjacent to and below the diversions concession development at Wuksachi would during droughts. These actions would result in increase water withdrawals from Silliman and minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts Wolverton Creeks, the use of multiple water that would increase riparian vegetation sources is expected to ensure that minimum productivity and habitat for fish and other flows would be maintained in each stream (NPS aquatic organisms in affected stream reaches. 1979).

Removing hydroelectric water diversions would While concession development at Grant Grove reduce the amount of water diverted on the would increase, water conservation measures Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah River, and not withdrawing any more water during the thus allowing greater water flows downstream of peak visitor use season would not change the the diversions. Removing the Mineral King saturation levels in the meadow adjacent and dams would restore natural flows and riparian below the diversions. conditions. Beneficial effects would likely be minor to moderate and long term. Even though actions in and around the parks could have beneficial, long-term effects, the Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- regional riparian / aquatic ecosystems in the action alternative, widespread, more intensive greater Sierra Nevada have been highly im­ cumulative impacts have occurred on the re­ pacted by past land use and development. gional level, and riparian / aquatic ecosystems Therefore, there would continue to be a net remain among the most impacted habitats in the major, adverse, cumulative impact on regional Sierra Nevada, as described in the “Context” wetlands, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems over section. However, this alternative’s contribution the long term. to those effects would be incremental and localized. Conclusion. Alternative A would result in localized, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts Individual future construction projects, along to meadow, riparian, and aquatic communities with continued regional population growth and over the long term, primarily in developed areas, development in general would have site-specific, around popular lakes, at streams and stream adverse, short-term effects and would contribute crossings, below water withdrawal points, and to the adverse, long-term effects throughout the where hydroelectric facilities were removed. region. Similar to the no-action alternative, this Facility removal would have minor to moderate, alternative’s contribution to those effects would adverse, short-term impacts. be incremental and localized. Even though long-term effects would generally As described under the no-action alternative, a be beneficial, in conjunction with past, present, number of reasonably foreseeable future actions and reasonably foreseeable future actions, there proposed for the parks and surrounding lands would be a net major, adverse, long-term, cumu­ could have beneficial effects. For example, the lative effect on regional wetlands and riparian USFS Sierra Nevada Framework for Conserva­ communities, principally because of the impacts tion and Collaboration, management plans for from land use and development outside the adjacent wilderness areas, and a management parks. plan for Giant Sequoia National Monument would all address ecosystem management issues There would be no impairment of park resources of lands near the parks. or values.

130 Natural Resources: Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities — Impacts of Alternative C

Impacts of Alternative C reduced, a major, long-term benefit. Dispersing use in some meadows and riparian areas in the Analysis. Increased frontcountry use and devel­ backcountry to areas of no or light use could opment would occur primarily along the Marble result negligible to minor, widely dispersed Fork of the Kaweah River at Lodgepole, along impacts. Maintaining the desired zone condi­ the Middle Fork near Ash Mountain, and along tions through lower use levels, smaller party the South Fork of the Kings River at Cedar sizes, and an emphasis on low-impact practices, Grove and Knapp’s cabin. Expanded facilities along with educating visitors about resource such as lodging and camping near the South protection, would avoid or minimize long-term Fork would be sited outside riparian areas and impacts from dispersed use. If grazing was would not directly impact those resources. To dispersed to high-elevation meadows with low accommodate more use and to reduce the extent productivity, even very low use could result in of impacts from visitors accessing the rivers moderate to major impacts. However, continuing (e.g., trampled streambanks, disturbed stream to use residual biomass standards would help pro­ bottoms, increased turbidity and sedimentation, tect meadow structure and function, thus preclud­ loss of wetland flora), specific access points and ing major impacts. trails would be defined. Redesigning camp­ grounds at Cedar Grove and Lodgepole to move As described for the no-action alternative, them away from the rivers and increasing visitor relocating or redesigning bridges over the South education would also help control impacts. Fork in the Cedar Grove area would provide Compared to the no-action alternative, restrict­ opportunities to revegetate and restore specific ing the spatial distribution of river users and riparian areas, resulting in localized, minor, enhancing site durability would help reduce the beneficial effects over the long term. Adverse extent of impacts and allow riparian habitat to be impacts from facility removal (such as bank restored, a long-term, minor benefit. disturbance and increased erosion potential) would be short term and minor and would be To a lesser degree, increased frontcountry use minimized by careful design and timing of would also be accommodated along the North facility removal, temporary erosion control Fork of the Kaweah River near the park bound­ measures, and follow-up restoration efforts. ary, along Shepherd Saddle Road, and along the upper reaches of the East Fork. Because these The hydroelectric diversions on the Kaweah areas are currently little used, increased use River would continue to have a number of could result in minor, adverse, long-term im­ effects on the aquatic and riparian environment pacts. These areas would be zoned as low-use (Jordan/Avent and Associates 1984): reduced frontcountry, and only limited reaches of the growth rate and biological productivity of some rivers and streams would be affected. Manage­ riparian trees; increased river warming rate, ment actions would be employed to reduce which could change the distribution of organ­ impacts if necessary (e.g., designating river isms that have narrow thermal requirements; a access points and stream crossings, posting signs slight reduction in invertebrate diversity, but a to direct visitors to areas that can withstand use). substantial increase in the total number of organisms (unusual invertebrates would not be Reducing the extent of major trail corridors affected); loss of fish habitat and their food; loss would help decrease the extent of impacts such of fish to the flumes; and increasing marginal as trampling, compaction, grazing, and erosion temperatures for trout, although the diversion in some backcountry meadows and riparian sites are located where temperatures begin to areas. This would be a minor to moderate, long- reach the higher limits for trout. The Kaweah term benefit, particularly if some currently diversion is the largest, and the impacts are heavily grazed meadows received substantially probably the most extreme because of the less use. The potential of irreversible impacts to diversion’s extent and location where the cold- some heavily grazed meadows could also be and warmwater fishery are transitioning. While

131 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES no data have been collected for other park plans for adjacent areas, and a management plan river/stream diversions, similar impacts could be for Giant Sequoia National Monument would all expected, with variations depending on how address ecosystem management issues of nearby much flow is diverted and site characteristics lands. (e.g., elevation, flow, solar exposure). Impacts would diminish in intensity as more tributaries The ongoing removal of development and augment streamflow below the point of restoration at Giant Forest, as described for the withdrawal. no-action alternative, is expected to substantially decrease water demand from Wolverton Creek, Additional impacts from increased water de­ resulting in more natural conditions. While mand under this alternative would incrementally transit support facilities at Lodgepole and reduce aquatic habitat in the currently affected concession development at Wuksachi would reaches and likely extend farther downstream. increase water withdrawals from Silliman and Increased water demand associated with over­ Wolverton Creeks, the use of multiple water night use would be limited, day use is not sources and conservation measures would help expected to increase greatly, and water conser­ ensure minimum flows in each stream (NPS vation measures would be implemented, all of 1979). which would help limit additional needs for water. Compared to the no-action alternative, Concession development at Grant Grove would impacts are expected to be minor to moderate also increase water demand. Water conservation and long term. measures and not withdrawing any more water during the peak visitor use season would not Water conservation measures at Grant Grove, change the saturation levels in meadows adja­ along with not withdrawing more water during cent and below the diversions. Cumulative in- the peak visitor use season, would not change park actions that would affect water withdrawals the saturation levels in the meadow adjacent and would not appreciably add to water demands or below the diversions. impacts.

Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- Even though actions in and around the parks action alternative, widespread, more intensive could have beneficial, long-term effects, impacts have occurred on the regional level, and meadow / riparian / aquatic ecosystems in the meadow, riparian, and aquatic communities greater Sierra Nevada have been highly remain among the most impacted habitats in the impacted by past land use and development. Sierra Nevada. However, this alternative’s con­ Therefore, there would continue to be a net tribution to those effects would be incremental major, adverse, long-term impact on the and localized. ecosystems regionally.

Individual future construction projects along Conclusion. Alternative C would result in local­ with continued regional population growth and ized, minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term development in general would have site-specific, effects to meadows, riparian areas, and wetlands adverse, short-term impacts and would contri­ in some areas, primarily in the Lodgepole, Cedar bute to the long-term adverse effects throughout Grove, and Ash Mountain developed areas and the region. in the backcountry where use was dispersed. Also, the potential of irreversible impacts to As described under the no-action alternative, a some heavily grazed meadows could be reduced, number of reasonably foreseeable future actions which would be a major, long-term benefit. proposed for the parks and surrounding lands However, alternative C would also result in could have cumulative beneficial effects. The minor to moderate, adverse, long-term impacts USFS Sierra Nevada Framework for Conserva­ due to incremental increases in water diversions tion and Collaboration, wilderness management increased dispersal of visitors in the

132 Natural Resources: Meadow / Riparian / Aquatic Communities — Impacts of Alternative D backcountry, and continued operation of undirected access have already degraded riparian hydroelectric facilities. zones. Compared to the no-action alternative, restricting the spatial distribution of river users On a cumulative basis, alternative C would have and enhancing site durability should reduce the both beneficial and adverse, localized effects on extent of impacts and allow riparian habitat to be wetlands and riparian communities within the restored, a long-term, minor benefit. parks. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, however, there To a lesser degree, increased frontcountry use would continue to be a net major, adverse, long- would also be accommodated along the North term effect on regional wetlands and riparian Fork of the Kaweah River near the park bound­ communities, primarily because of impacts from ary and along the upper reaches of the East Fork land use and development outside the parks. (areas zoned for low- and high-use front- country). Because these areas currently receive There would be no impairment of resources or relatively little use, more visitors could create values. additional long-term adverse impacts to the rivers and tributary streams. The extent and intensity of impacts would be limited and minor. Impacts of Alternative D Management actions to reduce impacts would be taken if necessary (e.g., designating river access Analysis. Increased frontcountry use of mead­ points and stream crossings, or erecting barriers ows and riparian communities is expected to or signs to direct visitors to areas that could occur predominantly along the Marble Fork of better withstand use). Greater management of the Kaweah River at Lodgepole, along the high use along the East Fork in upper Mineral Middle Fork near Ash Mountain, and along the King would likely be necessary to limit impacts. South Fork of the Kings River between Cedar Grove and the road’s end. Expanded facilities, A large portion of the backcountry would con­ such as lodging and camping near the South tinue to be managed for lower use and undis­ Fork, would be outside riparian or meadow areas turbed conditions. Concentrating use and in order not to directly impact those resources. allowing more use in existing high-use areas would result in an incremental minor increase in As described under alternative C, to accommo­ long-term impacts (e.g., compaction, erosion, date more use and to reduce impacts from trampling, loss of vegetation) in meadows and visitors accessing the rivers (e.g., trampled riparian areas in these backcountry areas. streambanks and beds, increased turbidity and Because use would be concentrated, limited sedimentation, loss of wetland flora), specific grazing would be available in popular grazing access points and trails would be defined and areas, and supplemental feed would have to be possibly hardened. Redesigning the Cedar Grove brought in. Using residual biomass standards and Lodgepole campgrounds and moving camp­ would allow park managers to limit grazing in sites away from the rivers, along with increasing particular areas, helping reduce impacts. visitor education, would also help control im­ pacts. Developing access points and launch sites A few trails would be designated for foot-traffic for nonmotorized boats would uproot and only, therefore some additional riparian areas trample small amounts of vegetation; these areas and meadows would no longer be subject to would likely remain void of plants due to ero­ stock grazing and use impacts, resulting in sion and compaction of soils and bottom sedi­ minor to moderate, long-term benefits, depend­ ments. Erosion would affect turbidity and ing on what areas were reserved for foot-traffic sedimentation in adjacent areas. Site-specific only. impacts would be minor. However, these stream reaches currently experience high to moderate As described for the no-action alternative, levels of use, and impacts from unconfined and relocating or redesigning bridges over the South

133 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Fork in the Cedar Grove area would provide tinued regional population growth and develop­ opportunities to revegetate and restore specific ment in general, would have site-specific, riparian areas, resulting in localized, minor, adverse, short-term effects and would contribute beneficial effects over the long term. Adverse to adverse, long-term effects throughout the impacts from facility removal (such as bank region. disturbance and increased erosion potential) would be minor and short term. The extent and As described under the no-action alternative, a duration of these impacts would be minimized number of reasonably foreseeable future actions by careful design and timing of facility removal, proposed for the parks and surrounding lands temporary erosion control measures, and follow- could have cumulative beneficial effects. The up restoration efforts. USFS Sierra Nevada Framework for Conserva­ tion and Collaboration, management plans for Removing some hydroelectric water diversions, adjacent wilderness areas, and a management in accordance with a restoration plan, would plan for Giant Sequoia National Monument reduce the amount of water diverted on the would all address ecosystem management issues Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah River, of nearby lands. thus allowing greater water flows downstream of the diversions. Beneficial effects would likely be As described for the no-action alternative, the minor to moderate and long term. ongoing removal of development and restoration at Giant Forest is expected to substantially Additional impacts from increased water de­ decrease water demand from Wolverton Creek, mand under this alternative would incrementally resulting in more natural conditions. While con­ reduce aquatic habitat in the currently affected cession development at Wuksachi would in­ reaches and farther downstream. Increased water crease water withdrawals from Silliman and demand is expected to be minimal because addi­ Wolverton Creeks, the use of multiple water tional water demand associated with overnight sources is expected to ensure minimum flows in use would be limited, day use is not expected to each stream (NPS 1979). increase greatly, and water conservation mea­ sures would be implemented. Water conser­ Concession development at Grant Grove would vation measures at Grant Grove, along with not also increase water demand. Water conservation withdrawing more water during the peak season, measures and not withdrawing any more water would not change the saturation levels in the during the peak visitor use season would not meadow adjacent to and below the diversions. change the saturation levels in the meadows Compared to the no-action alternative, impacts adjacent and below the diversions. Cumulative are expected to be minor and long term. in-park actions that would affect water with­ drawals would not appreciably add to water Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- demands or impacts. action alternative, cumulative impacts are based on analyses of past, present, and reasonably Even though actions in and around the parks foreseeable actions in the Sierra Nevada region, could have beneficial, long-term effects, the in combination with potential effects of this regional riparian / aquatic ecosystems in the alternative. Whereas widespread, more intensive greater Sierra Nevada have been highly impacts have occurred on a regional level, this impacted by past land use and development. alternative’s contribution to those effects would Therefore, there would continue to be a net be incremental and localized. major, adverse, cumulative impact on regional wetlands, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems over Riparian / aquatic ecosystems remain among the the long term. most impacted habitats in the Sierra Nevada, as described in the “Context” section. Individual Conclusion. Alternative D would result in future construction projects, along with con­ minor, localized, long-term benefits to mead­

134 Natural Resources: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat — Park Context ows, riparian areas, and wetlands in some areas, Impact Thresholds for Wildlife and Wildlife primarily in the Lodgepole, Cedar Grove, and Habitat Ash Mountain developed areas. Alternative D would result in localized, minor, adverse, long- Negligible — The impact would be at the lower term impacts where river access points were levels of detection or not measurable. developed in currently unaffected locations. Minor — The impact would be detectable, but it Minor, adverse, long-term impacts would also would not affect the viability of the local result from greater use in high-use backcountry population or overall community size, structure, areas and from an incremental increase in water or composition. diversions. Removing some hydroelectric water Moderate — The impact would be clearly de­ diversions, in accordance with a restoration plan, tectable and could have an appreciable effect would likely have minor to moderate, beneficial, on the resource. This would include impacts that long-term effects on water flows and riparian affect the abundance or distribution of local conditions. populations, but it would not affect the viabil ity of the regional population. Localized changes On a cumulative basis, alternative D would re­ to community size, structure, or composition sult in both beneficial and adverse impacts to and ecological processes could occur. wetlands and riparian communities. However, Major — The impact would be severely adverse when combined with the effects of actions by or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have others, there would continue to be a net long- a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread term, major, adverse, cumulative effect on influence, affecting the abundance or distribu­ regional wetlands and riparian communities, tion of a local or regional populat ion to the primarily because of impacts from land use and extent that the population would not be likely to development outside the parks. recover (adverse) or would return to a sustain­ able level (beneficial). Community size, struc­ There would be no impairment of park resources ture, or composition and ecologica l processes or values. would be highly altered and landscape level changes could be expected.

WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Criteria for Determining Impairment An impact would more likely constitute an im­ Regional Context pairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is Wildlife habitat within the greater Sierra Nevada • necessary to fulfill specific purposes identi­ region has been and will likely continue to be fied in the parks’ enabling legislation, affected by various land uses, development, altered fire regimes, population growth, recrea­ • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the parks or to opportunities for enjoyment of tional use, and air pollution. Adverse wildlife the parks, or effects include reduced habitat, increased habitat fragmentation and isolation, mortality, harass­ • identified as a goal in this general manage­ ment or disturbance of wildlife, and competition ment plan or other relevant NPS planning from exotic species, all of which affect wildlife documents composition, abundance, and distribution. in species composition and abundance due to the Park Context altered fire regime, bioaccumulation of contami­ nants, and isolation and fragmentation of some species due to differences in land-use practices Within the parks terrestrial wildlife are also on adjacent lands. Other effects on wildlife affected by landscape level stressors, primarily occur from conflicts with visitor use, changes to ecological impacts from exotic species, changes

135 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the natural distribution and abundance of native management practices (such as providing gar­ species due to park developments, and anthro­ bage and food storage containers resistant to pogenic mortality (both accidental and by wildlife, and educating visitors) would continue poaching). The primary threats to native aquatic to be implemented, resulting in negligible to wildlife include competition and genetic intro­ minor impacts. gression from exotic species, as well as predation. Occasionally wildlife are killed or injured by motor vehicles on park roads. This impact may increase slightly with additional vehicle use, Impacts of the No-Action Alternative although the number of incidents would still be low, and impacts would be negligible to minor. Analysis. Existing developments and visitor use have affected natural movements of wildlife, Winter use primarily in and around the major habitat, and food sources. Individuals, popula­ developed areas along Generals Highway would tions, and species vary in their sensitivity to continue. While winter use could increase, it disturbance. Increased use and limited new would still be low, with limited disturbance to development might temporarily disturb or wildlife. In general snow cover would protect displace some individual animals, particularly underlying soils and vegetation, and impacts to those sensitive to human disturbance. Certain wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor. wildlife, such as small mammals, could also be attracted to the increased food source that Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on visitors represent. Large portions of the parks wildlife are based on analyses of past, present, are undeveloped and receive very little visitor and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Sierra use, and they are expected to continue to provide Nevada region, in combination with the potential relatively undisturbed habitats for wildlife. This effects of this alternative. Whereas widespread, would particularly benefit species that are more intensive impacts have occurred on the intolerant of human intrusions and that require regional level, this alternative’s contribution to large, unfragmented territories, such as the those effects would be incremental and local­ northern goshawk or the wolverine (see “Threat­ ized. ened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species” for the latter). Increased use is expected to occur As discussed under “Regional Context,” adverse primarily in areas already experiencing heavier wildlife effects within the greater Sierra Nevada use, and incremental impacts on wildlife are region include reduced and fragmented habitat, expected to be negligible to minor. Wildlife disturbance of wildlife, and competition from sensitive to disturbance probably already avoid exotic species, all of which affect wildlife com­ these areas, and wildlife that do utilize these position, abundance, and distribution. Some areas are likely habituated to human presence. In ongoing and future restoration programs within addition, management actions to avoid or mini­ the parks (e.g., the Giant Forest developed area) mize the extent and severity of impacts would and proposed development projects (e.g., ex­ continue, such as restricting use in specific areas panded visitor facilities at Grant Grove and or by season; confining or directing use by Wuksachi, and the Giant Forest transit system) means of barriers, trails, and designated camping would have both beneficial and adverse impacts areas; and restoring impacted sites as funding to wildlife habitat. Impacts would generally be became available. minor because development would be reduced or expanded in areas that would continue to Increased use could result in an increase in im­ accommodate high-use levels. proper food storage by visitors. Food and gar­ bage attracts wildlife and also conditions Several actions by others could have cumulative wildlife to associate humans with food, which beneficial effects. For example, the USFS Sierra can lead to human/wildlife conflicts. Continued Nevada Framework for Conservation and Col­

136 Natural Resources: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative laboration, management plans for adjacent Impacts of the Preferred Alternative wilderness areas and for Giant Sequoia National Monument would all address ecosystem man­ Analysis. As described for the no-action alter­ agement issues of lands adjacent to the parks. native, increased use, most likely in developed areas and to a lesser extent along other front- While some cumulative actions would have country trails and easily accessible backcountry beneficial, long-term cumulative effects in the areas, could result in increased localized user parks and region, overall throughout the larger impacts, such as trampling and loss of vegeta­ Sierra Nevada region, past, present, and reason­ tion, which could affect wildlife habitat. How­ ably foreseeable future actions, in combination ever, actions under this alternative to mitigate with actions under this alternative, would have a adverse effects — for example, providing desig­ major, adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on nated river access points and improving trail wildlife. The no-action alternative would contri­ conditions (including measures to minimize bute a minor, beneficial, long-term component to impacts such as site hardening, fencing, desig­ cumulative effects as a result of removing and nated trails and campsites, higher standard trails redesigning a limited number of facilities, but it for stock use, visitor education, and restoration would contribute a minor, adverse, long-term of disturbed areas) — would reduce impacts in increment to cumulative effects through specific areas and increase opportunities for continued use and development. habitat restoration, particularly riparian habitat. Compared to the no-action alternative, these Conclusion. Wildlife populations and habitat actions would have a minor, long-term benefit. would continue to be influenced to varying degrees by existing facilities and visitor use that In the backcountry the preferred alternative affect natural movements of wildlife, habitat, would limit use as needed in some areas in order and food sources. Increased use would have to protect resources, and commercial stock use negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impacts. would be more regulated. These actions would Impacts would be related to more visitor use reduce habitat impacts to a minor degree; some displacing or disturbing wildlife, conflicts with meadow and riparian habitats now being heavily animals associating humans and food, and the grazed could be improved to a moderate degree injury or loss of wildlife from motor vehicle for wildlife such as rodents or birds. The addi­ collisions. tion of a high Sierra camp within the Hockett Plateau could create conditions for more inter­ On a cumulative basis, the no-action alternative actions between humans and bears. Continued would contribute a negligible to minor, bene­ management practices (such as providing ficial, long-term effect because a limited number wildlife-resistant garbage and food storage con­ of facilities would be removed or redesigned, but tainers and educating visitors) would result in it would contribute a minor, adverse, long-term negligible to minor impacts. increment to cumulative effects through contin­ ued use and development. In conjunction with Impacts from new development could be both past, present, and reasonably foreseeable ac­ short term (e.g., construction-related noise, dust, tions, there would continue to be major, adverse, and visual presence) and long term (e.g., loss of long-term impacts on wildlife, principally as a habitat, night lighting, fire suppression in the result of impacts outside the parks. vicinity of structures, human presence), with effects on the presence and distribution of In accordance with the criteria for determining species within the area. Because these develop­ impairment, there would be no impairment of ments would affect limited areas, because they park resources or values. would be primarily within developed areas or at previously disturbed sites, and because impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, adverse impacts would likely be minor.

137 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wildlife being killed or injured by motor Collaboration, management plans for adjacent vehicles on park roads could increase slightly wilderness areas and Giant Sequoia National because of additional vehicle use and because Monument, which would all address ecosystem some Hume Lake traffic would be redirected to management issues on adjacent lands. Quail Flat road. Potential shuttle service in high- use areas could help reduce traffic volumes. On a cumulative basis, the preferred alternative Overall, the number of incidents would still be would contribute minor to moderate, beneficial, low, and impacts would be negligible to minor. long-term impacts and minor adverse impacts. While some actions would have beneficial, long- Expanded winter use would occur primarily in term, cumulative effects in the parks and region, and around the major developed areas along overall past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Generals Highway. Winter use would still be actions throughout the larger Sierra Nevada low, and disturbance to wildlife would be region, in conjunction with actions under this limited. In general snow cover would protect alternative, would have long-term, major, underlying soils and vegetation from visitor- adverse impacts on wildlife. related impacts, so effects to wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor. Conclusion. Improving the frontcountry trail system would have negligible to minor, bene­ Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- ficial, long-term impacts to wildlife habitat. action alternative, cumulative impacts on wild­ Limiting backcountry use where necessary for life are based on analyses of past, present, and resource protection would result in localized reasonably foreseeable actions in the Sierra minor to moderate benefits. Constructing new Nevada region, in combination with potential facilities, increasing frontcountry and winter use, effects of this alternative. Whereas widespread, and dispersing backcountry use would result in more intensive impacts have occurred on the increased potential for conflicts between humans regional level, this alternative’s contribution to and wildlife. Impacts would range from wildlife those effects would be incremental and learning to associate humans with food sources localized. (leading to more interactions) to injury or loss of wildlife from motor vehicle collisions. These As discussed under “Regional Context,” adverse impacts would be negligible to minor, localized, wildlife effects within the greater Sierra Nevada and long term. region include reduced and fragmented habitat, disturbance of wildlife, and competition from The preferred alternative would contribute a exotic species, all of which affect wildlife negligible to moderate beneficial component to composition, abundance, and distribution. Some cumulative effects, as well as a minor adverse ongoing and future restoration programs within increment. In conjunction with past, present, and the parks (e.g., restoring the Giant Forest devel­ reasonably foreseeable actions, there would oped area) and proposed development projects continue to be a major, adverse, long-term, (e.g., expanded visitor facilities at Grant Grove cumulative impact on wildlife and wildlife and Wuksachi, and the Giant Forest transit habitat throughout the region, principally as a system) would have both beneficial and adverse result of impacts outside the parks. impacts to wildlife habitat. Impacts would generally be minor because development would There would be no impairment of park resources be reduced or expanded in areas that would or values. continue to accommodate high-use levels.

Programs and actions outside the parks that Impacts of Alternative A could have cumulative beneficial effects include plans by the U.S. Forest Service related to the Analysis. Alternative A would result in less Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and development and use throughout the parks, as

138 Natural Resources: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat — Impacts of Alternative A well as more opportunities to revegetate and projects would have both beneficial and adverse restore wildlife habitat. Localized minor benefits impacts to wildlife habitat. Impacts would to wildlife could result from less altered habitat generally be minor because development would and human disturbance, possibly fewer road be reduced or expanded in areas that would kills, and decreased opportunities for conflicts or continue to accommodate high-use levels. interactions with humans. Removing facilities throughout the parks would result in localized, Programs and actions outside the parks that minor, short-term disturbances to wildlife, with could have cumulative beneficial effects include beneficial impacts over the long term. plans by the U.S. Forest Service related to the Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Reducing human use and eliminating stock use Collaboration, wilderness management plans, in heavily used areas would reduce direct im­ and a Giant Sequoia National Monument man­ pacts to habitat, such as trampling and soil agement plan, which would all address eco­ compaction. Indirect impacts from the intro­ system management issues on adjacent lands. duction or spread of nonnative species, such as brown-headed cowbirds (a nest parasite that On a cumulative basis, alternative A would con ­ attacks a number of rare native warbler species), tribute a minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term would also be reduced. Residential areas and effect through reduced use and development, and pack stations have created conditions suitable a minor, adverse, long-term effect from the con­ for cowbirds, and reducing development and struction of limited new development within and removing pack stations would no longer favor outside the parks. While some actions would this species. However, campgrounds and other have beneficial, long-term effects in the parks outdoor eating areas would still provide and region, overall past, present, and reasonably cowbirds with a food source. foreseeable actions throughout the larger Sierra Nevada region, in conjunction with actions Limited new facility construction within existing under this alternative, would continue to have a developed areas would have negligible adverse major, adverse, cumulative impact on wildlife effects because the amount of habitat affected and wildlife habitat over the long term. would be small and is already affected by on­ going uses. Relocating facilities outside the Conclusion. Alternative A would result in parks could result in the removal of habitat and minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts displacement of wildlife, depending on the se­ as a result of reduced use and fewer facilities, lected relocation sites. With careful siting and and minor, adverse, long-term impacts from the design of facilities and mitigating measures to construction of limited new concession minimize long-term impacts, impacts are developments. expected to be site-specific and minor, although possibly moderate in intensity. Further studies On a cumulative basis, this alternative would and environmental analysis would be completed contribute minor to moderate beneficial impacts as part of the site-selection process. and minor adverse impacts. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable ac­ Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- tions, there would continue to be major, adverse, action alternative, widespread, more intensive long-term impacts on wildlife, principally as a cumulative impacts have occurred on the result of impacts outside the parks. regional level, with adverse effects on wildlife composition, abundance, and distribution. There would be no impairment of resources or However, this alternative’s contribution to those values. effects would be incremental and localized.

Some ongoing and future restoration programs within the parks and proposed development

139 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts of Alternative C ties during sensitive times, or other possible management techniques would all help minimize Analysis. Impacts related to new development impacts. Most park areas would no longer be would be the same as those described for the subject to disturbance and would presumably preferred alternative. They would be both short continue to provide relatively undisturbed habi­ term (e.g., construction-related noise, dust, and tat for wildlife species. Overall, impacts in the visual presence) and long term (e.g., loss of backcountry would be minor and long term. habitat, night lighting, fire suppression in the vicinity of structures, human presence), with Continued management practices, such as pro­ effects on the presence and distribution of viding wildlife-resistant garbage and food stor­ species within the area. Because new develop­ age containers and educating visitors, would ments would affect limited areas, because they help reduce the frequency of human / wildlife would be located primarily within existing interactions, resulting in negligible to minor developed areas or at previously disturbed sites, impacts. and because impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, impacts would likely be minor. The number of wildlife that are killed or injured by motor vehicles on park roads could increase More visitor use in developed areas and to a slightly with additional motor vehicle use and as lesser extent along frontcountry trails and easily a result of redirecting some Hume Lake traffic to accessible backcountry areas could increase the Quail Flat road. However, shuttle service in localized impacts to wildlife habitat because of other park areas could help reduce the extent of trampling and loss of vegetation. However, traffic growth. Overall, the number of incidents providing designated river access points and would still be low, and impacts would be improving trail conditions (e.g., hardening sites, negligible to minor. providing fencing to protect resources, desig­ nating trails and campsites, maintaining stock Even though opportunities for winter use would trails at higher standards, educating visitors, and be expanded, primarily in and around the major restoring disturbed areas) would minimize im­ developed areas along Generals Highway, use is pacts. Habitat restoration, particularly in riparian still expected to be low, thus limiting distur­ areas, would be a minor benefit. Increased bance to wildlife. Snow cover would protect human presence would also affect the presence underlying soils and vegetation from activity- and distribution of species, a negligible to minor related impacts, with negligible to minor impacts impact because these areas and trails already on wildlife habitat. receive moderate to high use. Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- Reducing the extent of high-use backcountry action alternative, widespread, more intensive areas, dispersing use in the backcountry, and cumulative impacts have occurred on the re­ improving trail conditions would improve gional level, including reduced and fragmented habitat to a minor degree. Reducing and dis­ habitat, disturbance of wildlife, and competition persing stock use could improve meadow and from exotic species, all of which affect wildlife riparian habitats now being heavily grazed, a composition, abundance, and distribution. How­ moderate beneficial impact for species such as ever, this alternative’s contribution to those rodents or birds. However, to the extent that use effects would be incremental and localized. was directed to areas where no use occurs now, even a slight increase in human presence could Some ongoing and future restoration programs lower the habitat suitability for species such as within the parks and proposed development goshawks or wolverine, displacing them from a projects would have both beneficial and adverse portion of their territory. Low-use levels, smaller impacts to wildlife habitat. Impacts would party sizes, an emphasis on low-impact prac­ generally be minor because development would tices, educating visitors, restricting visitor activi­

140 Natural Resources: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat — Impacts of Alternative D be reduced or expanded in areas that would Impacts of Alternative D continue to accommodate high-use levels. Analysis. Impacts related to new development Programs and actions outside the parks that could be both short term (e.g., construction- could have cumulative beneficial effects include related noise, dust, and visual presence) and long USFS plans related to the Sierra Nevada Frame­ term (e.g., loss of habitat, night lighting, fire work for Conservation and Collaboration, suppression in the vicinity of structures, human management plans for wildernesses and Giant presence), with effects on the presence and dis­ Sequoia National Monument, which would tribution of wildlife species. Because these address ecosystem management issues on developments would affect limited areas, be­ adjacent lands. cause they would be located primarily within existing developed areas or at previously dis­ On a cumulative basis, alternative C would con ­ turbed sites, and because impacts would be tribute a minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term mitigated to the extent possible, impacts would effect, and a minor, adverse, long-term effect likely be minor. from the construction of limited new develop­ ment. While some actions would have bene­ Constructing a Grant Grove bypass would result ficial, long-term effects in the parks and region, in the loss of wildlife habitat and could increase overall past, present, and reasonably foreseeable wildlife mortality from roadkills. The degree of actions throughout the larger Sierra Nevada impact would be related to the location of the region, in conjunction with actions under this roadway alignment and the site-specific condi­ alternative, would continue to have a major, tions along the road corridor. The extent of adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on habitat loss would be minimized through careful wildlife and wildlife habitat. design (e.g., siting it to follow existing road corridors wherever possible) and by applying Conclusion. The construction and use of new mitigating measures as part of construction (e.g., facilities, increased frontcountry and winter use, slope stabilization/erosion control measures, and the dispersal of backcountry use would re­ revegetation). Increased vehicular and human sult in an increased potential for conflicts be­ activity along the road corridor would likely tween humans and wildlife. Impacts would affect individuals and possibly local wildlife range from wildlife learning to associate humans populations. The wildlife community probably with food (with potentially more interactions) to has already been affected to some degree by injury or loss of a small number of wildlife from human activity, and vehicles and increasing motor vehicle collisions. These impacts would human use are not expected to substantially alter be negligible to minor, localized, and long term. wildlife populations. Long-term impacts would Reducing the extent of high-use backcountry likely be minor to moderate in intensity along areas would result in minor to moderate, the road corridor; however, further environmen­ localized, long-term benefits. tal analysis would be completed prior to construction. On a cumulative basis, alternative C would contribute negligible to moderate beneficial Increased use in developed areas and along effects and minor adverse effects. In conjunction existing higher use trails, as well as expanding with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable the frontcountry trail system and adding pullouts actions, there would continue to be major, along Generals Highway could result in minor, adverse, long-term impacts on wildlife and localized impacts to wildlife habitat, such as wildlife habitat throughout the region, princi­ trampling and loss of vegetation. More human pally as a result of impacts outside the parks. presence would also affect wildlife present in these areas. Effects would be negligible to minor There would be no impairment of park resources in areas where use is already moderate to high or values. and where the use of new trails would displace

141 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES wildlife from the vicinity of the trail. The extent could affect some wildlife species. Winter use of adverse impacts would be minimized by care­ would still be low, and management actions fully siting trails to avoid sensitive areas (e.g., such as restricting off-trail travel, closing areas, raptor nests) and by applying mitigating mea­ and limiting party sizes would be taken as neces­ sures as needed (e.g., closing areas or restricting sary to limit impacts. As a result, long-term im­ use). Alternative D would designate river access pacts would be minor. Snow cover would pro­ points in order to reduce localized impacts, tect underlying soils and vegetation, and impacts allowing other impacted areas to be restored, to wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor. particularly riparian habitat, a minor benefit. Cumulative Impacts. As described for the no- In the backcountry alternative D would increase action alternative, widespread, more intensive use and concentrate it in major trail corridors, as cumulative impacts on wildlife have occurred well as allowing larger parties in high-use areas. regionally as a result of reduced and fragmented It is likely then that disturbance associated with habitat, disturbances, and competition from existing high-use trail corridors and campsites exotic species, all of which affect wildlife com­ would increase to a negligible to minor degree. position, abundance, and distribution. However, Constructing new high-use trail corridors would this alternative’s contribution to those effects disturb wildlife. However, expected low levels would be incremental and localized. of use, various party sizes, designated campsites, visitor education programs, restrictions on Some ongoing and future restoration programs visitor activities during sensitive times, or other within the parks (e.g., restoring the Giant Forest possible management techniques would help developed area) and proposed development minimize and confine impacts to wildlife to projects (e.g., expanded visitor facilities at Grant localized areas. Under this alternative most of Grove and Wuksachi, and the Giant Forest the parks would remain as relatively undisturbed transit system) would have both beneficial and habitat for wildlife species. The addition of a adverse impacts to wildlife habitat. Impacts high Sierra camp within the Hockett Plateau would generally be minor because development could result in more opportunities for bear / would be reduced or expanded in areas that human interactions. Overall impacts in the would continue to accommodate high-use levels. backcountry would be minor and long term. Programs and actions outside the parks that Continued management practices, such as could have cumulative beneficial effects include providing wildlife-resistant garbage and food plans by the U.S. Forest Service related to the storage containers and educating visitors, would Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and continue to be implemented, resulting in Collaboration and management plans for adja­ negligible to minor impacts on wildlife. cent wildernesses and Giant Sequoia National Monument, which would all address ecosystem The number of wildlife killed or injured by management issues on nearby lands. motor vehicles on park roads could increase slightly with additional motor vehicles and as a On a cumulative basis, alternative D would con ­ result of redirecting some Hume Lake traffic to tribute minor, beneficial and adverse effects over the Quail Flat road. In other park areas, shuttle the long term. In conjunction with past, present, service could also help to reduce the extent of and reasonably foreseeable actions throughout traffic growth. Overall, the number of incidents the region, there would continue to be a major, would still be low, and impacts would be adverse, long-term, cumulative impact on negligible to minor. wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Expanded winter use in and around the major Conclusion. New facilities, increased front- developed areas along Generals Highway, plus country use, high-use backcountry corridors, and increased winter use in the Mineral King Valley, winter use, along with increased potential for

142 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Methodology for Analyzing Impacts interactions between people and wildlife seeking Impact Thresholds for Threatened, food, and injury or loss of wildlife from motor Endangered, or Sensitive Species vehicle collisions, would all result in localized, negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impacts. In accordance with language used to determine Constructing a Grant Grove bypass (if allowed) effects on threatened and endangered species would have minor to moderate, adverse impacts. under the federal Endangered Species Act Designating river access points would reduce (USFWS 1998), potential effects on special localized impacts and increase opportunities for status species are categorized as follows: habitat restoration, particularly riparian habitat, a No effect — The proposed actions would minor benefit. not affect special status species or critical habitat. On a cumulative basis, alternative D would contribute minor beneficial impacts as well as Not likel y to adversely affect — The effects minor to moderate adverse effects. In conjunc­ on special status species would be extremely tion with past, present, and reasonably fore­ unlikely to occur and could not be meaning­ seeable actions, there would continue to be a fully measured, detected, or evaluated, or they would be completely beneficial. major, adverse, long-term impact on regional wildlife, principally as a result of impacts Likely to adversely affect — Any adverse outside the parks. effect to listed species that might occur as a direct or indirect result of proposed actions, There would be no impairment of park resources and the effect would not be discountable or or values. would be completely beneficial. Is likel y to jeopardize proposed species / adversely modify proposed critical habitat THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR (impairment) — The appropriate conclusion SENSITIVE SPECIES when the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies situations in which an action could jeopardize the Methodology for Analyzing Impacts continued existence of a proposed species or adversely modify critical habitat to a The alternatives are programmatic in nature. For species within or outside park boundaries. example, the extent of impacts from changing patterns of use in the backcountry would depend Remaining considerations concerning special status species, including conclusions and on where use levels changed, the species in evaluation of cumulative impacts, are presented those areas, and the current status of those in accordance with the general definitions species in regards to existing impacts. Thus, described above. only general impacts are discussed for the alternatives. Before any proposals for back­ country use or other specific actions were If any actions in the preferred alternative were implemented, further environmental analysis and likely to adversely affect one or more federally site-specific data collection would be completed listed species, a biological assessment would be to fully evaluate potential effects on special prepared to document the potential effects. The status species. Fish and Wildlife Service would then prepare a biological opinion based on the assessment and If the National Park Service determined that an other scientific sources to determine whether the action might adversely affect a federally listed proposed actions would be likely to jeopardize species, then in accordance with the Endangered the continued existence of the listed species or to Species Act it must consult with the U.S. Fish result in the destruction or adverse modification and Wildlife Service to ensure that the species’ of critical habitat. Such an opinion would be the continued existence would not be jeopardized or same as a determination of impairment. To critical habitat destroyed or adversely modified. ensure that a species was not jeopardized by

143 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES proposed actions, the Park Service would confer Nevada due in large part to habitat fragmenta­ with the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify tion and loss. measures for reducing adverse effects and would integrate those into the preferred alternative. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Regional Context Analysis. Potential effects on threatened, endangered, or sensitive species under the no- Regionally, rare wildlife and vegetation popula­ action alternative would be associated with tions have been and will likely continue to be limited increased human use in the parks. The affected by logging, loss of natural fire regimes, no-action alternative would result in no effect or mining, grazing, agriculture, development, water would not be likely to adversely affect any damming and diversions, recreational use, and special status species. However, some incon­ introduction of nonnative species. Over 50% of sequential changes to habitat from increased the 30 native Sierra Nevada amphibian species visitor use might occur. Potential impacts on have experienced population declines. The most species that are listed by the federal government at-risk species are closely tied to aquatic and or the state as threatened, endangered, or of riparian habitat and include the true frogs (Rana special concern are listed in Table 26. As men­ spp.) and toads (Bufo spp.). Possible causes tioned in the “Methodology for Analyzing include habitat destruction, nonnative fish, Impacts” section, only general impacts are pesticides, and diseases. Declines in golden trout discussed for the alternatives. Before any are associated with hybridization, competition, proposals for backcountry use or other specific and predation by introduced fish in native trout actions were implemented, further environ­ habitat. Carnivores including wolverines, mental analysis would be completed to fully fishers, and Sierra Nevada red foxes have had evaluate effects on special status species. significant declines in their range in the Sierra

TABLE 26: EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES — NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Common Name Status Impact Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This is primarily a forest-dwelling species. While development would continue to displace habitat or cause disturbance, no appreciable changes in development would occur under this alternative. Cave dwelling bats would conti nue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and other measures. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Same as above. Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Same as above. Bear, grizzly FT Extirpated from the Sierra Nevada. Beaver, mountain FSC, CSC No effect. Fairly restricted habitat that currently receives no or very little use or is unlikely to receive increased use. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species needs large areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. Although development would continue to displace habitat, no appreciable changes in development would occur. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No data to confirm potential impacts and may not exist in the parks. If they do occur, they are highly intolerant of human pres­ ence and probably occur in the most remote and little-used areas, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in backcountry, which would not change. Hare, white-tailed CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development could continue to displace habitat, no appreciable changes in development would occur. Marten FSS Same as above.

144 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Common Name Status Impact Myotis, fringed FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This is primarily a forest-dwelling species. While development would continue to displace habitat or cause disturbance, no appreciable changes in development would occur under this alternative. Cave dwelling bats would conti nue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Myotis, long-eared FSC Same as above. Myotis, long-legged FSC Same as above. Myotis, small-footed FSC Same as above. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Same as above. Pallid CSC Same as above. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE No effect. Most existing usei n portions of sheep range occurs along trail s and is predictable and therefore less disturbing to sheep. Patterns of use or amount of use in backcountry would not change. Currently one area is closed to protect sheep. Restrictions on areas or times of visi tor use of sheep range woul d continue to be imposed as necessary. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No data to confirm potential impacts; however, wolverine are highly intolerant of human presence and probably occur in the most remote and little-used areas of parks, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in backcountry, which would not change. Birds Condor, California FE, CE Extirpated from the parks. Eagle, bald FT, CE No effect. Species rarely uses the parks, which are outside this species’ preferred habitat. No known nesting or communal roosting in the parks. Eagle, golden CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development would continue to dis­ place habitat and varying levels of recreation-related disturbance from human activity would continue, no appreciable changes in development or patterns of use would occur. Fal con, peregrine CSC No effect. No i mpacts to nesting habitat. Management actions such as restrictions on areas and timing of visitor use, primarily climbing activities, are used as necessary to protect nest sites. Fal con, prairie CSC No effect. Rarei n the parks and no known nesting in the parks. Potential cliff nesting habitat would not be affected. Management actions would be imposed similar as those for peregrines if necessary. Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare in the parks. Currently little habitat distur­ bance to two known sites. Increased use could have a negligible effect on the extent of the impact area, but use restrictions would be imposed if necessary. Stock grazing currently has mini mal impacts to suitable willow habitat; stock use is curtailed based on impacts to more sensitive meadow grass/sedge species, which would occur before impacts to willows. Studies to date show no significant evidence of cowbird parasitism on riparian nesting birds. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development would continue to dis­ place habitat and varying levels of recreation-related disturbance from human activity would continue, no appreciable changes in development or patterns of use would occur under this alternative. Gull, California CSC No effect. Uncommon migrants through alpine/subalpine areas. Harrier, northern CSC No effect. Uncommon in the parks. Generall y uses open, burnt, chaparral habitat where visitor use is currently low and unlikely to increase due to difficulty of travel through vegetation. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development would continue to dis­ place habitat and varying levels of recreation-related disturbance from human activity would continue, no appreciable changes in development or patterns of use would occur. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Same as above. Hawk, Swainson’s CT No effect. Rare resident or accidental visitor in the parks, whi ch are outside its usual range and preferred habitat. Kite, white-tailed CP Same as above. Lark, horned CSC Same as above. Martin, purple CSC Same as above. Merlin CS No effect. Sporadic use of open terrain in the parks. Osprey CSC No effect. Rare resident or accidental visitor in the parks, which are outside its usual range and preferred habitat. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Parks are apparently south of its normal range in the Sierra Nevada. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks. Increased use may have a negligible adverse effect.

145 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Common Name Status Impact Owl, long-eared CSC No effect. Very rare in montane zones. Owl, short-eared CSC No effect. Very rare visitor. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development would continue to dis­ place habitat and varying levels of recreation-related disturbance from human activity would continue, no appreciable changes in development or patterns of use would occur under this alternative. Shrike,l oggerhead FSC, CSC No effect. Rare resident or accidental visitor in the parks, which are outside its usual range and preferred habitat. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Although development would continue to displace habitat and varying levels of recreation-related disturbance from human activity would continue, no appreciable changes in development or patterns of use would occur. Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Little current use or expected increased use through specific habitat along the Mi dd l e Fork of the Kaweah Ri ver. Lizard, coast horned FSC, CP, No effect. No modern records for the parks. Either extirpated or never established CSC in the parks. Amphibians Frog, foothill yellow-legged FSC, CP, Extirpated from the parks. CSC Frog, mountain yellow-legged FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. Little current disturbance to breeding areas from CSC visitor/stock use. Currently one area is closed to overnight stock use to protect a frog-breeding area. Restrictions on areas or times of stock use would continue to be imposed as necessary. Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. Restrictions on areas or times of stock use wou ld CSC be imposed as necessary. Turtle, Western pond FSC, CP, No effect. Very little ex i sting human or stock use / disturbance of habitat (foothill CSC streams/rivers); no likely increase in use. Salamander, Mount Lyell FSC, CP, No effect. Veryli ttle ex i sting human or stock use / disturbance to habitat; no likely CSC increase in use. Fishes Roach, Cali fornia CSC No effect. Minimum water flows below Kaweah hydroelectric diversions would continue to adequately protect this species. Trout, California golden FSC, CSC No effect. Does not occur within the parks as a native species. Continued fishing area closures / special regulations would apply. Regulations revised as necessary based on monitoring. Trout, Kern River rainbow FSC, CSC No effect. Continued fishing area closures / special regulations would apply. Regulations revised as necessary based on monitoring. Trout, Little Kern golden FT Same as above. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No appreciable change in development/use patterns under this alternative. Beetle, Hopping’s bli ster FSC No effect. Distribution/habitat not found in the parks. Beetle, moestan blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, molestan blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, Morrison’s blister FSC Same as above. Beetle, San Joaquin dune FSC Same as above. Beetle, San Joaquin tiger FSC Same as above. Beetle, valley elderberry FT Not likely to be adversely affected. Believed absent due to the presence of other longhorn subspecies. Beetle, wooly hydroporous FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No appreciable change in development/use diving patterns under this alternative. Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon FSC Same as above. cryptochian Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Same as above. Crustaceans Linderiella, California FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No appreciable change in development/use patterns under this alternative.

146 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Common Name Status Impact Shrimp, vernal pool fairy FT Same as above. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Not likely to be adversely affected. Areas of any future development would be surveyed and plant populations avoided to the extent possible. FE = federally endangered CE = California endangered CP = California protected FT = federally threatened CT = California threatened CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CSC = California species of concern FSS = Forest Service sensitive

Cumulative Impacts. The no-action alternative Impacts of the Preferred Alternative would have no effect or would not be likely to adversely affect any special status species. Analysis. Most potential impacts would be Consequently, the alternative would not related to modest increases in the footprint of contribute to cumulative effects. development and by limiting backcountry use in some areas. The extent and intensity of potential As discussed in the “Regional Context” section, benefits to some species would depend on where rare wildlife and vegetation populations have backcountry use was restricted, which would be been and will likely continue to be affected by determined in the wilderness management plan / past and present activities throughout the region environmental impact statement subsequent to (logging, loss of natural fire regimes, mining, the approval of the general management plan. grazing, agriculture, development, water Further evaluation of effects on special status damming and diversions, recreational use, and species would be included in that plan. Potential introduction of nonnative species). Altogether, impacts under the preferred alternative that these impacts would continue to have a major, would differ from those under the no-action adverse, long-term impact. alternative are shown in Table 27.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would As described for the no-action alternative, there have no effect or would not be likely to would be no effects on the following species: adversely affect any special status species. If impacts were expected, mitigating measures Mammals — grizzly bear, mountain beaver would be taken as necessary in consultation with Birds — California condor (extirpated from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. the parks), bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, California gull, Swainson’s The no-action alternative would not contribute hawk, white-tailed kite, horned lark, to cumulative effects on special status species. purple martin, merlin, northern harrier, While some actions would have beneficial, long- osprey, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, term effects in the parks and region, overall past, loggerhead shrike present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would continue to have major, adverse, long- Reptiles — coast horned lizard term impacts. Amphibians — foothill yellow-legged frog (extirpated from the parks), Mount Lyell Because no rare, threatened, or endangered salamander species would be likely to be adversely affected, no impairment is expected. Fishes — California golden trout, Little Kern golden trout, Kern River rainbow trout Insects — beetles (Hopping’s blister, moestan blister, molestan blister, Morrison’s blister, San Joaquin dune, and San Joaquin tiger)

147 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 27: EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Common Name Status Impact Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Individuals could be displaced if any buildings they occupied were removed. A survey would be completed before any action was implemented. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Same as above. Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Same as above. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Not li kely to be adversely affected. Large areas of relatively undisturbed habitat would remain. Incrementally small decreases in the extent of habitat. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Species may not exist in the parks. If individuals do occur, they are highly intolerant of human presence and probably occur in the most remote and little-used areas. Patterns of use in little-used or unused portions of parks would not change or could decrease in some little-used areas, which would be a beneficial effect. Hare, white-tailed CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Incrementally small decreases in the extent of habitat. Marten FSS Same as above. Myotis, fringed FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Individuals could be displaced if any buildings they occupied were removed. Surveys would be completed before any action was implemented. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Myotis, long-eared FSC Same as above. Myotis, long-legged FSC Same as above. Myotis, small-footed FSC Same as above. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Same as above. Pallid CSC Same as above. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased recreational use could occur in little or unused portions of sheep range, which could disturb sheep principally from the infrequent/unpredictable nature of cross-country use. Restrictions on cross-country use would be imposed in sheep range to avoid impacts. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. No data to confirm potential impacts; however, wolverine are highly intolerant of human presence and probably occur in the most remote and little-used areas of the parks. Patterns of use in little-used or unused portions of parks would not change or could decrease in some little-used areas, which would be a beneficial effect. Birds Eagle, golden CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Incrementally small decrease in habitat due to increased development footprint. Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Only two known sites, with little habitat distur­ bance. Increased use could have a negligible effect on the extent of the impact area, but use restrictions would be imposed if necessary. Stock grazing currently has mini mal impacts to suitable willow habitat; stock use is curtailed based on impacts to more sensitive meadow grass/sedge species, which would be impacted before willows. Studies show no significant evidence of cowbird parasitism on ripar­ ian nesting birds, but dispersed stock use would increase the potential for impacts. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Not li kely to be adversely affected. Incrementally small decrease in habitat due to increased development footprint. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Same as above. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Same as above. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks, which are south of their normal range in the Sierra Nevada. Occurs in high visitor use/grazing locations, and potential decreased use could be a negligible to minor benefit. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Incrementally small decrease in habitat due to increased development footprint. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Same as above.

148 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Common Name Status Impact Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Some increased use could occur in specific habitat along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River, although controlling use/designating access points would limit potential impacts. Amphibians Frog, mountain yell ow ­ legged FSC, CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Little current disturbance to breeding areas from visitor/stock use; reducing this use in some areas could have a negligible to minor beneficial effect. Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Reducing use in some areas could have a negligible benefi cial effect. Turtle, Western pond FSC, CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Low use levels along the North Fork of the Kaweah coul d affect turtles. Fishes Roach, California CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Minimum water flows below the Kaweah hydroelectric diversions have protected this species. Elimination of water diversions could have a negligible beneficial effect. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Beetle, valley elderberry longhorn FT Not likely to be adversely affected. Believed absent due to the presence of other subspecies. Presence would be verified as correct subspecies before any development that could affect potential habitat. Beetle, wooly hydroporous diving FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon cryptochian FSC Same as above. Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Crustaceans Linderiella, California FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Shrimp, vernal pool fairy FT Same as above. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Affected areas would be surveyed and plant populations avoided to the extent possible. FE = federally endangered CE = California endangered CP = California protected FT = federally threatened CT = California threatened CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CSC = California species of concern FSS = Forest Service sensitive

Cumulative Impacts. The preferred alternative lative actions would have beneficial, long-term would have no effect or would not be likely to effects in the parks and region, overall past, adversely affect special status species. Conse- present, and reasonably foreseeable actions quently, the alternative would generally not would have major, adverse, long-term impacts. contribute to cumulative effects. Conclusion. The preferred alternative would As discussed in the “Regional Context” section, have no effect or would not be likely to rare wildlife and vegetation populations have adversely affect any special status species. been and will likely continue to be affected by Mitigation in consultation with the U.S. Fish and past and present activities throughout the region Wildlife Service would be implemented as (logging, loss of natural fire regimes, mining, necessary. grazing, agriculture, development, water dams and diversions, recreational use, and introduc- The preferred alternative would generally not tion of nonnative species). While some cumu- contribute to cumulative effects. While some

149 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

cumulative actions would have beneficial, long- Further evaluation of effects on special status term effects in the parks and region, in conjunc­ species would be included in that plan. tion with past, present, and reasonably fore­ seeable actions, there would continue to be As described for the no-action alternative, there major, adverse, long-term impacts. would be no effects on the following species: Mammals — grizzly bear, mountain beaver Because no rare, threatened, or endangered species would likely be adversely affected under Birds — California condor (extirpated from this alternative, no impairment is expected. the parks), bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, California gull, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, horned lark, Impacts of Alternative A purple martin, merlin, northern harrier, osprey, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, Analysis. Alternative A would have no effect on loggerhead shrike most species or would not be likely to affect Reptiles — coast horned lizard species. Some species of concern within the parks could benefit from actions under alterna­ Amphibians — foothill yellow-legged frog tive A. Table 28 lists impacts that would differ (extirpated from the parks), Mount Lyell from those under the no-action alternative. Of salamander, western pond turtle the federally listed species, the bighorn sheep Fishes — California golden trout, Little Kern could be beneficially affected. The extent and golden trout, Kern River rainbow trout intensity of potential benefits to some species would depend on the extent and location of Insects — beetles (Hopping’s blister, decreased backcountry use, which would be moestan blister, molestan blister, determined in the forthcoming wilderness man­ Morrison’s blister, San Joaquin dune, agement plan / environmental impact statement. and San Joaquin tiger).

TABLE 28: EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES — ALTERNATIVE A

Common Name Status Impact Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This is primarily a forest-dwelling species. A decreased development footprint would result in less habitat displacement, a negligible benefi t. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Same as above. Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Same as above. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species needs large areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. Reducing visitor use and removing trails in foothill hardwood / mixed coni fer zones could increase habitat suitability in some areas. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare resident thati s highly intolerant of human presence and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of the parks. Patterns of use in little-used or unused portions of parks woul d not change or could decrease in some areas. Trail corridors, particularly in higher use areas, could be acting as barriers that affect home range size and dispersal. Trails, including some high-use trails, would be reduced. This alternative could have beneficial effects. Hare, white-tailed CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased development footprint and less displacement of habitat would slightly increase extent of habitat, a negligible benefit. Marten FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased development footprint and less displacement of habitat would slightly increase extent of habitat, a negligible benefit.

150 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of Alternative A

Common Name Status Impact Myotis, fringed FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This is primarily a forest-dwelling species. A decreased development footprint would result in less habitat displacement, a negligible benefi t. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Myotis, long-eared FSC Same as above. Myotis, long-legged FSC Same as above. Myotis, small-footed FSC Same as above. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Same as above. Pallid CSC Same as above. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased recreational use, with less disturbance of sheep. Restrictions on cross-country use would be imposed in sheep range to avoid impacts. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare resident thati s highly intolerant of human presence and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of the parks. Patterns of use in little-used or unused portions of the parks would not change or could decrease in some areas. Trail corridors, particularly in hi gher use areas, could be acting as barriers that affect home range size and dispersal. Trails, including some hi gh-use trails, would be reduced. This alternative could have beneficial effects. Birds Eagle, golden CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Impacts due to decreased development footprint and habitat displacement would have a negligible beneficial effect. Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare in the parks. Currently little habitat disturbance to two known sites; consequently, reduced visitor use would have a negligible beneficial effect. Stock grazing currently has minimal i mpacts to suitable willow habitat, and stock use is curtailed based on impacts to more sensitive meadow grass/sedge species, which would be impacted before willows. Studies to date show no evidence of cowbird parasitism on riparian nesting birds. Elimination of stock may have a negligible beneficial effect on some suitable riparian habitat and reduced potential for brown-headed cowbird presence. There could be a negligible beneficial effect. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Not li kely to be adversely affected. Impacts due to decreased development footprint and habitat displacement would have a negligible beneficial effect. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Same as above. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Same as above. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks, which are apparently south of their normal range in the Sierra Nevada. Occurs in existing high visitor use/grazing locations. Potential decreased use in existing hi gh-use areas may be a negligible to minor benefit. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Impacts due to decreased development footprint and habitat displacement would have a negligible beneficial effect. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Same as above. Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Little current use through specific habitat along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River. Reduced recreational use could have a beneficial effect. Amphibians Frog, mountain yellow-legged FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. Little current disturbance to breeding areas from CSC visitor/stock use. Reduced recreational use and the elimination of stock/grazing in some breeding areas could have a beneficial effect. Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, Same as above. CSC Fishes Roach, California CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Minimum water flows below the Kaweah hydroelectric diversions have protected this species. Elimination of water diversions could have a negligible beneficial effect. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Beetle, valley elderberry FT Not likely to be adversely affected. Believed absent due to presence of other longhorn subspecies. Presence would be verified as correct subspecies before any development that could affect potential habitat.

151 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Common Name Status Impact Beetle, wooly hydroporous FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased use could have a localized, diving negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Small increase in extent of natural areas would be a negligible benefit. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon FSC Same as above. cryptochian Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Crustaceans Linderiella, California FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Shrimp, vernal pool fairy FT Same as above. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Not likely to be adversely affected. Decreased development footprint and less displacement of habitat could result in a small increase in extent of habitat, a negligible benefit. FE = federally endangered CE = California endangered CP = California protected FT = federally threatened CT = California threatened CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CSC = California species of concern FSS = Forest Service sensitive

Cumulative Impacts. On a cumulative basis, Impacts of Alternative C alternative A would have a beneficial impact on some species. As discussed in the “Regional Analysis. Most potential impacts would be re­ Context” section, rare wildlife and vegetation lated to increasing the development footprint populations will likely continue to be affected by and dispersing/increasing backcountry use to past and present activities throughout the region little or unused portions of the parks. Impacts (logging, loss of natural fire regimes, mining, that would differ from those under the no-action grazing, agriculture, development, water alternative are presented in Table 29. damming and diversions, recreational use, and introduction of nonnative species). These actions The extent and intensity of potential benefits to would have major, adverse, long-term impacts. some species would depend on the extent and location of decreased backcountry use, which Conclusion. Alternative A would have no effect would be determined in the wilderness man­ on any federal species except the Valley agement plan / environmental impact statement elderberry longhorn beetle, which would not be subsequent to the general management plan. likely to be adversely affected. Mitigation in Further evaluation of effects on special status consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife species would be included in that plan. Service would be implemented as necessary. There could be beneficial impacts on some As described for the no-action alternative, there special status species because of reduced would be no effects on the following species: development and use. Mammals — grizzly bear, mountain beaver On a cumulative basis, alternative A would have Birds — California condor (extirpated from a beneficial effect to some species. In conjunction the parks), bald eagle, peregrine falcon, with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable prairie falcon, California gull, Swainson’s actions throughout the region, adverse impacts hawk, white-tailed kite, horned lark, would continue to be long term and major. purple martin, merlin, northern harrier, osprey, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, Because no rare, threatened, or endangered loggerhead shrike species would be likely to be adversely affected, no impairment is expected. Reptiles — coast horned lizard

152 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of Alternative C

Amphibians — foothill yellow-legged frog Insects — beetles (Hopping’s blister, (extirpated from the parks), Mount Lyell moestan blister, molestan blister, salamander Morrison’s blister, San Joaquin dune, and San Joaquin tiger) Fishes — California roach, California golden trout, Little Kern golden trout, Kern River rainbow trout

TABLE 29: EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES — ALTERNATIVE C

Common Name Status Impact Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Individuals could be displaced if any buildings they occupied were removed. Surveys woul d be completed before any action was implemented. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Same as above. Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Same as above. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species needs large areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development and use. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This rare resident is highly intolerant of human presence and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of parks, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in the backcountry. Increased cross-country use, although low, could still disturb this species and affect portions of its home range. Trail corridors, particularly hi gher use trail corridors, could affect home range size and dispersal. Trails, including some high-use trails, would be reduced, which could have a beneficial effect, dependi ng on the l ocation and extent of trail removal. Hare, white-tailed CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Marten FSS Same as above. Myotis, fringed FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Surveys would be completed before any action was implemented. Individuals could be displaced if any build­ ings they occupied were removed. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Myotis, long-eared FSC Same as above. Myotis, long-legged FSC Same as above. Myotis, small-footed FSC Same as above. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Same as above. Pallid CSC Same as above. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE Not likely to be adversely affected. I ncreased recreational use could occur in little/unused portions of sheep range, which could disturb sheep principally from the infrequent/unpredictable nature of cross-country use. Restrictions on cross- country use would be imposed in sheep range to avoid impacts. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This rare resident is highly intolerant of human presence and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of parks, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in the backcountry. Increased cross-country use, although low, could incrementally disturb this species and affect portions of its home range. Trail corridors, particularly hi gher use trail corridors, could affect home range size and dispersal. Trails, including some high­ use trails, would be reduced, which could have a beneficial effect, depending on the location and extent of trail removal. Birds Eagle, golden CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint.

153 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Common Name Status Impact Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare in the parks. Currently little habitat disturbance to two known sites. Increased use near nest sites could have negligible effect on the extent of impacts, but use restri ctions wou l d be imposed if necessary. Stock grazing currently has minimal impacts to suitable willow habitat; stock use is curtailed based on impacts to more sensitive meadow grass/sedge species, which would occur before impacts to willows. Studies to date show no evidence of cowbird parasitism on riparian nesting birds, although dispersed stock use would increase the potential for such impacts. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Not li kely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Same as above. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Same as above. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks because they are apparently south of normal range in the Sierra Nevada. Occurs in high visitor use/grazing locations. Potential decreased use in existing high-use areas could be a negligible benefit. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Same as above. Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Not likely to be adverse ly affected. Some increased use could occur in specific habitat along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River, although controlling use and designating access points would limit potential impacts. Amphibians Frog, mountain yellow-legged FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. There is little current disturbance to breeding CSC areas from visitor/stock use, and reducing use areas could have a negligible beneficial effect. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increasing stock use of more or different lakes by dispersing use. However, restrictions on areas or times of stock use would continue to bei mposed as necessary to avoid or minimize impacts. Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, Same as above. CSC Turtle, Western pond FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. Some increased use along the North Fork of the CSC Kaweah River could affect turtles due to human disturbance. Low levels of use would limit effects. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Beetle, valley elderberry FT Not likely to be adversely affected. Believed absent due to presence of other longhorn subspecies. Presence would be verified as correct subspecies before any development that could affect potential habitat. Beetle, wooly hydroporous FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, diving negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon FSC Same as above. cryptochian Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Crustaceans Linderiella, California FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Shrimp, vernal pool fairy FT Same as above. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Affected areas would be surveyed and plant populations avoided to the extent possible. FE = federally endangered CE = California endangered CP = California protected FT = federally threatened CT = California threatened CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CSC = California species of concern FSS = Forest Service sensitive

154 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative C would have ing the development footprint and frontcountry no effect or would not be likely to adversely trail system and slightly increasing backcountry affect any special status species. Consequently, concentrated use areas. Impacts that would differ the alternative would generally not contribute to from those under the no-action alternative are cumulative effects. presented in Table 30. The extent and intensity of potential benefits to some species would de­ As discussed in the “Regional Context” section, pend on where backcountry use decreased, rare wildlife and vegetation populations have which would be determined in the subsequent been and will likely continue to be affected by wilderness management plan / environmental past and present activities throughout the region impact statement. Effects on special status (logging, loss of natural fire regimes, mining, species would be further evaluated in that plan. grazing, agriculture, development, water dams and diversions, recreational use, and nonnative As described for the no-action alternative, there species). Altogether, these impacts would have a would be no effects on the following species: long-term major adverse impact. Mammals — grizzly bear, mountain beaver Conclusion. This alternative would have no Birds — California condor (extirpated from effect or would not be likely to adversely affect the parks), bald eagle, peregrine falcon, any special status species. Mitigation would be prairie falcon, California gull, Swainson’s implemented as necessary in consultation with hawk, white-tailed kite, horned lark, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. purple martin, merlin, northern harrier, osprey, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, Alternative C would generally not contribute to loggerhead shrike cumulative effects on special status species. Reptiles — coast horned lizard While some cumulative actions would have beneficial impacts in the parks and region, in Amphibians — foothill yellow-legged frog conjunction with past, present, and reasonably (extirpated from the parks), Mount Lyell foreseeable actions, there would continue to be salamander major, adverse, long-term impacts. Fishes — California roach, California golden trout, Little Kern golden trout, Kern River Because no rare, threatened, or endangered rainbow trout species would be likely to be adversely affected, no impairment is expected. Insects — beetles (Hopping’s blister, moes­ tan blister, molestan blister, Morrison’s blister, San Joaquin dune, and San Impacts of Alternative D Joaquin tiger)

Analysis. Potential impacts on threatened or endangered species would be related to increas­

TABLE 30: EFFECTS ON POPULATIONS OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE SPECIES — ALTERNATIVE D

Common Name Status Impact Vertebrate Animals Mammals Bat, big-eared FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Individuals could be displaced if any buildings they occupied were removed. Surveys would be conducted before any action was implemented. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Bat, greater western mastiff FSC, CSC Same as above.

155 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Common Name Status Impact Bat, spotted FSC, CSC Same as above. Fisher, Pacific FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species needs large areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development and use. Fox, Sierra Nevada red CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This rare resident is highly intolerant of human presence and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of parks, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in the backcountry. Increased use would occur in existing high-use areas; extended high-use areas would most likely occur along existing secondary trails, areas that foxes probably already avoid. Hare, white-tailed CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Marten FSS Same as above. Myotis, fringed FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This species is primarily forest dwelling; there would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint / associated use / lighting. Individuals could be displaced if any buildings they occupied were removed. Surveys would be conducted before any action was implemented. Cave-dwelling bats would continue to be protected by the existing Cave Management Plan (NPS 1992a) and protective measures. Myotis, long-eared FSC Same as above. Myotis, long-legged FSC Same as above. Myotis, small-footed FSC Same as above. Myotis, Yuma FSC, CSC Same as above. Pallid CSC Same as above. Sheep, bighorn FE, CE Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased recreational use of trails in portions of sheep range would be unlikely to result in disturbance to sheep, which are accus­ tomed to recreational use along the trails. Wolverine, California CT, FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. This rare resident is highly i ntolerant of humans and probably occurs in the most remote and little-used areas of parks, based on existing patterns of use or amount of use in the backcountry. Increased use would occur in exi sting high-use areas; extended high-use areas would most li kely occur along existing secondary trails, areas that wolverines probably already avoid. Birds Eagle, golden CP, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Flycatcher, willow CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare in the parks. Currently little habitat disturbance to two known sites. Increased use would likely have a negligible effect on the extent of impacts because willow habitat discourages the proliferation of social trails. Stock grazing currently has minimal impacts to suitable willow habitat; stock use is curtailed based on impacts to more sensitive meadow grass/sedge species, which would be impacted before willows. Studies to date show no evidence of cowbird parasitism on riparian nesting birds, although the potential for impacts would exist. Goshawk, northern FSC, CSC Not li kely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Hawk, Cooper’s CSC Same as above. Hawk, sharp-shinned CSC Same as above. Owl, great gray CE, FSS Not likely to be adversely affected. Rare/limited occurrence in the parks because they are apparently south of their normal range in the Sierra Nevada. Occurs in high visitor use/grazing locations. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to potential increased visitor use in existing high-use areas. Owl, spotted FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased development footprint. Swift, Vaux’s CSC Same as above. Reptiles Lizard, California legless FSC, CSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Some increased use could occur in specific habitat along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River, although controlling use and designating access points would limit potential impacts. Amphibians Frog, mountain yellow-legged FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. There is little current disturbance to breeding CSC areas from visitor/stock use. Currently one area is closed to overnight stock use to protect the frog-breeding area. There would be an incrementally small decrease in the extent of habitat due to increased use in existing high-use areas. However,

156 Natural Resources: Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species — Impacts of Alternative D

Common Name Status Impact restrictions on areas or times of stock use would continue to be imposed as necessary, which would avoid or minimize potential new impacts. Toad, Yosemite FSC, CP, Same as above. CSC Turtle, Western pond FSC, CP, Not likely to be adversely affected. Some increased use along the North Fork of the CSC Kaweah River could affect turtles due to human disturbance. Low levels of use would limit effects. Invertebrate Animals Insects Beetle, Ciervo aegialian FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Beetle, valley elderberry FT Not likely to be adversely affected. Believed absent due to presence of other longhorn subspecies. Presence would be verified as correct subspecies before any development that could affect potential habitat. Beetle, wooly hydroporous FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, diving negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Bug, Dry Creek cliff strider FSC Same as above. Butterfly, Bohart’s blue FSC Same as above. Butterfly, San Emigdio blue FSC Same as above. Caddisfly, Denning’s cryptic FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect. Caddisfly, Kings Canyon FSC Same as above. cryptochian Grasshopper, Sierra pygmy FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Crustaceans Linderiella, California FSC Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased use could have a localized, negligible, adverse effect if the species is present. Shrimp, vernal pool fairy FT Same as above. Plants Tompkins’ sedge CR Not likely to be adversely affected. Increased development footprint could affect these species. Surveys of affected areas woul d be surveyed and pl ant populat i ons avoided to the extent possible. FE = federally endangered CE = California endangered CP = California protected FT = federally threatened CT = California threatened CR = California rare FSC = federal species of concern CSC = California species of concern FSS = Forest Service sensitive

Cumulative Impacts. Alternative D would have Conclusion. This alternative would have no no effect or would not be likely to adversely effect on would not be likely to affect any affect any special status species. Consequently, special status species. Mitigation would be there would generally be no contribution to implemented as necessary in consultation with cumulative effects. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

As discussed in the “Regional Context” section, Alternative D would generally not contribute to rare wildlife and vegetation populations have cumulative effects on special status species. been and will likely continue to be affected by While some cumulative actions would have past and present activities throughout the region beneficial, long-term, effects in the parks and (logging, loss of natural fire regimes, mining, region, overall past, present, and reasonably grazing, agriculture, development, water foreseeable actions, in conjunction with this damming and diversions, recreational use, and alternative, would have major, adverse, long- introduction of nonnative species). While some term impacts. cumulative actions would have beneficial, long- term, effects in the parks and region, overall Because no rare, threatened, or endangered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable species would be likely to be adversely affected, actions, in conjunction with this alternative, no impairment is expected. would have major, adverse, long-term impacts.

157 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

AIR QUALITY entering the parks are registered in California. This high percentage includes vehicles rented in Methodology California and driven to the parks. The 1998 “Visitor Use Study” included data on Impacts Related to Stationary Sources, Smoke the types of vehicles entering the park (BRW, Emissions, Human Health and Enjoyment Inc., and Lee Engineering 1999). This study determined that the vast majority of vehicles Impacts of alternatives within the parks would (94%) were passenger cars, 3% were other be similar under all alternatives. No actions passenger vehicles under 22 feet in length being considered would increase levels of park (including motorcycles, pickups, and vans), and stationary source emissions above conformity de the remaining 3% were buses, trucks, and RVs. minimus values of 50–100 tons per year. Smoke emissions from the parks’ managed wildland Since transportation-related air quality is partly a fires over the next 10 years have been included function of traffic volume, the roadway seg­ in the State Implementation Plan for the San ments chosen for the carrying capacity analysis Joaquin Valley and would not vary by alterna­ were also used for air quality analysis, plus tive. The parks would continue to provide segments on Generals Highway were added for periodic air quality warnings and education. This Lost Grove and Moro Rock. Table 31 shows the information would not vary by alternative. speed limits for these segments and their length.

Because the majority of vehicles going to Transportation-Related Impacts Sequoia and Kings Canyon are registered in Park Visitor Use Studies. A survey of visitors California, fleetwide average emission factors to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks for light-duty autos that comply with California conducted in 1994–95 indicated that 62% of emission standards were used in the analysis. visitors were from California (NPS 1995e). The California Air Resources Board provided However, this survey did not include informa­ the emission factors used in this study. tion on state vehicle registration. It is expected To compare future emissions associated with that approximately 80% or more of the vehicles each of the alternatives with the base year, emis-

TABLE 31: SUMMARY OF PEAK-SEASON DAILY VEHICLE VOLUME ESTIMATES FOR THE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Road Posted Segment Representative Road Speed Length Existing No-Action Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Area Segment (mph ) (miles) (1997 ) Alternative Alternative A C D Growth Factor 1.23 1.30 0.90 1.30 1.48 Cedar Grove Kings Canyon Highway 35 8.8 1,040 1,280 1,350 940 1,350 1,540 west of Cedar Grove Grant Grove / Big Kings Canyon Highway 25 4.7 3,720 4,580 4,840 3,350 4,840 5,510 Stump west of Generals Highway Upper Generals Generals Highway north 45 11.3 1,610 1,980 2,090 1,450 2,090 2,380 Highway of Lost Grove Wuksachi/Lodge- Generals Highway south 25 2.2 2,340 2,880 3,040 2,110 3,040 3,460 pole/Wolverton of Lodgepole Giant Forest Generals Highway south 35 4.3 2,220 2,730 2,890 2,000 2,890 3,290 of Moro Rock Ash Mountain/ Generals Highway north 25 6.5 2,470 3,040 3,210 2,220 3,210 3,660 Foothills of Ash Mountain Mineral King Mineral King Road 25 15.5 230 280 300 210 300 340 SOURCE: Segment lengths and speed limits — “Sequoia / Kings Canyon Road System Evaluation/Parkwide Road Engineering Study,” January 1988; future estimates — URS Corporation. NOTE: Future estimates are for the year 2010.

158 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Methodology sion factors for 1997 and 2010 were used. Due travel the entire length of that segment. to continual improvements in motor vehicle emission control technology and the replacement The following formula was used to calculate of older vehicles with newer models, gaseous emissions for each road segment: emissions from automobiles are projected to annual VMT × emission factor (g/mi) ÷ decrease fleetwide by approximately 70% for 453.6 g/lb ÷ 2000 lb/ton = emissions (ton/year) volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Speed-dependent emission factors were selected During the same period, fleetwide emission based on the minimum posted speed on each factors for sulfur dioxide (SO2) are expected to roadway segment. Posted speeds were taken decrease by approximately 40%. Particulate from the “Parkwide Road Engineering Study” emissions (PM10) from automobiles include (NPS 1988); the posted speeds for each segment exhaust emissions, and emissions due to brake and the applicable emission factors for each and tire wear. Fleetwide average PM10 emission speed are shown in Table 32. factors are expected to remain essentially constant throughout the analysis period. A comprehensive assessment of emission changes associated with transit was beyond the Motor vehicle emission factors provided by the scope of this study. More detailed information California Air Resources Board are in grams per on the number and types of buses, projected mile and are dependent on motor vehicle speed. ridership, size and locations of parking facilities, For the impact analysis, emissions were deter­ seasonal use variations, and other factors would mined for each roadway segment based on be needed for a detailed assessment of emission segment length (miles), minimum posted speed changes associated with each alternative. Under (mph), and daily traffic volumes. Daily traffic all the alternatives emissions from buses could volumes for each segment were converted to increase, partially offsetting any reductions in annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). automobile emissions as a result of higher emission standards. To simplify the impact analysis, it was assumed that all vehicles entering the park would be light Impact definitions and intensities are shown in duty automobiles. It was conservatively assumed the text box. As previously stated, the San that all vehicles on a given road segment would Joaquin Valley is a severe nonattainment area

TABLE 32: EMISSION FACTORS AND CALCULATIONS

Applicable Emission Factors for Posted Speed (g/mile)

Year VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 Cedar Grove (Posted speed is 35 mph; road segment is 8.8 miles.) 1997 0.466 10.508 0.859 0.005 0.032 2010 0.101 3.302 0.228 0.003 0.031 Grant Grove / Big Stump Area (Posted speed is 25 mph; road segment is 4.7 miles.) 1997 0.659 12.514 0.919 0.007 0.036 2010 0.145 3.907 0.248 0.004 0.036 Upper Generals Highway (Posted speed is 45 mph; road segment is 11.3 miles.) 1997 0.399 9.708 0.864 0.005 0.03 2010 0.086 2.965 0.224 0.003 0.029 Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Area (Posted speed is 25 mph; road segment is 2.5 miles.) 1997 0.659 12.514 0.919 0.007 0.036 2010 0.145 3.907 0.248 0.004 0.036 Giant Forest Area (Posted speed is 35 mph; road segment is 4.3 miles.) 1997 0.466 10.508 0.859 0.005 0.032 2010 0.101 3.302 0.228 0.003 0.031 Mineral King Area (Posted speed is 25 mph; road segment is 15.5 miles.) 1997 0.659 12.514 0.919 0.007 0.036 2010 0.145 3.907 0.248 0.004 0.036

159 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES for ozone and a serious nonattainment area for are evaluated separately in lieu of ozone, which particulate matter. Both VOC and NOx are is formed as a secondary pollutant. ozone precursors in the presence of sunlight and

Thresholds for Air Quality Human Health Impacts Attainment Pollutants: The following impact thresholds have been defined for attainment pollutants: Activity Analyzed Current Air Quality Negligible: Emission levels would be less than and The first highest three-year maximum for 50 tons/year for each pollutant. each pollutant is less than NAAQS. Minor: Emission levels would be less than and The first highest three-year maximum for 100 tons/year for each pollutant. each pollutant is less than NAAQS. Moderate: Emission levels would be greater or The first highest three-year maximum for than or equal to 100 tons/year for each pollutant is greater than NAAQS. any pollutant. Major: Emission levels would be greater and The first highest three-year maximum for than or equal to 250 tons/year for each pollutant is greater than NAAQS. any pollutant.

Nonattainment Pollutants (severe for O3 and serious for PM): The following impact thresholds have been defined for the non-attainment pollutants and their precursors:

Negligible: There would be a net decrease in emissions from current levels. Minor: Emissions would be 0–5 tons/year. Moderate: Emissions would be greater than 5 tons/year and less than conformity de minimis levels* (25 tons/year for ozone and 70 tons/year for PM). Major: Emissions would be equal to or greater than conformity de minimis levels (25 tons/year for ozone and 70 tons/year for PM). ______* Conformity de minimis levels are levels of emi ssions below which a federal act ion in a nonattainment area is pre­ sumed to conform to a state’s implementation p lan and would not require further review. Actions in attainment areas are presumed to conform and do not require analysis with respect to de minimis levels. Emiss ion values representing the Clean Air Act conformity de minimis levels for all po ll utants are shown in the glossary.

Criteria for Determining Impairment Impairment (for both attainment and non-attainment/maintenance areas): Impacts would have a major adverse effect on park resources and values; and contribute to deterioration of the park’s air quality to the extent that the park’s purpose could not be fulfilled as established in its enabling legislation; or affect resources key to the park’s natural or cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment; or affect the resource whose conservation is identified as a goa l in the general management plan or other park planning documents.

160 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative attainment area) to moderate adverse (emissions greater than 100 tons/year). Analysis VOC emissions, a precursor to ozone formation As stated in the “Methodology” section, actions in the presence of sunlight, would decrease from under this alternative would not increase sta­ about 13.4 tons per year to 3.6 tons per year (a tionary emissions above conformity de minimis 74% reduction). The impact level for a severe values of 50–100 tons per year. Smoke emis­ ozone nonattainment area would decrease from sions from the parks’ managed wildland fires moderate adverse (less than 25 tons/year) to over the next 10 years have been included in the minor (less than 5 tons/year). NOx emissions, San Joaquin Valley’s State Implementation Plan which are also an ozone precursor, would de­ and would not vary by alternative. The parks crease from about 22.5 tons per year to 7.3 tons would continue to provide periodic air quality per year (a 68% reduction), with a moderate warnings and education. This information would adverse impact (greater than 5 tons/year but less not vary by alternative. than 25 tons/year).

Even though traffic is projected to increase in Emissions of PM10 would increase slightly under the parks under the no-action alternative, emis­ the no-action alternative (from 0.83 ton/year to sions of CO, VOC, and NOx are expected to 1.01 tons/year). Emission factors are expected to decrease from base year levels (see Table 33). remain relatively constant through 2010, and the This is primarily because average emissions rise mirrors projected traffic increases under the from all vehicles are expected to decline due to no-action alternative. Impacts from PM10 emis­ higher emission standards and cleaner engines. sions would be minor throughout the assessment For all the road segments analyzed, CO emis­ period because they would be less than 5 tons sions are projected to decrease by about two- per year in a serious nonattainment area for thirds, from 282 to 108 tons per year. The im­ particulate matter. pact would be reduced from major adverse (emissions exceeding 250 tons per year in a CO Emissions of SO2 are expected to decrease slightly and would be negligible throughout the

TABLE 33: PROJECTED AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS — NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Daily Traffic Annual Emissions (tons/year)

Scenario Volume Daily VMT Annual VMT VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 Cedar Grove Area 1997 1,040 9,152 3,340,480 1.72 38.69 3.16 0.02 0.12 2010 1,280 11,264 4,111,360 0.46 14.96 1.03 0.01 0.14 Grant Grove / Big Stump Area 1997 3,720 17,484 6,381,660 4.64 88.03 6.46 0.05 0.25 2010 4,580 21,526 7,856,990 1.26 33.84 2.15 0.03 0.31 Upper Generals Highway 1997 1,610 18,193 6,640,445 2.92 71.06 6.32 0.04 0.22 2010 1,980 22,374 8,166,510 0.77 26.69 2.02 0.03 0.26 Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Area 1997 2,340 5,148 1,879,020 1.36 25.92 1.90 0.01 0.07 2010 2,880 6,336 2,312,640 0.37 9.96 0.63 0.01 0.09 Giant Forest Area 1997 2,220 9,546 3,484,290 1.79 40.36 3.30 0.02 0.12 2010 2,730 11,739 4,284,735 0.48 15.60 1.08 0.01 0.15 Mineral King Area 1997 230 3,565 1,301,225 0.95 17.95 1.32 0.01 0.05 2010 280 4,340 1,584,100 0.25 6.82 0.43 0.01 0.06 Total 1997 11,160 63,088 23,027,120 13.38 282.01 22.46 0.15 0.83 2010 13,730 77,579 28,316,335 3.59 107.87 7.34 0.10 1.01

161 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES assessment period (less than 50 tons/year in an the parks and region. In the short term impacts attainment area for SO2). would continue to be adverse.

Expansion projects in the region would affect air Cumulative Impacts emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Tulare County is undertaking a master plan that is Other actions in the immediate area and the scheduled to be completed in 2005, and a new greater San Joaquin Valley could have cumula­ plan for the gateway community of Three Rivers tive impacts when viewed in the context of the will be started once the county plan has been alternatives being considered for the general approved. The population of Three Rivers is management plan. These include the implemen­ projected to increase by about 2.8% per year, tation of public transportation recommendations from 2,200 people in 2000 to 2,900 in 2010 and in the 1996 Giant Forest Interim Management 3,200 in 2015 (pers. comm. with Graber 2003). Plan (NPS 1996a). The net effect of these According to the Tulare County Association of actions would be to reduce vehicle-related air Governments, the population of Tulare County emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and along is projected to increase by about 1% per year, the corridors leading to the parks. from 386,000 in 2003 to 418,00 in 2010 and 491,675 in 2025 (pers. comm. with Graber Widening California 180 over the next six or 2003). The county has 120,795 housing units more years and improving California 198 are not currently, which is projected to increase to likely to increase traffic to the parks according 154,727 units by 2010, an increase of 33,932 to Tulare County Transportation Commission units (pers. comm. with Graber 2003). officials, since the improvements are directed at According to the Council of Fresno County relieving congestion and not increasing traffic Governments, Fresno County’s population in volume. 2002 was 846,855, which is projected to increase to 992,351 by 2010 (pers. comm. with The parks are surrounded by Sequoia National Gagliolo 2003), or approximately 2% per year. Forest, Sierra National Forest, and Inyo National The number of households is projected to grow Forest, all of which experience wildfires and from 283,860 to 336,146 units. Collectively, an planned burns. NPS and USFS fire management increasing population, new housing, and future staff coordinate their planned ignitions and work tourist development would result in additional closely with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air vehicles and associated air emissions in the Pollution Control District so that prescribed fires region. are conducted under favorable air quality condi­ tions; therefore, potential impacts on smoke- Despite increased visitation, air quality in the sensitive areas at any one time are minimized. parks under the no-action alternative would improve with reduced emissions resulting from Other factors affecting air quality in Sequoia and higher emission standards and cleaner engines, Kings Canyon National Parks include pollutants reducing the long-term impact from major from the San Joaquin Valley and the central adverse to moderate adverse. California coast, which are transported on pre­ vailing winds. Automobiles in the San Joaquin The parks would continue to experience some of Valley are a major source of pollutants. Other the worst air quality in the United States, not as sources of pollution include power generation, a result of management actions in the parks, but petroleum production, and agricultural practices. as the result of poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air Expected reductions in automobile emissions as quality would continue to be major, adverse, and a result of California air quality standards and long term. improved engine technologies would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on air quality in

162 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Conclusion Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Under the no-action alternative proposed actions Analysis within the parks would not increase levels of stationary source emissions above conformity de Impacts would be similar to the no-action alter­ minimis values (50–100 tons/year). Smoke native. Proposed actions within the parks would emissions from the parks’ managed wildland not increase levels of stationary source emis­ fires over the next 10 years have been included sions above conformity de minimis values (50– in the San Joaquin Valley’s State Implementa­ 100 tons/year). Smoke emissions from the parks’ tion Plan. Despite increased park traffic managed wildland fires over the next 10 years projections under the no-action alternative, have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s automobile-related emissions are expected to State Implementation Plan. The parks would decrease by 2010, primarily as a result of continue to provide periodic air quality warnings decreases in fleetwide average emission factors. and education. Adverse emission impacts within the parks would range from negligible to moderate. Visitor traffic projections in the parks under the preferred alternative are expected to increase by Other actions in the immediate area and greater 30% compared to the no-action alternative. San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative im­ Nevertheless, emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx pacts when viewed in the context of past, pres­ are expected to decrease by 2010 from base year ent, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Wild­ levels due to lower fleetwide emissions (see fires and planned burns on adjacent federal lands Table 34). By 2010 CO emissions are projected are coordinated with the San Joaquin Valley to be about 114 tons per year, a decrease of Unified Air Pollution Control District to mini­ about 60% from the base year. Similar to the no- mize potential impacts on smoke sensitive areas action alternative, the impact would be reduced at any one time. Other factors affecting air from major to moderate (greater than 100 tons/ quality include pollutants from the San Joaquin year in a CO attainment area). Valley and the central California coast, includ­ ing those from automobiles, power generation, VOC emissions, a precursor to ozone formation petroleum production, and agricultural practices. in the presence of sunlight, would decrease by Expected reductions in automobile emissions as about 72% from the base year, to about 3.8 tons a result of California air quality standards and per year by 2010. The impact would be minor improved engine technologies would result in adverse because emissions would be less than 5 reduced automobile emissions over the long tons per years. NOx emissions would decrease term. Development projects in the region would by about two thirds, to about 7.8 tons per year; affect air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley to the impact level would be moderate adverse an unknown degree. because emissions would be greater than 5 tons per year but less than 25 tons per year in a The parks would continue to experience some of severe nonattainment area for ozone. the worst air quality in the United States, not as a result of management actions in the parks, but Emissions of PM10 would increase slightly (from as the result of poor air quality in the San 0.83 to 1.08 tons/year) but would remain minor Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air adverse for a serious nonattainment area (less quality would continue to major and adverse than 5 tons/year); emission factors are expected over the long term. to remain relatively constant through 2010.

No park air quality resources or values would be Emissions of SO2 are expected to decrease impaired because of actions under this slightly and would be negligible throughout the alternative. assessment period (less than 50 tons/year in an SO2 attainment area).

163 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 34: PROJECTED AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE / ALTERNATIVE C

Daily Traffic Annual Emissions (tons/year)

Scenario Volume Daily VMT Annual VMT VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 Cedar Grove Area 1997 1,040 9,152 3,340,480 1.72 38.69 3.16 0.02 0.12 2010 1,350 11,880 4,336,200 0.48 15.78 1.09 0.01 0.15 Grant Grove / Big Stump Area 1997 3,720 17,484 6,381,660 4.64 88.03 6.46 0.05 0.25 2010 4,840 22,748 8,303,020 1.33 35.76 2.27 0.04 0.33 Upper Generals Highway 1997 1,610 18,193 6,640,445 2.92 71.06 6.32 0.04 0.22 2010 2,090 23,617 8,620,205 0.82 28.17 2.13 0.03 0.28 Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Area 1997 2,340 5,148 1,879,020 1.36 25.92 1.90 0.01 0.07 2010 3,040 6,688 2,441,120 0.39 10.51 0.67 0.01 0.10 Giant Forest Area 1997 2,220 9,546 3,484,290 1.79 40.36 3.30 0.02 0.12 2010 2,890 12,427 4,535,855 0.50 16.51 1.14 0.01 0.15 Mineral King Area 1997 230 3,565 1,301,225 0.95 17.95 1.32 0.01 0.05 2010 300 4,650 1,697,250 0.27 7.31 0.46 0.01 0.07 Total 1997 11,160 63,088 23,027,120 13.38 282.01 22.46 0.15 0.83 2010 14,510 82,010 29,933,650 3.79 114.04 7.76 0.11 1.08

Cumulative Impacts from the San Joaquin Valley and the central California coast, which are transported on pre­ As described for the no-action alternative, other vailing winds. These pollutants are generated by actions in the immediate area and greater San traffic in the San Joaquin Valley, power genera­ Joaquin Valley could have cumulative impacts tion, petroleum production, and agricultural when viewed in conjunction with past, present, practices. Expected reductions in automobile and reasonably foreseeable actions. Implement­ emissions as a result of California air quality ing public transportation recommendations in standards and improved engine technologies the Giant Forest Interim Management Plan would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on (NPS 1996a) would help reduce vehicle-related air quality in the parks and region. In the short air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and term impacts would continue to be adverse. along the corridors leading to the parks. As described for the no-action alternative, Planned highway improvements on California regional population growth in Tulare and Fresno 180 and 198 are not likely to increase park traf­ Counties would affect air emissions in the San fic because the improvements are directed at Joaquin Valley. According to the Tulare County relieving congestion and not increasing traffic Association of Governments, the population of volume. Tulare County is projected to increase from 386,000 in 2003 to 418,00 in 2010 (pers. comm. Wildfire management and planned burns in the with Graber 2003). The county has 120,795 parks and on adjacent national forests are housing units currently, which is projected to coordinated with the San Joaquin Valley Unified increase to 154,727 units by 2010 (pers. comm. Air Pollution Control District so that prescribed with Graber 2003). According to the Council of fires are conducted under favorable air quality Fresno County Governments, Fresno County’s conditions and potential impacts on smoke population in 2002 was 846,855, which is sensitive areas at any one time are minimized. projected to increase to 992,351 by 2010 (pers. comm. with Gagliolo 2003). The number of Other factors affecting air quality in Sequoia and households is projected to grow from 283,860 to Kings Canyon National Parks include pollutants 336,146 units.

164 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Impacts of Alternative A

Despite increased visitation, air quality in the engine technologies would result in reduced parks under the preferred alternative would automobile emissions over the long term. improve with reduced emissions resulting from Development projects in the region would affect higher emission standards and cleaner engines, air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley to an un­ reducing the long-term impact from major known degree. adverse to moderate adverse. The parks would continue to experience some of The parks would continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the United States, not as the worst air quality in the United States, not as a result of management actions in the parks, but a result of management actions in the parks, but as the result of poor air quality in the San as the result of poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air quality would continue to be major and adverse quality would continue to be major and adverse over the long term. over the long term. No park air quality resources or values would be impaired as a result of actions under this Conclusion alternative.

Under the preferred alternative proposed actions within the parks would not increase levels of Impacts of Alternative A stationary source emissions above conformity de minimis values, the same as the no-action Analysis alternative. Smoke emissions from the parks’ managed wildland fires over the next 10 years Impacts from stationary sources would be simi­ have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s lar to the no-action alternative. Proposed devel­ State Implementation Plan. Despite increased opment within the parks would not increase park visitor traffic projections, automobile- emissions above conformity de minimis levels of related emissions are expected to decrease by 50–100 tons per year. Smoke from the parks’ 2010, primarily as a result of lower fleetwide managed wildland fires over the next 10 years average emissions. By 2010 adverse vehicle have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s emission impacts within the parks would range State Implementation Plan. The parks would from negligible to moderate, with no change in continue to provide periodic air quality warnings impact level from the no-action alternative. and education.

Other actions in the immediate area and greater Impacts related to visitor traffic under alterna­ San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative im­ tive A would be similar to but less that those pacts when viewed in the context of the pre­ described for the no-action alternative because ferred alternative and combined with past, pres­ visitor use is projected to decrease by about 10% ent, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Wild­ (see Table 35). Overall reductions in automobile fires and planned burns on adjacent federal lands emissions would occur as a result of fleetwide are coordinated with the San Joaquin Valley emission improvements. By 2010 CO emissions Unified Air Pollution Control District to mini­ are projected to be about 79 tons per year, a mize potential impacts on smoke-sensitive areas. decrease of 72% from the base year. The impact Other factors affecting air quality include level would be reduced from major to minor pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley and the adverse because emissions would be less than central California coast, including those from 100 tons per year in a CO attainment area. automobiles, power generation, petroleum production, and agricultural practices. Expected VOC emissions would decrease by about 80%, reductions in automobile emissions as a result of to 2.6 tons per year, and the impact would California air quality standards and improved decrease from moderate to minor for a severe

165 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 35: PROJECTED AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS — ALTERNATIVE A

Daily Traffic Annual Emissions (tons/year)

Scenario Volume Daily VMT Annual VMT VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 Cedar Grove Area 1997 1,040 9,152 3,340,480 1.72 38.69 3.16 0.02 0.12 2010 940 8,272 3,019,280 0.34 10.99 0.76 0.01 0.10 Grant Grove / Big Stump Area 1997 3,720 17,484 6,381,660 4.64 88.03 6.46 0.05 0.25 2010 3,350 15,745 5,746,925 0.92 24.75 1.57 0.03 0.23 Upper Generals Highway 1997 1,610 18,193 6,640,445 2.92 71.06 6.32 0.04 0.22 2010 1,450 16,385 5,980,525 0.57 19.55 1.48 0.02 0.19 Wuksachi/Lodgepole/Wolverton Area 1997 2,340 5,148 1,879,020 1.36 25.92 1.90 0.01 0.07 2010 2,110 4,642 1,694,330 0.27 7.30 0.46 0.01 0.07 Giant Forest Area 1997 2,220 9,546 3,484,290 1.79 40.36 3.30 0.02 0.12 2010 2,000 8,600 3,139,000 0.35 11.43 0.79 0.01 0.11 Mineral King Area 1997 230 3,565 1,301,225 0.95 17.95 1.32 0.01 0.05 2010 210 3,255 1,188,075 0.19 5.12 0.32 0.01 0.05 Total 1997 11,160 63,088 23,027,120 13.38 282.01 22.46 0.15 0.83 2010 10,060 56,899 20,768,135 2.64 79.14 5.38 0.09 0.75

ozone nonattainment area. NOx emissions would Joaquin Valley and along the corridors decrease by about 75% (to 5.4 tons/year), leading to the parks. resulting in a moderate adverse impact because • Improving California 180 and 198 would emissions would be greater than 5 tons per year. be aimed at relieving congestion, not increasing traffic volume. Emissions of PM10 would increase slightly but would remain minor adverse (less than 5 • Coordinating wildfire management and tons/year for a serious nonattainment area); planned burns in the parks and on emission factors are expected to remain rela­ adjacent national forests with the San tively constant through 2010. Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to minimize potential Emissions of SO2 are expected to decrease impacts on smoke sensitive areas. slightly and would be negligible throughout the • Accommodating regional population assessment period. growth in Tulare and Fresno Counties. Tulare County is projected to increase Cumulative Impacts from 386,000 people in 2003 to 418,00 in 2010 and housing units from 120,795 to As described for the no-action alternative, other 154,727. Fresno County’s population is actions in the immediate area and greater San projected to increase from 846,855 in Joaquin Valley that could have cumulative 2002 to 992,351 by 2010, and the number impacts when viewed in conjunction with past, of households from 283,860 to 336,146. present, and reasonably foreseeable actions include the following: Pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley and the central California coast are transported into the • Implementing public transportation rec­ parks on prevailing winds. These pollutants are ommendations in the Giant Forest Interim generated by traffic in the San Joaquin Valley, Management Plan would help reduce power generation, petroleum production, and vehicle-related air emissions in the San agricultural practices. Expected reductions in automobile emissions as a result of California air

166 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Impacts of Alternative C quality standards and improved engine tech­ tion, and agricultural practices. Long-term nologies would result in beneficial, long-term reductions in automobile emissions are expected impacts on air quality in the parks and region. In as a result of California air quality standards and the short term impacts would continue to be improved engine technologies. Development adverse. projects in the region would affect air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley to an unknown degree. With level or reduced visitation, air quality in the parks under alternative A would improve The parks would continue to experience some of because of reduced emissions associated with the worst air quality in the United States, not as higher emission standards and cleaner engines, a result of management actions in the parks, but reducing the long-term impact from major as the result of poor air quality in the San adverse to moderate adverse. Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air quality would be major and adverse over the The parks would continue to experience some of long term. the worst air quality in the United States, not as a result of management actions in the parks, but No air quality resources or values would be as the result of poor air quality in the San impaired as a result of actions under this Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air alternative. quality would be major and adverse over the long term. Impacts of Alternative C

Conclusion Analysis

Under alternative A proposed development Impacts would be similar to the no-action alter­ within the parks would not increase levels of native. Proposed development within the parks stationary source emissions above conformity de would not increase levels of stationary source minimis values, the same as the no-action emissions above conformity de minimis values alternative. Smoke emissions from the parks’ of 50–100 tons per year. Smoke emissions from managed wildland fires over the next 10 years the parks’ managed wildland fires over the next have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s 10 years have been included in the San Joaquin State Implementation Plan. Park visitor traffic Valley’s State Implementation Plan. The parks projections are expected to decrease by 10% would continue to provide periodic air quality compared to the no-action alternative. By 2010 warnings and education. vehicle emission impacts within the parks would range from negligible to minor adverse; com­ Visitor traffic projections in the parks under pared to the no-action alternative this would be alternative C are expected to be the same as the beneficial because the impact would be reduced. preferred alternative, with a 30% projected increase. Even with increased park visitor As described for the no-action alternative, other traffic, overall emissions of CO, VOC, and NOx actions in the immediate area and greater San are expected to decrease by 2010 due to lower Joaquin Valley may have cumulative impacts. fleetwide emissions (see Table 34). CO Wildfires and planned burns on adjacent federal emissions are projected to decrease by about lands are coordinated with the San Joaquin 60% to 114 tons per year, resulting in a Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to moderate adverse impact. minimize potential impacts on smoke sensitive areas. Pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley VOC emissions, as a precursor to ozone forma­ and the central California coast that affect air tion, would decrease by about 72% to 3.8 tons quality in the parks include those from auto­ per year, resulting in a minor adverse impact in a mobiles, power generation, petroleum produc­ severe ozone nonattainment area. NOx emissions

167 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would decrease by about 66% to 7.8 tons per power generation, petroleum production, and year, resulting in a moderate adverse impact. agricultural practices. Expected reductions in automobile emissions as a result of California air Emissions of PM10 would increase slightly but quality standards and improved engine tech­ would remain minor adverse for a serious nologies would result in beneficial, long-term nonattainment area. impacts on air quality in the parks and region. In the short term impacts would continue to be Emissions of SO2 are expected to decrease adverse. slightly and would be negligible throughout the assessment period. Despite increased visitation, air quality in the parks under alternative C would improve with reduced emissions because of higher emission Cumulative Impacts standards and cleaner engines, reducing the long-term impact from major adverse to As described for the no-action alternative, other moderate adverse. actions in the immediate area and greater San Joaquin Valley that could have cumulative The parks would continue to experience some of impacts when viewed in conjunction with past, the worst air quality in the United States, not as present, and reasonably foreseeable actions a result of management actions in the parks, but include the following: as the result of poor air quality in the San • Implementing public transportation rec­ Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air ommendations in the Giant Forest Interim quality would continue to be major and adverse Management Plan would help reduce over the long term. vehicle-related air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and along the corridors leading to the parks. Conclusion • Improving California 180 and 198 is Under alternative C proposed development aimed at relieving congestion, not within the parks would not increase levels of increasing traffic volume. stationary source emissions above conformity de • Coordinating wildfire management and minimis values, the same as the no-action planned burns in the parks and on alternative. Smoke emissions from the parks’ adjacent national forests with the San managed wildland fires over the next 10 years Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s Control District to minimize potential State Implementation Plan. Despite increased impacts on smoke sensitive areas. park visitor traffic projections, automobile- related emissions are expected to decrease by • Accommodating regional population 2010, primarily as a result of lower fleetwide growth in Tulare and Fresno Counties. average emissions. By 2010 vehicle emission Tulare County is projected to increase impacts within the parks would range from from 386,000 people in 2003 to 418,00 in negligible to moderate adverse, with no change 2010 and housing units from 120,795 to in impact level from the no-action alternative. 154,727. Fresno County’s population is projected to increase from 846,855 in Other actions in the immediate area and greater 2002 to 992,351 by 2010, and the number San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative im­ of households from 283,860 to 336,146. pacts when viewed in the context of alternative C and combined with past, present, and reason­ Pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley and the ably foreseeable actions. Wildfire management central California coast are transported into the and planned burns on adjacent federal lands are parks on prevailing winds. These pollutants are coordinated with the San Joaquin Valley Unified generated by traffic in the San Joaquin Valley,

168 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Impacts of Alternative D

Air Pollution Control District to minimize Impacts of Alternative D potential impacts on smoke-sensitive areas. Other factors affecting park air quality include Analysis pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley and the central California coast, including those from Impacts would be similar to the no-action alter­ automobiles, power generation, petroleum native. Proposed development within the parks production, and agricultural practices. Long- would not increase levels of stationary source term reductions in automobile emissions are emissions above conformity de minimis values expected as a result of California air quality of 50–100 tons per year. Smoke emissions from standards and improved engine technologies. the parks’ managed wildland fires over the next Development projects in the region would affect 10 years have been included in the San Joaquin air emissions in the San Joaquin Valley to an un­ Valley’s State Implementation Plan. The parks known degree. would continue to provide periodic air quality warnings and education. The parks would continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the United States, not as Visitor traffic projections in the parks under a result of management actions in the parks, but alternative D would be the highest of any alter­ as the result of poor air quality in the San native and are expected to increase by 48% Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air compared to the no-action alternative. Even quality would continue to be major and adverse though traffic would increase, emissions of CO, over the long term. VOC, and NOx are expected to decrease by 2010 due to lower fleetwide average emission factors No air quality resources or values would be (see Table 36). CO emissions are projected to impaired as a result of actions under this decrease by about 54% to 130 tons per year, alternative. resulting in a moderate adverse impact (greater than 100 tons/year in a CO attainment area).

As a precursor to ozone formation, VOC emissions would decrease by about 68% to 4.3

TABLE 36: PROJECTED AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS — ALTERNATIVE D

Daily Traffic Annual Emissions (tons/year)

Scenario Volume Daily VMT Annual VMT VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 Cedar Grove Area 1997 1,040 9,152 3,340,480 1.72 38.69 3.16 0.02 0.12 2010 1,540 13,552 4,946,480 0.55 18.00 1.24 0.02 0.17 Grant Grove / Big Stump Area 1997 3,720 17,484 6,381,660 4.64 88.03 6.46 0.05 0.25 2010 5,510 25,897 9,452,405 1.51 40.71 2.58 0.04 0.38 Upper Generals Highway 1997 1,610 18,193 6,640,445 2.92 71.06 6.32 0.04 0.22 2010 2,380 26,894 9,816,310 0.93 32.08 2.42 0.03 0.31 Wuksachi/Lodgepole/Wolverton Area 1997 2,340 5,148 1,879,020 1.36 25.92 1.90 0.01 0.07 2010 3,460 7,612 2,778,380 0.44 11.97 0.76 0.01 0.11 Giant Forest Area 1997 2,220 9,546 3,484,290 1.79 40.36 3.30 0.02 0.12 2010 3,290 14,147 5,163,655 0.57 18.79 1.30 0.02 0.18 Mineral King Area 1997 230 3,565 1,301,225 0.95 17.95 1.32 0.01 0.05 2010 340 5,270 1,923,550 0.31 8.28 0.53 0.01 0.08 Total 1997 11,160 63,088 23,027,120 13.38 282.01 22.46 0.15 0.83 2010 16,520 93,372 34,080,780 4.31 129.83 8.83 0.13 1.23

169 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES tons per year, a minor adverse impact in a severe parks on prevailing winds. These pollutants are ozone nonattainment area. NOx emissions would generated by traffic in the San Joaquin Valley, fall by about 60%, to 8.8 tons per year, with a power generation, petroleum production, and moderate adverse impact. agricultural practices. Expected reductions in automobile emissions as a result of California air Emissions of PM10 would increase slightly (from quality standards and improved engine tech­ 0.83 to 1.23 tons/year) but would remain minor nologies would result in beneficial, long-term adverse for a serious nonattainment area. impacts on air quality in the parks and region. In Emissions of SO2 are expected to decrease the short term impacts would continue to be slightly and would be negligible throughout the adverse. assessment period. Despite increased visitation, air quality in the parks under alternative D would improve with Cumulative Impacts reduced emissions because of higher emission standards and cleaner engines, reducing the As described for the no-action alternative, other long-term impact from major adverse to actions in the immediate area and greater San moderate adverse. Joaquin Valley that could have cumulative impacts when viewed in conjunction with past, The parks would continue to experience some of present, and reasonably foreseeable actions the worst air quality in the United States, not as include the following: a result of management actions in the parks, but • Implementing public transportation as the result of poor air quality in the San recommendations in the Giant Forest Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air Interim Management Plan would help quality would continue to be major and adverse reduce vehicle-related air emissions in the over the long term. San Joaquin Valley and along the corri­ dors leading to the parks. Conclusion • Making planned highway improvements on California 198 and 180, which are Under alternative D proposed development directed at relieving congestion and not within the parks would not increase levels of increasing traffic volume. stationary source emissions above conformity de minimis values, the same as the no-action alter­ • Coordinating wildfire management and native. Smoke emissions from the parks’ planned burns in the parks and on managed wildland fires over the next 10 years adjacent national forests with the San have been included in the San Joaquin Valley’s Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution State Implementation Plan. Despite increased Control District to minimize potential park visitor traffic projections, automobile- impacts on smoke sensitive areas. related emissions are expected to decrease by • Accommodating regional population 2010 because of lower fleetwide average emis­ growth in Tulare and Fresno Counties. sions. By 2010 vehicle emission impacts would Tulare County is projected to increase range from negligible to moderate adverse, with from 386,000 people in 2003 to 418,00 in no change in impact level from the no-action 2010 and housing units from 120,795 to alternative. 154,727. Fresno County’s population is projected to increase from 846,855 in Other actions in the immediate area and greater 2002 to 992,351 by 2010, and the number San Joaquin Valley may have cumulative im­ of households from 283,860 to 336,146. pacts in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Planned burns Pollutants from the San Joaquin Valley and the on adjacent federal lands are coordinated with central California coast are transported into the

170 Natural Resources: Air Quality — Conformity Determination the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Conformity Determination Control District to minimize potential impacts on smoke-sensitive areas. Other factors affecting The alternatives being considered for the park air quality include pollutants from the San Sequoia and Kings Canyon general management Joaquin Valley and the central California coast, plan would conform to the Clean Air Act for the including those from automobiles, power gen­ following reasons: eration, petroleum production, and agricultural practices. Long-term reductions in automobile 1. Emissions from existing and proposed emissions are expected as a result of California stationary sources in the park would be air quality standards and improved engine below the conformity de minimis values. technologies. Development projects in the 2. Emissions from managed wildland fires in region would affect air emissions in the San the parks over the next 10 years have been Joaquin Valley to an unknown degree. included in the San Joaquin Valley’s State Implementation Plan. The parks would continue to experience some of the worst air quality in the United States, not as 3. Future traffic projections for the parks a result of management actions in the parks, but have been included in the regional trans­ as the result of poor air quality in the San portation model that will be used to Joaquin Valley. The cumulative impact on air develop the transportation improvement quality would continue to be major and adverse plan in the regional transportation plan for over the long term. the San Joaquin Valley. 4. The National Park Service is committed No park air quality resources or values would be to employing best management practices impaired as a result of actions under this to reduce emissions from all air pollution alternative. sources within the parks, as stated in the Air Resources Management Action Plan (NPS 1999a).

171 Wild and Scenic Rivers

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING POLICIES IMPACTS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as The impact analysis evaluates how well each amended, states that the comprehensive river alternative would protect and enhance out­ management plan for the Middle and South standingly remarkable values for designated and Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of eligible wild and scenic rivers. Outstandingly the Kern River “shall assure that no develop­ remarkable values include scenic, recreational, ment or use of park lands shall be undertaken geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or that is inconsistent with the designation of the other similar values or features. Thresholds for river” (16 USC 1274(a)(63) and (64). The act the impacts are defined in the text box below. also stipulates that rivers included in the system are to be preserved and protected in their free- Impacts are evaluated on a segment-wide basis flowing condition. in terms of whether they would be beneficial or adverse to the outstandingly remarkable values Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that have been defined for a river segment. states that river managing agencies may provide Beneficial impacts would result from actions for other uses of the river corridor so long as that protect and enhance these values, while such uses are not inconsistent with the protection adverse impacts would result from actions that and enhancement of outstandingly remarkable reduce those values. values and with public use and enjoyment of the river area. The duration of the impact considers whether the impact would be temporary and or associated Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act with transitional types of activities or if the prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Com­ impact would occur over a long period and have mission (FERC) from licensing the “construc­ a long-term effect on the protection and en­ tion of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, hancement of outstandingly remarkable river powerhouse, transmission line, or other project values. works under the Federal Power Act . . . on or directly affecting any river” designated as a Impacts are generically analyzed for the back­ component of the wild and scenic rivers system. country and frontcountry segments that are Any developments below or above a wild, designated or are eligible and suitable for scenic, or recreational river area shall not designation. The impacts of hydroelectric “invade the area or unreasonably diminish the facilities on the Marble and Middle Forks of the scenic, recreational, fish or wildlife values Kaweah River are also analyzed. present in the area.” Hydroelectric facilities within Sequoia National Park are not covered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. AIREAS OF MPACT ANALYSIS

Public Law 99-338 does not authorize the Areas of impact analysis for wild and scenic National Park Service to extend the permit for rivers are the river corridors inside the parks. hydroelectric facilities within the park beyond Designated and eligible river segments and their September 8, 2006 (16 USC 45a-1). Public Law associated outstandingly remarkable values are 95-625, which amended Public Law 93-522, shown in Table 37. For frontcountry river incorporated hydroelectric facilities within the segments, the areas of impact analysis includes Mineral King addition. the following:

172 Wild and Scenic Rivers: River Protection Measures Common to All Alternatives

Impact Thresholds for Wild and Scenic Rivers RPIVER ROTECTION MEASURES Negligible — Impacts would not be detectable CAOMMON TO LL ALTERNATIVES to most visitors and would have no discernible effect on a river’s outstandingly remarkable Under all alternatives measures would be taken values. to protect and enhance the values and free- Minor — Impacts would be slightly detectable to flowing condition of designated and study rivers some visitors but are not expected to have an as described in the alternatives. These measures overall effect on a river’s outstandingly include the evaluation of water resources proj­ remarkable values. ects according to criteria in section 7 of the Wild Moderate — Impacts would be clearly detect­ and Scenic Rivers Act, floodplain / wetland able by many visitors and could have an assessments, restoring ecological processes, and appreciable effect on a river’s outstandingly managing impacts on riverbanks. There are over remarkable values. 134 miles of designated and eligible rivers in the parks. No development is proposed along the Major — Impacts would have a substantial and noticeable effect on most visitors or the river’s less accessible wild segments — more than 80% outstandingly remarkable values. (110+ miles) of the designated and eligible rivers. Actions proposed for recreational Criteria for Determining Impairment segments would affect less than 18% (24 miles) of designated or eligible rivers. Section 7 of the An impact would more likely constitute an Wild and Scenic Rivers Act applies to desig­ impairment to the extent that it affects a nated rivers. By policy the National Park Service resource or value whose conservation is would apply the same standard of review for • necessary to fulfill specific purposes eligible rivers. identified in the establishing leg islation or proclamation of the park; River use levels are expected to remain at or • key to the natural or cultural integrity of near current levels for each classified or eligible the park or to opportunities for enjoyment river. of the park; or • identified as a goal in the general man­ Zoning prescriptions and zone locations support agement plan or other relevant planning river classification and protection by describing documents typical river protection measures, desired re­ source conditions, and appropriate activities and facilities. Management zoning overlays the river • the Kings Canyon for the lower segments segment classifications. Zoning describes the of the South Fork of the Kings River general carrying capacity or degree of social • the Lodgepole and Potwisha areas for the interaction that visitors could expect in each lower segments of the Marble Fork of the zone. Most rivers in the backcountry or desig­ Kaweah nated wilderness would be classified as wild, the exception being the recreational classification • the foothills area from the Buckeye Flat for the East Fork of the Kaweah in the Mineral campground to Ash Mountain for the King Valley area because it is bridged and Middle Fork of the Kaweah accessible by road. Rivers in frontcountry zones • the Mineral King Valley area for the East are classified as recreational since roads parallel Fork of the Kaweah the segments, or the corridors contain more • the South Fork campground area for the development. River corridors would include South Fork of the Kaweah. 0.25 mile on each side of the river segment. Many of the designated and eligible river areas are remote and untrailed. Due to the inaccessi­ bility of these areas to all but the most skilled

173 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 37: WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS AND OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES

Outstandingly Remarkable Values Classifica Prehistory / River Segments tion Scenery Recreation Geology Wildlife History Vegetation Fish Designated Rivers Midd le Forkof theKings Wild X X X X X X South Fork of the Kings Wild X X X South Fork of the Kings Recrea­ X X X tional North Fork of the Kern Wild X X X X Eligible Rivers South Fork of the San Wild X X X Joaquin Marble Fork of the Kaweah Wild X X X — upper segment Marble Fork of the Kaweah Recrea­ X X X — lower segment tional Middle Fork of the Kaweah Wild X X X — upper segment Middle Fork of the Kaweah Recrea­ X X X — lower segment tional East Fork of the Kaweah — Wild X X X upper segment East Fork of the Kaweah — Recrea­ X X center segment tional East Fork of the Kaweah — Wild X lower segment South Fork of the Kaweah Wild X X

cross-country travelers, a detailed user capacity of overnight users in different back­ program is not necessary. Use and impacts in country areas. All overnight backcountry more accessible locations would be managed as users (both hikers and stock parties) must described below: receive a wilderness permit. Once per­ mitted trailhead limits are reached, no • Backcountry rivers classified as wild or further permits are issued for that time eligible for this classification — The vast period. The permitted number of over­ majority of the parks’ designated river night users per trailhead was based on segments are in wilderness areas (82.5 studies of backcountry user travel pat­ miles, out of 90.1 miles total, are in desig­ terns, and their associated impacts on nated wilderness). The rugged terrain in resources and solitude (Parsons 1986; these areas, coupled with the short back­ Stohlgren 1982, 1986; Parsons et al. 1981; country season (generally May through Parsons and Stohlgren 1987; Stohlgren September), functions as a natural limit and Parsons 1986). on the numbers of backcountry users. Stock parties are subject to additional Usage has been static for more than 20 restrictions that regulate the size of stock years. Although these natural barriers help parties and that determine when stock to ensure that the parks’ backcountry parties may access certain areas. Stock areas remain largely unchanged by human party size is limited to 20 head of stock use, the parks will address and monitor per party. The average stock party size is user capacity of these river areas through 4.5 people and 7 animals, well below the the use of several different mechanisms. upper limit, and only a few stock parties First, backcountry areas of the parks are each year come close to the cap. Stock subject to the parks’ wilderness quota access to backcountry meadows is regu­ system, which sets limits for the numbers

174 Wild and Scenic Rivers: River Protection Measures Common to All Alternatives

lated under the parks’ Stock Use and seasonal closures; zoning; limiting areas Meadow Management Plan (NPS 1986d). of development; managing overnight use This plan includes a monitoring com­ by limiting the number of developed ponent to assess the condition of meadow campsites, parking spaces, and lodging and riparian resources. Opening dates are rooms; establishing development set­ established for when stock parties may backs; removing facilities within flood­ use meadows; dates are based on snow­ plains; managing river-based recreation; pack data to ensure that the meadows and defining river access points; prohibiting trails are dry enough to sustain stock hoof motorized watercraft; and regular inspec­ impacts. The superintendent also has the tion of the condition of resources, includ­ ability to temporarily close areas, such as ing the river’s outstandingly remarkable meadows, to all use (36 CFR Part 1). In values. As a mitigating measure, river­ the past the superintendent has exercised banks would be restored as needed. his authority to close meadows and other Watercraft use on the river would be areas to allow resources to recover from prohibited under all alternatives except the impacts of human use. If monitoring alternative D, which would allow for data indicate that desired meadow condi­ limited, nonmotorized watercraft use. tions are not being met, the superinten­ Stock use would continue, except under dent may close a meadow until desired alternative A, which would remove the conditions are achieved, based on pack station. The pack station in Cedar monitoring data. Grove provides service for backcountry stock trips and thus the number of stock These tools will enable park managers to entering the backcountry from the Cedar regulate the number of people and stock Grove pack station is subject to the stock animals using backcountry areas of the party size restrictions and the backcountry parks and to monitor conditions in the overnight permitting system. Hiking and river corridors to prevent the degradation other forms of recreation such as fishing, of outstandingly remarkable values. picnicking, and bicycle use would con­ • Frontcountry rivers classified as recrea tinue within the river corridor. Day use on tional or eligible for this classification — the floor of the Kings Canyon is limited The only designated wild and scenic river by the remoteness of the area, which is segment that is located in the parks’ two hours of challenging driving from the frontcountry is the lower segment of the nearest metropolitan area. Day use is South Fork of the Kings River, which is largely comprised of scenic driving, 7.6 miles in length. The river corridor walking trails through Zumwalt Meadow, boundary extends 0.25 mile on each side and viewing Roaring River Falls. of the river. This recreational river seg­ The number of overnight users and the ment flows through the floor of the Kings type of overnight use would be regulated Canyon in Kings Canyon National Park. through zoning and facility sizing and The area is open seasonally, typically design. Facilities for overnight use (such from May through October; road access is as lodging buildings, campgrounds and limited by California Department of employee housing) can only be located in Transportation to those times when safe developed zones, and overnight facilities access can be provided. Each of the action cannot be located in floodplains. Over­ alternatives this segment would be zoned night lodging facilities exist at Cedar as low-use frontcountry, with some areas Grove, which has 21 beds. Lodging facili­ zoned as development. ties under each of the action alternatives User capacities for this segment of the (except alternative A) could be modestly Kings River would be addressed by expanded provided that site-specific compliance indicates that the expansion

175 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would not degrade the river’s outstand­ Frontcountry Rivers. Concentrated human use ingly remarkable values. There are four combined with unlimited river access under the campgrounds within or adjacent to the no-action alternative would continue to have river corridor, which contain a total of minor, adverse, short- and long-term impacts on 352 campsites. Under each of the action scenic and recreational values in more heavily alternatives (except alternative C) used areas. Riverbank erosion and littering and campgrounds would be redesigned and areas of crowding could occur seasonally as a fewer spaces would be provided. Cedar result of water play, camping, fishing, and non- Grove also accommodates 21 employee motorized watercraft use. Some activities, such housing units. Each of the alternatives as camping in campgrounds and fishing, would would maintain the existing number of continue to be regulated, helping protect recrea­ housing units with the exception of tional values. While some use conflicts could alternative C, which would slightly occur along small stretches of rivers between expand housing opportunities provided different types of users, these conflicts would that the expansion did not degrade not change the range of recreational opportuni­ outstandingly remarkable values. ties; thus, impacts would be minor and adverse. Slight use increases along some river sections could result in minor, adverse, short-term IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION impacts on scenic values, but the impact would ALTERNATIVE affect only small areas that are generally more heavily used, and scenic values would continue Analysis to predominate. Replacing and relocating some facilities within floodplains would result in safer Backcountry Rivers. There would negligible to visitor experiences; the impact on recreational minor, beneficial impacts on scenic and recrea­ values in localized areas would be minor to tional values of designated and eligible river moderate, beneficial, and long term. There segments as a result of the management pre­ would be no impacts on geology values in scriptions, the goal of which would be to frontcountry segments since most of the improve resource conditions. Most of these formations are granite and meta-volcanic. sections are already in designated wilderness or roadless areas, and recreation is controlled by After the special use permit for hydroelectric permit and park regulations. Recreational and power generation in the parks expires on scenic values along riverbanks would be September 8, 2006, the historic facilities on the affected in localized areas as a result of erosion Marble, Middle, and East Forks of the Kaweah caused by backcountry stock and hiker use, River would be removed and the areas returned resulting in minor, adverse, short- and long-term to natural conditions, as permit conditions re­ impacts. There would no impacts on other quire. Natural functions and free-flowing outstandingly remarkable values along back­ conditions would be restored to these rivers to country wild river segments. Geology would not the extent feasible, but flows could be altered. be altered along any river segment; the rare Kern Restoration plans would be developed and Valley rainbow trout would not be affected implemented by the operator in consultation along the North Fork of the Kern; and wildlife, with the park. Removal efforts would result in vegetation, and prehistory / history along the temporary, moderate to major, adverse impacts Middle Fork of the Kings River would not be due to demolition and restoration activities; affected. In conjunction with management long-term impacts on free-flowing river prescriptions, impacts would be mitigated by conditions would be moderate and beneficial. requiring permits for use and regulating seasonal Because the facilities are not readily visible, this access to some areas (that is, areas would be action would result in a minor, beneficial, long- opened depending on soil moisture conditions term impact on scenic values. The facilities and some areas would be closed to stock use). provide recreational access and hiking oppor­

176 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative tunities, so their removal would result in minor, projects have facilitated public recreational adverse, long-term impacts on some recreational access to river corridors for fishing, camping, users and values in the immediate area. and water play, resulting in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. These beneficial impacts relate to the outstandingly remarkable value of Cumulative Impacts recreation for the South Fork of the Kings River (Muir Rock and Cedar Grove village), the In the past hiker and stock use levels were Marble Fork of the Kaweah River (areas near higher and were not as proactively managed or the Lodgepole and Potwisha campgrounds), and regulated as they are today. This contributed to the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River (the riverbank erosion and damage in backcountry Buckeye Flat campground, Potwisha, Hospital areas, resulting in moderate, adverse, long-term Rock, and the Ash Mountain area). River access impacts on both recreational and scenic values. in some frontcountry areas is limited by steep or Continued permit requirements for backcountry rocky terrain, so that use is often concentrated in use, resource monitoring, seasonal closures, and a few spots, resulting in crowding, numerous reduced backcountry use have all resulted in visitor-created trails, and localized erosion. improved conditions. Along portions of the These impacts, however, have not resulted in the South Fork of the Kings River crowding some­ degradation of outstandingly remarkable values times occurs because this is a popular back­ along designated or eligible segments. country entry point, resulting in localized, moderate, adverse impacts on both scenic and Planned improvements of campgrounds and recreational values. Other outstandingly re­ developed areas would result in more campsites markable values as described in the alternatives or facilities being relocated outside the flood­ matrix in volume 1 are not likely to have been or plain, and the bridge at Cedar Grove would be be impacted by past, present, or reasonably relocated so it would not be subject to damage foreseeable future actions; for example, geology during floods. These future actions would result would not be altered because most of the in negligible to moderate, beneficial, long-term formations are granite and meta-volcanic. The impacts on recreational values since safer, more remoteness and inaccessibility of the North Fork sustainable facilities would be provided and of the Kern River would protect the outstand­ recreational activities such as fishing, hiking, ingly remarkable value related to fish. Similarly, and water play would continue. the remoteness and inaccessibility of the Middle Fork of the Kings River would protect the value Impacts under the no-action alternative on of prehistory / history (Native American sites in recreational and scenic values of frontcountry the Tehipite Valley). In conjunction with the river segments would continue to result largely actions of this alternative, there would be from visitation and uncontrolled river access in negligible additional impacts on outstandingly several popular areas. Impacts on scenic and remarkable values for the backcountry river recreational values would be minor, adverse, and segments because no new development would long term because of riverbank erosion, visitor- occur, and use levels would remain relatively created trails, and littering. Conflicts between constant. fishing and water play, or crowding at popular water play areas could result in minor, adverse, In the frontcountry past construction and recon­ short-term impacts to recreational values. struction of roads (Generals Highway and Kings Canyon Highway) and park facilities contributed The no-action alternative, in conjunction with to impacts on scenic values. While roads and the other cumulative actions, would result in park facilities may intrude on the scenery, values negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term have generally not been affected by the small- impacts to recreational values as the result of scale facilities, resulting in negligible, adverse, planned facility improvements. At the same time long-term impacts. At the same time these these actions would continue to perpetuate

177 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES minor, adverse, short- and long-term impacts on ferred alternative improving resource conditions recreational and scenic values from uncontrolled and providing for sustainable use would result in river access in some frontcountry areas. negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on the scenic and recreational values of designated or eligible wild and scenic rivers. Conclusion There would be no impacts on the other out­ standingly remarkable values along backcountry While unregulated river access in some front- wild river segments. Geology would not be country areas would continue, the overall impact altered along any river segment; the rare Kern on designated and eligible river segments and Valley rainbow trout would not be affected their outstandingly remarkable values would be along the North Fork of the Kern; and wildlife, minor, beneficial, and long term due to im­ vegetation, and prehistory / history along the proved facilities as well as facilities being relo­ Middle Fork of the Kings River would not be cated out of floodplains. The removal of small- affected. Recreational and scenic values along scale historic hydroelectric facilities on forks of riverbanks would be affected by riverbank the Kaweah River would result in temporary, erosion caused by backcountry stock and hiker moderate to major, adverse impacts due to use, resulting in minor, adverse, short- and long- demolition and restoration activities; long-term term impacts in localized areas. These impacts impacts on free-flowing river conditions would would not degrade outstandingly remarkable be moderate and beneficial. Because the facili­ values along designated or eligible segments. ties are not readily visible, this action would Requiring permits for backcountry use, regulat­ result in a minor, beneficial, long-term impact ing seasonal access to some areas (that is, open­ on scenic values. The loss of recreational access ing areas depending on soil moisture condi­ and hiking opportunities would result in minor, tions), and closing some areas to stock use adverse, long-term impacts on some recreational would mitigate adverse effects. users and values in the immediate area. Frontcountry Rivers. Under the preferred alter­ In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably native visitor use would be managed to protect foreseeable actions affecting the outstandingly river values. Providing well-defined river access remarkable values of rivers, cumulative impacts routes and restoring riverbanks by removing to wild and scenic rivers and eligible segments unwanted trails that were created by visitors within the parks and the values they represent would enhance both scenic and recreational would generally be negligible to minor, values, resulting in minor to moderate, bene­ beneficial, as well as adverse, and long term. ficial, long-term impacts along popular front- country river corridors. There would be no There would be no impairment of wild and impacts on geology values along frontcountry scenic river resources or values. segments since most of the formations are granite and meta-volcanic. Riverbank erosion and littering would be reduced, but crowding in IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED some areas could occur in summer as a result of ALTERNATIVE water play, camping, fishing, and nonmotorized watercraft use. Activities such as camping in campgrounds and fishing would continue to be Analysis regulated. Although some use conflicts could occur along small stretches of rivers, these Backcountry Rivers. Most of the river seg­ conflicts would not alter the range of recrea­ ments are in designated wilderness or roadless tional opportunities, and impacts on recreational areas, and recreation is controlled by permit and values would be minor. Crowding along some park regulations. There would be negligible to river sections could result in minor and generally minor impacts as a result of restoring impacted short-term, adverse impacts on scenic values; areas in the major trails zone. Under the pre­

178 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative such impacts would be limited to small areas, remote location, low levels of use, and regulated and scenic values would continue to predomi­ fishing would protect the value related to fish on nate. Relocating some facilities out of flood­ the North Fork of the Kern River. Similarly, plains would improve scenic resources and make remoteness and the absence of any new visitor experiences safer; impacts on scenic and development along the wild segments of the recreational values in localized areas would be Middle Fork of the Kings River would protect minor, beneficial, and long term. the value related to prehistory / history (Native American sites in the Tehipite Valley). In Because the special use permit for hydroelectric conjunction with the actions under this alter­ power generation is due to expire on September native, there would be negligible cumulative 8, 2006, historic facilities on the Marble, impacts on outstandingly remarkable values for Middle, and East Forks of the Kaweah River are backcountry river segments. to be removed by the owner, in accordance with the permit. Restoration plans would be devel­ In the frontcountry past construction and recon­ oped and implemented by the operator in consul­ struction of roads (Generals Highway and Kings tation with park managers. Areas would be Canyon Highway) and park facilities have restored to natural conditions. Natural functions contributed to moderate, adverse, short- to long- and free-flowing conditions would be restored to term impacts on scenic river values, while at the the extent feasible with the removal of dams same time facilitating recreational access on along the Middle and Marble Forks of the rivers classified as recreational. Even though Kaweah, but flows could be altered. Removal roads and park facilities may be apparent, their efforts would result in temporary, moderate, small scale generally means they do not intrude adverse impacts; long-term impacts on free- on the scenery, resulting in a negligible, long- flowing river conditions would be moderate and term impact on scenic values. Overall impacts beneficial. Because the facilities are not readily on fishing, camping, and water play have been visible, this action would result in a minor, minor, beneficial, and long term. Rivers with beneficial, long-term impact on scenic values. popular water play areas include the South Fork of the Kings River (Muir Rock and Cedar Grove village), the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River Cumulative Impacts (areas near the Lodgepole and Potwisha camp­ grounds), and the Middle Fork of the Kaweah As described for the no-action alternative, back­ (Buckeye Flat campground, Potwisha, Hospital country hiker and stock use in the past were not Rock, and Ash Mountain). Because access to the proactively managed or regulated. As a result, rivers is limited by steep or rocky terrain, use is some backcountry areas experienced riverbank concentrated in several areas, resulting in crowd­ erosion. Recreational and scenic qualities had ing, numerous visitor-created trails, and local­ also been affected prior to the designation of ized erosion. These impacts, however, have not these rivers. Permit requirements for back­ resulted in the degradation of outstandingly country use, resource monitoring to support remarkable values along designated or eligible adjusting regulations, seasonal closures, and segments. Reasonably foreseeable plans include reduced backcountry use have resulted in ongoing campground and developed area improved conditions. Along portions of the wild upgrades (relocating more campsites or facilities segment of the South Fork of the Kings River, outside the floodplain) and the replacement of crowding sometimes occurs because this is a the Cedar Grove bridge at a location not subject popular backcountry entry point; this results in to damage during floods. These future actions localized, moderate, adverse impacts on both would result in minor to major, beneficial, long- scenic and recreational values. Other outstand­ term impacts on recreational and scenic values ingly remarkable values such as geology are not because facilities would be safer and more likely to have been or be impacted by past, sustainable, and because more development present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. The

179 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would be removed from the immediate river areas would continue to result in minor, adverse, corridor. long-term impacts on outstandingly remarkable values. Impacts from visitors on recreational and scenic values along frontcountry rivers would be In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably reduced despite increased visitation because of foreseeable actions, cumulative impacts to wild well-defined river access and the mitigation of and scenic rivers within the parks and their visitor impacts in accordance with management outstandingly remarkable values would prescriptions, such as hardening and defining generally be minor to moderate and beneficial river access points to reduce riverbank erosion. over the long term. User conflicts from recreational uses such as fishing and water play, or crowding at popular There would be no impairment of wild and water play areas, could result in minor, adverse, scenic river resources or values since hydro­ short-term impacts on recreational values. electric removal would be identified as a goal in the general management plan and the restoration The preferred alternative, in conjunction with plan would include mitigation measures. past, present, and reasonably foreseeable ac­ tions, would generally result in negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts to recrea­ IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A tional values as a result of improved facilities and controlled river access. Moderate, adverse, Analysis short-term impacts on outstandingly remarkable values from removing hydroelectric facilities Backcountry Rivers. Most of the wild river and returning areas to natural conditions would segments are in designated wilderness or be offset by minor to moderate, beneficial, long- roadless areas, and recreation is controlled by term impacts on outstandingly remarkable permit and park regulations. There would be values and free-flowing conditions along the negligible to minor beneficial impacts on scenic affected segment. Some localized, negligible, and recreational values along backcountry river adverse, long-term impacts on outstandingly segments because resource conditions would be remarkable values would continue as a result of improved, in accordance with the management visitor use in these areas. prescriptions. Most of these segments are in designated wilderness or roadless areas, and recreation is controlled by permit and park Conclusion regulations. Minor, adverse, short- and long- term impacts on scenic values could continue to With controlled river access, improved facilities, occur in localized areas along riverbanks be­ and a limited number of hydroelectric facilities, cause of erosion caused by backcountry stock designated and eligible wild and scenic river and hiker use. Continuing to require permits for segments would be more protected, ensuring the use, regulating seasonal access to some areas preservation of outstandingly remarkable values. (i.e., opening them depending on soil moisture This would result in minor to moderate, bene­ conditions), and closing some areas to stock use ficial, long-term impacts. Demolition of hydro­ would help mitigate adverse effects. These electric facilities would result in temporary, impacts would not degrade outstandingly re­ moderate, adverse impacts; impacts to outstand­ markable values along designated or eligible ingly remarkable values over the long term segments. There would no impacts on other would be minor to moderate and beneficial. outstandingly remarkable values along back­ Some of the hydroelectric access routes would country wild river segments. Geology would not continue to be available for recreational access, be altered along any river segment; the rare Kern with minor beneficial impacts compared to the Valley rainbow trout would not be affected no-action alternative. Visitor use in localized along the North Fork of the Kern; and wildlife,

180 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Impacts of Alternative A vegetation and prehistory / history along the altered. Removal efforts would result in Middle Fork of the Kings River would not be temporary, moderate to major, adverse impacts affected. due to demolition and restoration activities; long-term impacts on free-flowing river Frontcountry Rivers. Under alternative A park conditions would be moderate and beneficial. visitation would be limited and managed to Because the facilities are not readily visible, this protect river values, resulting in improved action would result in a minor, beneficial, long- recreational opportunities and scenery along term impact on scenic values. The facilities river segments. Well-defined river access routes provide recreational access and hiking and riverbank restoration would enhance both opportunities, so their removal would result in scenic and recreational values, resulting in minor minor, adverse, long-term impacts on some to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts along recreational users and values in the immediate popular frontcountry river corridors. Scenic area. values would be enhanced by reducing riverbank erosion and littering. Current or decreased use levels along river segments could result in negli­ Cumulative Impacts gible to minor, beneficial, short-term impacts on scenic values, which would continue to predomi­ As described for the no-action alternative, nate. Recreational values would be enhanced by backcountry hiker and stock use in the past was less crowded conditions, with improved condi­ not proactively managed or regulated. As a tions for water play, camping, fishing, and result, some areas experienced riverbank nonmotorized watercraft use. Some activities, erosion. Recreational and scenic qualities had such as camping in campgrounds and fishing, also been affected prior to the designation of would continue to be regulated, further miti­ these rivers. Permit requirements for back­ gating any adverse effects. Although some use country use, resource monitoring to support conflicts could still occur along small stretches adjusting regulations, seasonal closures, and of rivers, there would be fewer visitors and the reduced backcountry use have resulted in range of recreational opportunities would not be improved conditions. Along portions of the wild changed, so impacts would be minor. With segment of the South Fork of the Kings River reduced numbers of facilities and some facilities crowding sometimes occurs because this is a relocated out of floodplains, visitor experiences popular backcountry entry point; this results in would be safer, resulting in minor, beneficial, localized, moderate, adverse impacts on both long-term impacts on river-based recreation in scenic and recreational values. Other outstand­ localized areas. There would be no impacts on ingly remarkable values such as geology, fish, geology values along designated or eligible and history / prehistory are not likely to have frontcountry segments since most of the been or be impacted by past, present, or formations are granite and meta-volcanic. reasonably foreseeable actions due to remote­ ness and the absence of any new development. As described for the no-action alternative, after In conjunction with the actions under this the special use permit for hydroelectric power alternative, there would be negligible cumulative generation in the parks expires on September 8, impacts on outstandingly remarkable values for 2006, the historic facilities on the Marble, backcountry river segments. Middle, and East Forks of the Kaweah River would be removed and the areas returned to In the frontcountry past construction and recon­ natural conditions, as permit conditions require. struction of roads (Generals Highway and Kings Restoration plans would be developed and Canyon Highway) and park facilities have implemented by the operator in consultation contributed to moderate, adverse, short- to long- with park managers. Natural functions and free- term impacts on scenic river values, while at the flowing conditions would be restored to these same time facilitating recreational access. rivers to the extent feasible, but flows could be Because of the small scale of roads and park

181 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES facilities, they do not intrude on the scenery, Conclusion resulting in a negligible, long-term impact on scenic values. Overall impacts on fishing, With reduced use, controlled river access, im­ camping, and water play have been minor, proved facilities, and no hydroelectric facilities, beneficial, and long term. Access to the rivers is designated and eligible wild and scenic river limited by steep or rocky terrain, so use is often segments would be more protected, and concentrated in several areas, resulting in associated outstandingly remarkable values crowding, numerous visitor-created trails, and would be preserved. This would result in minor localized erosion. These impacts, however, have to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. not resulted in the degradation of outstandingly There would be some minor adverse impacts on remarkable values along designated or eligible recreational values from the removal of hydro­ segments. Reasonably foreseeable plans include electric facilities, which have been used for relocating more campsites and facilities outside recreation. Removing hydroelectric facilities the floodplain, and replacing the Cedar Grove would result in moderate, adverse impacts; long- bridge in a location not subject to damage during term impacts to outstandingly remarkable values floods. These future actions would result in would be minor to moderate and beneficial. minor to major, beneficial, long-term impacts on recreational values because of safer and more In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably sustainable facilities. foreseeable actions affecting outstandingly remarkable values of rivers, cumulative impacts Impacts from visitors on recreational and scenic would generally be minor to moderate, long values related to frontcountry rivers would be term, and beneficial. Minor, adverse, long-term reduced because of well-defined river access and impacts on outstandingly remarkable values in the mitigation of visitor impacts in accordance localized areas would continue to result from with management prescriptions, such as the visitor use. restoration of riverbanks. Less crowding at popular water play areas and fewer recreational There would be no impairment of wild and use conflicts, such as fishing and water play, scenic river resources or values since would result in negligible to minor, beneficial, hydroelectric removal would be identified as a short-term impacts to recreational values. goal in the general management plan, and the restoration plan would include mitigation Alternative A in conjunction with other past, measures. present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would generally result in negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on recreational IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C values as the result of improved facilities and controlled river access. At the same time Analysis removing hydroelectric facilities would have moderate, short-term, adverse impacts on Backcountry Rivers. Dispersing use under outstandingly remarkable values, while restoring alternative C and applying management pre­ sites to natural conditions would have minor to scriptions would result in negligible to minor, moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on beneficial, long-term impacts on scenic and outstandingly remarkable values and free- recreational values along designated and eligible flowing conditions along the affected segment. wild and scenic river segments. Most segments Minor, adverse, long-term impacts on are in designated wilderness or roadless areas, outstandingly remarkable values in localized and recreation is controlled by permit and park areas would continue to result from visitor use. regulations. Riverbank erosion caused by back­ country stock and hiker use has caused minor, adverse, short- and long-term impacts to recreational and scenic values in localized areas.

182 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Impacts of Alternative C

Continuing to require permits for use, regulating these segments in the wild and scenic rivers seasonal access to some areas (i.e., opening system, since they remain “generally natural and them depending on soil moisture conditions), riverine in appearance” (47 FR (173): 39458). and closing some areas to stock use would help Park managers would continue to work with the mitigate adverse effects. These impacts would hydroelectric operator to protect park resources not degrade outstandingly remarkable values and river values. Because these facilities are along designated or eligible segments. There small and inconspicuous, their continued would no impacts on other outstandingly operation would have minor, adverse, long-term remarkable values along backcountry wild river impacts on scenic values. Recreational activities segments. Geology would not be altered along have occurred along the access routes, resulting any river segment; the rare Kern Valley rainbow in moderate, beneficial impacts. trout would not be affected along the North Fork of the Kern; and wildlife, vegetation and prehistory / history along the Middle Fork of the Cumulative Impacts Kings River would not be affected. As described for the no-action alternative, Frontcountry Rivers. Under alternative C backcountry hiker and stock use in the past was visitor use would be managed to protect river not proactively managed and regulated. As a values. Well-defined river access routes and result, some areas experienced riverbank riverbank restoration of unwanted trails would erosion. Also recreational and scenic qualities enhance both scenic and recreational values, had been affected before the rivers were resulting in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- designated. Backcountry permit requirements, term impacts on visitors along popular reduced backcountry use, and resource monitor­ frontcountry river corridors. Riverbank erosion ing to support adjusting regulations and seasonal and littering would be reduced, enhancing scenic closures have resulted in improved conditions. values, but recreational values could be affected Along portions of the wild segment of the South in crowded areas as a result of water play, Fork of the Kings River crowding sometimes camping, fishing and nonmotorized watercraft occurs because this is a popular backcountry use. Some activities, such as camping in entry point; this results in localized, moderate, campgrounds and fishing would continue to be adverse impacts on both scenic and recreational regulated. Although some use conflicts could values. Other outstandingly remarkable values occur along small stretches of rivers, these such as geology, fish, and prehistory / history conflicts would not alter the range of are not likely to have been or be impacted by recreational opportunities, and impacts would be past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. minor. Crowding along some sections could In conjunction with the actions under this result in minor, short-term, adverse impacts on alternative, there would be negligible additional scenic values, which would continue to discernible impacts on outstandingly remarkable predominate. There would be no impacts on values for backcountry river segments. geology values along designated or eligible frontcountry segments since most of the In the frontcountry past construction and formations are granite and meta-volcanic. reconstruction of roads (Generals Highway and Kings Canyon Highway) and park facilities have Under this alternative small-scale, historic contributed to moderate, adverse, short- to long- hydroelectric facilities on the Marble, Middle, term impacts on scenic river values but at the and East Forks of the Kaweah River would same time they have facilitated recreational continue to operate under a new permit, with access. The relatively small scale of roads and minor, adverse impacts on flows. However, it park facilities means they generally do not has been determined that the magnitude of intrude on the scenery, resulting in a negligible, impacts resulting from these relatively small- long-term impact on scenic values. Overall scale facilities does not preclude the inclusion of impacts on fishing, camping, and water play

183 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES have been minor, beneficial, and long term. system. Minor, beneficial impacts on recrea­ Access to the rivers is limited by steep or rocky tional values would remain because of associ­ terrain, so use is often concentrated in several ated hiking and other recreational opportunities areas, resulting in crowding, numerous visitor- associated with the hydroelectric facilities. created trails, and localized erosion. These im­ pacts, however, have not resulted in the degrada­ In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably tion of outstandingly remarkable values along foreseeable actions, cumulative impacts would designated or eligible river segments. Reason­ generally be negligible to minor, beneficial, and ably foreseeable plans include relocating more long term. Minor, adverse, long-term impacts on campsites or facilities outside the floodplain, and outstandingly remarkable values in localized replacing the bridge at Cedar Grove so it is less areas would continue to result from visitor use. subject to damage during floods. These future actions would result in minor to major, bene­ There would be no impairment of wild and ficial, long-term impacts on recreational values scenic river resources or values. because of safer and more sustainable facilities.

Impacts from visitors on recreational and scenic IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D values along frontcountry rivers would be reduced despite increased visitation because Analysis limited and of well-defined river access and the mitigation of visitor impacts in accordance with Backcountry Rivers. Alternative D would have management prescriptions. User conflicts from negligible to minor, beneficial impacts on the recreational uses such as fishing and water play, scenic and recreational values of designated and or crowding at popular water play areas, could eligible wild and scenic river segments as a result in minor, adverse, short-term impacts on result of management prescriptions. As de­ recreational values. scribed for the no-action alternative, most of these sections are in designated wilderness or Alternative C, in conjunction with past, present, roadless areas, and recreation is controlled by and reasonably foreseeable actions, would gen­ permit and park regulations. Recreational and erally result in negligible to minor, beneficial, scenic values along riverbanks would be af­ long-term impacts to recreational values as the fected by riverbank erosion caused by back­ result of facility improvement and controlled country stock and hiker use, resulting in minor, river access. Minor, localized, long-term adverse adverse, short- and long-term impacts in local­ impacts on outstandingly remarkable values ized areas. These impacts would be mitigated to would continue to result from visitor use. some extent by requiring permits for use, regulating seasonal access to some areas (i.e., opening them depending on soil moisture Conclusion conditions), and closing some areas to stock use. These measures would complement the manage­ With controlled river access and improved facil­ ment prescriptions. These impacts would not ities, designated and eligible wild and scenic degrade outstandingly remarkable values along river segments would be protected, and their designated or eligible segments. There would no outstandingly remarkable values preserved, impacts on other outstandingly remarkable resulting in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- values along backcountry wild river segments. term impacts. The continued operation of small- Geology would not be altered along any river scale historic hydroelectric facilities on forks of segment; the rare Kern Valley rainbow trout in the Kaweah River under the terms of a new the North Fork of the Kern would not be af­ permit would have a minor, adverse, long-term fected ; and wildlife, vegetation, and prehistory / impact but would not preclude the inclusion of history along the Middle Fork of the Kings these segments in the wild and scenic rivers River would not be affected.

184 Wild and Scenic Rivers: Impacts of Alternative D

Frontcountry Rivers. Under alternative D beneficial. Because the facilities are not readily increasing use would be managed to protect the visible, this action would result in a minor, outstandingly remarkable values of rivers. As beneficial, long-term impact on scenic values. described for the preferred alternative, well- defined river access routes and riverbank restoration would enhance both scenic and Cumulative Impacts recreational values, resulting in minor, bene­ ficial, long-term impacts. Riverbank erosion and As described for the no-action alternative, littering would be reduced, but areas of crowd­ backcountry hiker and stock use in the past was ing could occur seasonally as a result of water not as proactively managed or regulated. As a play, camping, fishing and nonmotorized result, some areas experienced riverbank watercraft use. Some activities, such as camping erosion. Also, recreational and scenic qualities in campgrounds and fishing, would continue to had been affected prior to the designation of be regulated, thus mitigating impacts on recrea­ these river segments. Conditions have improved tional values. While some use conflicts could because of permit requirements, reduced use, occur along small stretches of rivers, these resource monitoring to support adjusting regula­ conflicts would not alter the range of recrea­ tions, and seasonal closures. Occasional crowd­ tional opportunities, thus impacts on recreational ing along portions of the wild segment of the values would be minor. More people along some South Fork of the Kings River because this is a sections of rivers could result in minor, adverse, popular backcountry entry point, which results short-term impacts on scenic values, but such in localized, moderate, adverse impacts on both impacts would be limited to small areas of scenic and recreational values. Other outstand­ frontcountry river segments, and scenic values ingly remarkable values such as geology, fish, would continue to predominate. Relocating and prehistory / history are not likely to have some facilities outside floodplains would result been or be impacted by past, present, or in safer visitor experiences, with minor to reasonably foreseeable actions due to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on remoteness and the absence of any development. recreational values in localized areas. There In conjunction with the actions under this would be no impacts on geology values along alternative, there would be negligible additional designated or eligible frontcountry segments discernible impacts on outstandingly remarkable since most of the formations are granite and values for backcountry river segments. meta-volcanic. In the frontcountry past construction and Because the special use permit for hydroelectric reconstruction of roads (Generals Highway and power generation is due to expire on September Kings Canyon Highway) and park facilities have 8, 2006, historic facilities on the Marble, contributed to moderate, adverse, short- to long- Middle, and East Forks of the Kaweah River are term impacts on scenic river values, while at the to be removed by the owner, in accordance with same time facilitating recreational access. The the permit. As described for the preferred alter­ small scale of roads and park facilities generally native, the areas would be returned to natural means they do not intrude on the scenery, conditions. Restoration plans would be devel­ resulting in a negligible, long-term impact on oped and implemented by the operator in consul­ scenic values. Access to the rivers is limited by tation with park managers. Natural functions and steep or rocky terrain, so use is concentrated in free-flowing conditions would be restored to the several areas, resulting in crowding, numerous extent feasible with the removal of dams along visitor-created trails, and localized erosion. the Middle and Marble Forks of the Kaweah Reasonably foreseeable plans include relocating River, but flows could be altered. Removal more campsites or facilities outside the efforts would result in temporary, moderate, floodplain, and replacing the bridge at Cedar adverse impacts; long-term impacts on free- Grove so it is less subject to damage during flowing river conditions would be moderate and floods. These future actions would result in

185 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES minor to major long-term beneficial impacts on Conclusion recreational values because facilities would be safer and more sustainable. With controlled river access, improved facilities, and a limited number of hydroelectric facilities, Impacts on recreational and scenic values along designated and eligible wild and scenic river frontcountry rivers would be reduced despite segments would be more protected, ensuring the increased visitation because of well-defined preservation of outstandingly remarkable values. river access and the mitigation of visitor impacts This would result in minor to moderate, bene­ in accordance with management prescriptions. ficial, long-term impacts. Demolition of hydro­ User conflicts from recreational uses such as electric facilities would result in temporary, fishing and water play, or crowding at popular moderate, adverse impacts; impacts to outstand­ water play areas, could result in minor, short- ingly remarkable values over the long term term, adverse impacts on recreational values. would be minor to moderate and beneficial. Some of the hydroelectric access routes would Alternative D, in conjunction with past, present, continue to be available for recreational access, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would gen­ with minor beneficial impacts compared to the erally result in negligible to minor, beneficial, no-action alternative. Visitor use in localized long-term impacts to recreational values as the areas would continue to result in minor, adverse, result of improved facilities and controlled river long-term impacts on outstandingly remarkable access. Minor, localized, long-term adverse values. impacts on outstandingly remarkable values would continue to result from visitor use. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably Moderate, adverse, short-term impacts on foreseeable actions, cumulative impacts would outstandingly remarkable values from removing be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term. hydroelectric facilities and returning areas to Minor, adverse, long-term impacts on outstand­ natural conditions would be offset by minor to ingly remarkable values in localized areas would moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on continue to result from visitor use. outstandingly remarkable values and free- flowing conditions along the affected segment. There would be no impairment of wild and Some localized, negligible, adverse, long-term scenic river resources or values since hydro­ impacts on outstandingly remarkable values electric removal would be identified as a goal in would continue as a result of visitor use in these the general management plan and the restoration areas. plan would include mitigation measures.

186 Backcountry / Wilderness

Backcountry is a term used by the National Park provide the protection of these areas, the preser­ Service to refer to primitive, undeveloped, and vation of their wilderness character, and for the roadless portions of parks. Backcountry includes gathering and dissemination of information re­ areas designated or managed to preserve garding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.” wilderness characteristics. A backcountry / wilderness management plan describes in greater Potential wilderness may be designated for areas detail how these areas are managed. that do not qualify for immediate designation due to temporary, non-conforming, or incom­ At Sequoia and Kings Canyon, most back­ patible conditions. Once the nonconforming use country areas (96.23%) are managed as has been removed or eliminated, these areas may designated wilderness or to preserve wilderness be designated as wilderness. values. Designated wilderness currently covers 83.56% of the parks, approximately 723,000 The NPS Management Policies 2001 stipulate acres (see Table 38). Less than 4% of the parks how proposed, recommended, and designated would be considered as frontcountry under any wilderness areas are to be managed. Essentially, alternative. the National Park Service will take no action that would diminish the wilderness suitability of an area possessing wilderness characteristics GUIDING REGULATIONS AND until Congress has decided about whether to designate wilderness (sec. 6.3.1). Until that time, POLICIES management decisions pertaining to lands quali­ fying as wilderness will be made in expectation The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as of eventual wilderness designation. All cate­ an area of undeveloped Federal land re­ gories of wilderness may be zoned for visitor taining its primeval character and influence, experiences and resource conditions consistent without permanent improvements or human with their wilderness values (sec., 6.3.4.1). habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substan­ IMPACTS tially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and Since most backcountry is designated wilder­ unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at ness, the impact analysis is generally based on least five thousand acres of land or is of the compatibility and consistency of the sufficient size as to make practicable its management with wilderness values and with preservation and use in an unimpaired con­ the vision under each alternative. This section ditions; and (4) may also contain ecological, does not imply that the areas would be geological, or other features of scientific, designated as wilderness; rather wilderness educational, scenic, or historical value. studies and congressional action would be required before such designation could take Wilderness areas are to be devoted to the public place. This section compares alternatives to purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, show the areas, acres, and percentages of the educational, conservation, and historical uses. parks under each alternative that could be (1) They are to be “administered for the use and compatible with designation as wilderness, enjoyment of the American people in such consistent with the vision for each alternative, manner as will leave them unimpaired for future and (2) areas of potential wilderness that could use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to be designated as wilderness.

187 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impact Thresholds for Backcountry / REGIONAL CONTEXT Wilderness Impacts Negligible — Impacts would not be detectable Designated wilderness areas adjacent to the to most visitors and would have no discernible parks include Golden Trout to the south; John effect on wilderness values or recreational Muir to the east, north, and west; Monarch to the opportunities. west; and Jennie Lakes between Grant Grove and Sequoia National Park. With the Sequoia Minor — Impacts would be slightly detectable to and Kings Canyon Wilderness at its core, these some visitors but are not expected to have an contiguous wildernesses form the largest area of overall effect on wilderness values or designated wilderness in California and the recreational opportunities. second largest in the lower 48 states. The value Moderate — Impacts would be clearly detect­ of this wilderness lies in its preservation of able by many visitors and could have an natural conditions, without permanent improve­ appreciable effect on wilderness values or ments or human habitation. recreational opportunities. Major — Impacts would have a substantial and noticeable effect for most visitors on wilderness IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION values or recreational opportunities and could ALTERNATIVE permanently alter various aspects of the visitor experience. Analysis

Criteria for Determining Impairment Under the no-action alternative 83.56% of the An impact would more likely constitute an im­ parks would continue to be managed as wilder­ pairment to the extent it affects a resource or ness and 12.53% (108,470 acres) would con­ value whose conservation is tinue to be managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. The majority of the parks would • necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden­ tified in the establishing leg islation or be free of the imprint of man, and the wilderness proclamation of the park; values of solitude and providing for primitive, unconfined recreation would be protected (see • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Table 38). park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or If and when facilities were removed at Oriole • identified as a goal in the general manage­ Lake, Bearpaw Meadow, and two utility ment plan or other relevant NPS planning corridors, these potential wilderness areas (78 documents acres) would become designated wilderness, a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact since this would constitute a 0.01% increase in Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether they designated wilderness. would be beneficial or adverse to wilderness values and wilderness recreational opportunities. As required by Congress, the Mineral King area Beneficial impacts would result from actions would be studied through a public process to that would increase wilderness values, recrea­ make a recommendation to Congress about tional opportunities, and compatibility with possible future wilderness designation. How­ wilderness designation. Adverse impacts would ever, the no-action alternative does not seek to reduce those same values, opportunities, or the maximize land compatible with management as amount of area compatible with wilderness wilderness in the Mineral King area. designation.

188 Backcountry / Wilderness: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

TABLE 38: SUMMARY OF AREAS COMPATIBLE AS DESIGNATED WILDERNESS UNDER EACH ALTERNATIVE

No-Action Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D Existing Designated 723,036 723,036 723,036 723,036 723,036 Wilderness (in acres) Additional Areas Compatible with Management as Wilderness (in acres) • Hockett Plateau 56,315* 56,275 56,315 56,315 0 (56,315 acres) (exclude high Sierra camp — 40 acres) • Redwood Canyon / 35,321* 35,321 35,321 35,321 35,250 North Fork of the (exclude Colony Mill Kaweah (35,321 acres) Road — 71 ac) •ChimneyRock / Jennie 1,756* 1,756 1,756 1,756 0 Lakes addition (1,756 acres) • Mineral King Areas 15,000* 15,107 15,107 15,000 15,000 (15,600 acres added in 1978; 15,107 acres managed as backcountry) • Oriole Lake (12 acres 12 12 12 12 12 private land and road (becomes wilderness (same as no-action (same as no-action (same as no-action (same as no-action corridor) as facilities removed) alternative) alternative) alternative) alternative) • Bearpaw Meadow (32 32 0 32 0 0 acres) (becomes wilderness (retain Bearpaw (same as no-action (retain Bearpaw (retain Bearpaw as facilities removed) Meadow Camp) alternative) Meadow Camp) Meadow Camp) • Utility Corridors 34 34 34 34 34 (becomes wilderness (same as no-action (same as no-action (same as no-action (same as no-action as facilities removed) alternative) alternative) alternative) alternative) Subtotal — Additional 108,470* 108,505 108,577 108,438 50,296 Areas Compatible with Management as Wilderness Total 831,506 831,541 831,613 831,474 773,332

Percentages Existing Designated 83.56% 83.56% 83.56% 83.56% 83.56% Wilderness Additional Areas 12.54% 12.54% 12.55% 12.53% 5.81% Compatible with Man­ agement as Wilderness Total 96.10% 96.10% 96.11% 96.09% 89.37% NOTE: Total park acreage = 865,260. * Under the no-action alternative this area would be managed to preserve its wilderness characteristics.

Bearpaw Meadow currently contains a high similar to today, a negligible, beneficial, long- Sierra camp, which is a small, very popular, con­ term impact. cessioner run tent-camp that provides a different type of backcountry experience for visitors. The facility offers visitors more comfort and the Cumulative Impacts choice to be less self-sufficient by providing beds, food service, restrooms, and showers. Cumulative impacts are based on an analysis of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions Often, designated NPS wilderness areas are not in the southern Sierra Nevada that would affect delineated by signs, so some members of the wilderness designation or values. As described public might not know where wilderness is or under the “Regional Context,” adjacent desig­ the extent of it. Opportunities to experience nated wilderness areas — the Golden Trout, primeval areas and solitude by participating in John Muir, Monarch, and Jennie Lakes Wilder­ primitive or unconfined recreation would remain nesses — contribute to the extensive nature of

189 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the Sequoia and Kings Canyon Wilderness. This wilderness prescriptions. Compared to the no- second largest area of contiguous designated action alternative, areas compatible with wilderness in the lower 48 states would continue management as wilderness would increase by to be managed as wilderness. about 35 acres.

Since many park areas are managed to protect Most areas suitable for wilderness would be wilderness values under the no-action alterna­ managed to protect wilderness characteristics, tive, even though they are not designated including Redwood Canyon, Chimney Rock wilderness, the intrinsic value of this contiguous (Jennie Lakes addition), and the North Fork of wilderness area would not be affected, and the Kaweah. All of these areas include giant wilderness values and experiences would be sequoia groves. Hockett Plateau would also be protected, a major, beneficial, long-term impact. compatible for management as wilderness, with Park managers would continue to work with an exclusion of 40 acres (0.005% of the parks) adjacent agencies and managers to protect the to accommodate study for use as an additional values of contiguous wilderness through high Sierra camp, resulting in negligible, ad­ compatible regulation and management. verse, long-term impacts on wilderness values since the area is so small and would remain roadless. Wilderness designation of Redwood Conclusion Canyon would increase protection for park caves. Continuing to manage over 96% of the The no-action alternative would continue current parks as wilderness would be consistent with the management of designated wilderness and non- alternative vision for park resources. wilderness backcountry areas, with negligible, beneficial, long-term impacts. Non-wilderness The preferred alternative would retain the high backcountry areas would continue to be man­ Sierra camp at Bearpaw Meadow in Sequoia aged to preserve wilderness characteristics. National Park, so 32 acres would continue to be Some visitors might be unaware of the excluded from wilderness. wilderness designation. If and when facilities were removed at Oriole On a cumulative basis the core of the second Lake, that area would be designated as wilder­ largest designated wilderness area in the lower ness. Road access to a small area with an 48 states would be protected, a major, beneficial, uncommon foothills lake would be removed, long-term impact. resulting in a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on primitive recreation because this Wilderness characteristics and values would not small area is used by few people. be impaired. As described for the no-action alternative, the Mineral King area would be studied through a IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED public process to make a recommendation to Congress about possible future wilderness ALTERNATIVE designation.

Analysis Under the preferred alternative visitor education would focus on resource protection, stewardship, Under the preferred alternative 83.56% of the and leave-no-trace backcountry skills, poten­ parks would continue to be managed as desig­ tially making more visitors aware of wilderness nated wilderness (723,036 acres) and 12.54% designation and wilderness values. These (108,505 acres) would be compatible with wilderness recreational opportunities and values management as wilderness, for a total of are highly valued by park visitors. Opportunities 831,541 acres (96.10% of the parks) that would for recreation in protected wilderness, along be managed consistent with backcountry /

190 Backcountry / Wilderness: Impacts of Alternative A with opportunities to experience primeval areas Wilderness values would not be impaired. and solitude by participating in primitive or unconfined recreation, would expand, resulting in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts because IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A many more visitors would be aware of wilder­ ness characteristics, values, and recreational Analysis opportunities. Under alternative A 83.56% of the parks would continue to be managed as designated wilder­ Cumulative Impacts ness (723,036 acres) and 12.55% (108,577 acres) would be compatible with management as As described for the no-action alternative, cumu­ wilderness, for a total of 831,613 acres (96.11% lative impacts are based on an analysis of past, of the parks) that would be managed consistent present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the with backcountry / wilderness prescriptions. southern Sierra Nevada that could affect Compared to the no-action alternative, a small wilderness designation or values. Park managers amount of additional land (107 acres) would be would continue to work with adjacent agencies compatible for management as wilderness. and managers to protect the values of contiguous Reduced park visitation under this alternative wilderness through compatible regulation and would be attuned with wilderness goals. management. Increased knowledge and understanding of wilderness characteristics and Redwood Canyon, Chimney Rock (the Jennie values would be a moderate, beneficial impact. Lakes addition), the North Fork of the Kaweah, In conjunction with designated wilderness in the and Hockett Plateau would be compatible with region, the preferred alternative would result in a designation as wilderness. All of these areas major, beneficial, long-term impacts since it include giant sequoia groves. Designation of would help ensure that the values of this Redwood Canyon would increase protection for contiguous wilderness area and opportunities for park caves. Managing these areas as wilderness wilderness recreation would be protected. would be compatible and consistent with the alternative vision to emphasize natural systems and biodiversity. Conclusion If and when facilities were removed at Oriole A very small additional amount of park land Lake and Bearpaw Meadow, these areas would would be compatible and consistent with be designated as wilderness. Because these areas management as wilderness under the preferred total only 57 acres, impacts would be negligible, alternative, which would protect ecosystem beneficial, and long term, the same as the no- diversity, preserve park character, and accom­ action alternative. modate sustainable growth. Primarily as a result of improving education about wilderness values, As described for the no-action alternative, the the preferred alternative would have negligible Mineral King area would be studied through a to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on public process to make a recommendation to wilderness values and recreational opportunities. Congress about possible future wilderness At the same time, potentially expanding the designation. popular backcountry high Sierra tent-hotel concept would result in a negligible, adverse, Visitor education focused on resource protec­ long-term impact. tion, stewardship, and leave-no-trace practices would likely better inform park visitors about The core of the second largest designated wil­ wilderness and wilderness values. Wilderness derness area in the lower 48 states would be recreational opportunities and values are highly protected, a major, beneficial, long-term impact. valued by park visitors. Opportunities to experi­

191 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ence primeval areas and solitude by participating ness (723,036 acres) and 12.53% (108,438 in primitive or unconfined recreation could acres) would be compatible with management as expand slightly, resulting in minor, beneficial, wilderness, for a total of 831,474 acres (96.09% long-term impacts for park visitors. of the parks) that would be managed consistent with backcountry / wilderness prescriptions. Compared to the no-action alternative, areas Cumulative Impacts compatible with management as wilderness could decrease by around 32 acres since the As described for the no-action alternative, cumu­ Bearpaw Meadow high Sierra camp would lative impacts are based on an analysis of past, remain, resulting in a negligible, adverse, long- present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the term impact on wilderness values since the area southern Sierra Nevada that could affect wilder­ is small. ness designation or values. In conjunction with designated wilderness in the region, the actions Redwood Canyon, Chimney Rock (Jennie Lakes of alternative A would result in no perceivable addition), the majority of the North Fork of the change. However, the values of this contiguous Kaweah, and Hockett Plateau would be compat­ wilderness area and opportunities for wilderness ible with designation as wilderness. All of these recreation would be protected through compati­ areas include giant sequoia groves. Designation ble regulation and management by continuing to of Redwood Canyon would increase protection work with adjacent agencies and managers, a for park caves. Managing these areas as wilder­ major, beneficial, long-term impact. ness would be consistent with the alternative vision. Bearpaw Meadow would be retained as a representative of traditional backcountry use Conclusion patterns, resulting in negligible impacts on wilderness values due to the small size of its Reducing use and development could create a facilities. Traditional ranger programs would be park environment slightly more attuned to the primary means by which to reach park wilderness values. Similar to the no-action visitors with messages about wilderness values; alternative, over 96% of the parks would be however, since programs often take place in designated wilderness or would be compatible frontcountry campgrounds, they might not reach with management as wilderness. Minor, bene­ or inspire many backcountry users, resulting in ficial, long-term impacts on wilderness values negligible, adverse, long-term impacts on and recreation would result from reduced park wilderness values and recreational opportunities. visitation, management of slightly over 100 additional acres as compatible with wilderness, If and when facilities were removed at Oriole and increased education. Lake, this area would be designated as wilder­ ness. The impact would be negligible, beneficial, The core of the second largest designated and long term, the same as the no-action wilderness area in the lower 48 states would be alternative. protected, a major, beneficial, long-term impact. As described for the no-action alternative, the Wilderness values would not be impaired. Mineral King area would be studied through a public process to make a recommendation to Congress about possible future wilderness IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C designation. Opportunities for recreation in protected wilder­ Analysis ness and opportunities to experience primeval areas and solitude by participating in primitive Under alternative C 83.56% of the parks would or unconfined recreation would remain similar continue to be managed as designated wilder­

192 Backcountry / Wilderness: Impacts of Alternative D to the no-action alternative, resulting in a wilderness, for a total of 773,332 acres (89.38% negligible, beneficial, long-term impact. of the parks) that would be managed consistent with backcountry / wilderness prescriptions. Compared to the no-action alternative, areas Cumulative Impacts compatible with wilderness management would be reduced by 58,174 acres, or 6.7% of the As described for the no-action alternative, parks, a minor, adverse, long-term impact on cumulative impacts are based on an analysis of wilderness values and recreational opportunities. past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions The more social and backcountry focus of in the southern Sierra Nevada that could affect alternative D would allow larger group sizes but wilderness designation or values. In conjunction would concentrate use along major trails, with designated wilderness in the region, the resulting in minor, adverse, long-term impacts actions of the alternative C would result in on solitude and unconfined recreation. Addi­ major, beneficial, long-term impacts and would tional designated campsites would be likely help ensure that the values of this contiguous along major trails, resulting in a minor, adverse, wilderness area and opportunities for wilderness long-term impact on primitive recreation free recreation would be protected through compati­ from evidence of humans. ble regulation and management by continuing to work with adjacent agencies and managers. Wilderness designation would not be sought for Hockett Plateau or the Chimney Rock area of the Jennie Lakes addition so that additional Conclusion primitive backcountry facilities could be provided. However, these areas would remain Like the other alternatives, over 96% of the roadless, so the impact on wilderness values and parks would be managed as designated wilder­ recreational opportunities would be minor, ness or would be compatible with management adverse, and long term. as wilderness. Negligible, adverse, long-term impacts on wilderness characteristics would Under this alternative Hockett Plateau (56,315 result from reducing the amount of compatible acres) would generally continue to be managed area by 32 acres. Traditional ranger programs compatibly with wilderness characteristics, but a are not likely to reach or inspire many back­ change in management would be required to country users, resulting in negligible, adverse, allow the establishment of an additional high long-term impacts on wilderness values and Sierra camp in this area because this area is recreational opportunities. managed consistent with wilderness policies. Redwood Canyon and the majority of the North The core of the second largest designated Fork of the Kaweah (except for 71 acres asso­ wilderness area in the lower 48 states would be ciated with the Colony Mill Road trail corridor, protected, a major, beneficial, long-term impact. for which a change in management would be required to allow for bicycle use) would be Wilderness values would not be impaired. compatible with designation as wilderness. The Chimney Rock area (Jennie Lakes addition) would be managed compatibly with wilderness, IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D but designated primitive backcountry campsites would be provided. These areas include giant Analysis sequoia groves. Designation of Redwood Canyon would increase protection for park Under alternative D 83.56% of the parks would caves. Managing these areas as wilderness continue to be managed as designated wilder­ would be consistent with the alternative vision to ness (723,036 acres) and 5.81% (50,296 acres) instill park conservation values. would be compatible with management as

193 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

If and when facilities were removed at Oriole time backcountry and wilderness education Lake, this area would be designated as wilder­ would increase, a minor, beneficial, impact for ness. This would result in a negligible, bene­ some visitors. In conjunction with designated ficial, long-term impact, the same as the no- wilderness in the region, alternative D would action alternative. result in a major, beneficial, long-term impact because the core of the second largest wilderness As described for the no-action alternative, the area in the lower 48 states would be protected Mineral King area and the Dillonwood addition through compatible regulation and management to Sequoia National Park would be studied by continuing to work with adjacent agencies through a public process to determine their and managers, similar to the other alternatives. wilderness suitability and to make a recom­ mendation to Congress about possible future wilderness designation. Conclusion

Educational programs for visitors would be Under alternative D 89.37% of the parks would emphasized under this alternative, and more be managed as designated wilderness or as people would likely learn about the values of compatible with wilderness. A slight decrease in wilderness resources. It is also more likely that areas compatible with wilderness would be designated wilderness areas would be delin­ consistent with guided growth and adaptation to eated, making it more obvious to visitors when changing users under this alternative, while re­ they entered wilderness. Park visitors highly taining the basic park character. Increased visitor value wilderness recreational opportunities and education on resource protection and steward­ education. Alternative D would support a ship, as well as teaching backcountry skills, diverse educational thrust that would seek to could make visitors more aware of wilderness make more visitors comfortable with their designation and values. However, as a result of backcountry skills, resulting in minor to moder­ more concentrated use by larger groups, the ate, beneficial, long-term impacts on visitor impact of this alternative on wilderness values understanding of wilderness values. would be negligible to moderate, adverse, and long term.

Cumulative Impacts The core of the second largest designated wilderness area in the lower 48 states would be As described for the no-action alternative, cumu­ protected, a major, beneficial, long-term impact. lative impacts are based on an analysis of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the Wilderness values would not be impaired. southern Sierra Nevada that could affect wilderness designation or values. Additional facilities under alternative D would have a negligible to minor adverse effect on the values of this contiguous wilderness area. At the same

194 Cultural Resources

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND public lands; establishes confidentiality provisions for sensitive site location POLICIES information where the release of such information may endanger resources. Numerous acts, regulations, and NPS policies provide direction for the protection, preserva­ • American Indian Religious Freedom Act tion, and management of cultural resources on — protects and preserves for American public lands. Further, these laws and policies Indians access to sites, use and possession establish what must be considered in general of sacred objects, and the freedom to management planning and how cultural re­ worship through ceremonials and sources must be managed in future undertakings traditional rites resulting from the approved plan regardless of • The Native American Graves Protection the final alternative chosen. and Repatriation Act of 1990 — estab­ • The NPS Organic Act — The National lishes procedures for determining the final Park Service is mandated to conserve disposition of any human remains, historic objects within national park funerary objects, or objects of cultural system areas and to provide for their patrimony that are discovered on public enjoyment. lands or during the course of a federal undertaking. • The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and “Regulations of the Advisory • Executive Order 13007 — establishes Council on Historic Preservation” (36 responsibility to (1) accommodate access CFR Part 800) — Section 106 requires to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred that federal agencies take into account the sites by Indian religious practitioners, and effect of their undertakings on properties (2) avoid adversely affecting the physical that are listed on, or eligible for listing on, integrity of such sacred sites the National Register of Historic Places, • The 1995 “Secretary of the Interior’s and it provides the Advisory Council on Standards for the Treatment of Historic Historic Preservation the reasonable op­ Properties with Guidelines for Preserv portunity to comment. Section 110 of the ing, Rehabilitating, Restoring and act further requires federal land managers Reconstructing Historic Buildings” (36 to establish programs in consultation with CFR 68) (“Secretary’s Standards”) — state historic preservation offices for the This guideline sets forth standards to be identification, evaluation, nomination, and used when planning, undertaking, and protection of properties listed on or supervising projects involving the eligible for the national register. The preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, National Park Service takes into account and/or reconstruction of historic prop­ the effects of site planning and operations erties listed on or eligible for listing on on historic properties under the provisions the National Register of Historic Places. of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the • “Curation of Federally Owned and Advisory Council on Historic Preserva­ Administered Archeological Collections” tion, and the Conference of State Historic (36 CFR 79) — stipulates guidelines and Preservation Officers. procedures for the proper curation and management of archeological collections • Archeological Resources Protection Act owned or administered by federal of 1979 — requires the protection and agencies. preservation of archeological resources on

195 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• Applicable agency policies relevant to affected, national register eligible or listed cultural resources include chapter 5 of the cultural resources; and (4) considering ways to NPS Management Policies 2001, avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. Director’s Order #28: Cultural Resource Management, NPS-28: Cultural Resource Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a Management Guideline, and Director’s determination of either adverse effect or no Order #24: Museum Collections adverse effect must also be made for affected Management. resources listed on or eligible for the national register. METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING •An adverse effect occurs whenever an action would alter, directly or indirectly, IMPACTS any characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it for inclusion on the Potential impacts (direct, indirect, and national register, e.g. diminishing the cumulative effects) are described in terms of integrity of its location (or the extent to type (are the effects beneficial or adverse?), which a resource retains its historic duration (are the effects short-term — lasting up appearance), design, setting, materials, to 5 years, long-term — lasting 5–20 years, or workmanship, feeling, or association. permanent?), and intensity (is the degree or Adverse effects also include reasonably severity of effects negligible, minor, moderate, foreseeable effects caused by the alterna­ or major?). Because definitions of intensity tives that would occur later in time, be (negligible, minor, moderate, or major) vary by farther removed in distance, or be cumu­ cultural resource, intensity definitions are lative (36 CFR 800.5, “Assessment of provided separately for each cultural resource Adverse Effects”). analyzed. • A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the effect Impacts to Cultural Resources and would not alter the characteristics of the Section 106 of the National Historic cultural resource that qualify it for Preservation Act inclusion on the national register.

Describing impacts to cultural resources in terms Mitigation Measures and Section 106 of type, duration, and intensity is consistent with the regulations of the Council on Environmental CEQ regulations and the NPS Director’s Order Quality that implement the National Environ­ #12 also call for a discussion of mitigation, as mental Policy Act. The following impact well as an analysis of how effective the miti­ analyses are intended, however, to reflect the gation would be in reducing the intensity of a requirements of both the National Environmen­ potential impact, e.g. reducing the intensity of an tal Policy Act and section 106 of the National impact from major to moderate or minor. Any Historic Preservation Act. In accordance with resultant reduction in intensity of impact due to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s mitigation, however, is an estimate of the regulations implementing section 106 (36 CFR effectiveness of mitigation only under the Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties”), National Environmental Policy Act. It does not impacts to cultural resources were also identified suggest that the level of effect as defined by and evaluated by (1) determining the area of section 106 is similarly reduced. Cultural potential effects; (2) identifying cultural re­ resources are nonrenewable resources, and sources present in the area of potential effects adverse effects generally consume, diminish, or that are either listed on or eligible to be listed on destroy the original historic materials or form, the National Register of Historic Places; (3) resulting in a loss in the integrity of the resource applying the criteria of adverse effect to that can never be recovered. Therefore, although

196 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative actions determined to have an adverse effect Impact Thresholds for Historic Structures, under section 106 may be mitigated, the effect Districts, and Cultural Landscapes remains adverse. Negligible — The impact would be at the lowest A section 106 summary is included in the impact levels of detection, with neither adverse nor analysis sections. This is an assessment of the beneficial consequences. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect of the undertaking (implementation of effect. the alternative) only on cultural resources listed on or eligible for the National Register Minor — Adverse impact: The alteration of a fea­ of Historic Places, based on the criteria of effect ture or features would not diminish the integrity and adverse effect found in the Advisory of the resource. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect. Council’s regulations. Beneficial impact: Features would be stabilized or preserved in accordance with the Secretary’s HISTORIC STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, Standards. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect. AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Moderate — Adverse impact: The alteration of a feature or features would diminish the integrity Impacts of the No-Action Alternative of the resource. The determination of effect under section 106 would be adverse effect. A Analysis memorandum of agreement would be exe­ cuted among the National Park Service and the Under this alternative all potentially historic applicable state or tribal h istoric preservation structures, districts, and landscapes would be officer and, if necessary, the Advisory Council inventoried and evaluated under National on Historic Preservation, in accordance with 36 Register of Historic Places criteria to determine CFR 800.6(b). Measures identified in the their eligibility for listing on the register, and the agreement to minimize or mitigate adverse listing process would be completed for those impacts would reduce the intensity of impact resources that were determined eligible. Historic under the National Environmental Policy Act structures, districts, and landscapes would be from major to moderate. preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used in Beneficial impact: A structure or landscape accordance with the “Secretary’s Standards.” would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Where adverse effects such as removal or Secretary’s Standards. The determination of neglect were unavoidable, mitigation measures effect under section 106 would be no adverse would be determined through consultation with effect. the California state historic preservation officer. Major — Adverse impact: The alteration of a feature or features would diminish the integrity Historic structures could suffer wear and tear of the resource. The determination of effect from increased visitation, but the carrying under section 106 would be adverse effect. capacity of historic structures would be Measures to minimize or mitigate adverse monitored and visitation levels or constraints impacts cannot be agreed upon, and the could be imposed that would contribute to the National Park Service and applicable state or stability or integrity of the resources without tribal historic preservation officer and/or the unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. Advisory Council are unable to negotiate and Unstaffed or minimally staffed structures could execute a memorandum of agreement in be more susceptible to vandalism. Any adverse accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b). impacts would range in intensity from negligible Beneficial impact: A structure or landscape to minor and be long term or permanent. would be restored in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect.

197 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Criteria for Determining Impairment for the preservation and safe use of this historically significant highway. An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a Backcountry. Historic structures, districts, and resource or value whose conservation is landscapes in the backcountry, such as historic • necessary to fulfill specific purposes identi­ ranger cabins, the Smithsonian Institution shelter fied in the establishing legislation or (the Mount Whitney shelter), the Pear Lake ski proclamation of the park; hut, and the Shorty Lovelace Historic District • key to the natural or cultural integrity of cabins, would be preserved. The result would be the park or to opportunities for enjoyment minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on these of the park; or resources. • identified as a goal in the park’s general The surveys and research necessary to determine management plan or other relevant NPS the eligibility of a structure, district, or land­ planning documents. scape for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are a prerequisite for under­ standing the resource’s significance, as well as the basis of informed decision-making in the Careful design would ensure that the rehabilita­ future regarding how the resource should be tion of parking areas and the expansion or managed. Such surveys and research would development of trails would minimally affect the result in negligible to minor, beneficial, long- scale and visual relationships among landscape term impacts. features. In addition, the topography, vegetation, circulation features, and land use patterns of any Kings Canyon National Park. Cedar Grove historic district or cultural landscape would and the Floor of the Kings Canyon — Preserving remain largely unaltered. Any adverse impacts Knapp’s cabin would result in minor, beneficial, would range in intensity from negligible to long-term impacts. The surveys and research minor and would be long term or permanent. necessary to determine the eligibility of a structure, district, or landscape for listing on the Generals Highway. Continuing to rebuild the National Register of Historic Places are a Generals Highway pursuant to an existing prerequisite for understanding the resource’s memorandum of agreement among the National significance, as well as the basis of informed Park Service, the state historic preservation decision-making in the future regarding how the officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic resource should be managed. Such surveys and Preservation would sustain existing traffic research would result in negligible to minor, volume and preserve the historical character of beneficial, long-term impacts. the road and its corridor. Historic resources that contribute to the significance of the Generals Grant Grove — Completing the national register Highway would be preserved, including the Ash process for General Grant National Park Historic Mountain entrance sign, the Hospital Rock District would help ensure that historic struc­ automobile watering station and stone water tures that contribute to the significance of the fountain, Tunnel Rock, the Clover Creek and historic district would be preserved and adap­ Marble Fork bridges, as well as CCC rock work tively used for essential services, such as along the roadway. Operations associated with lodging, housing, and park operations. Impacts rebuilding the road would have negligible to on historic resources that were preserved would minor, adverse visual impacts during construc­ be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term. tion. Even though rebuilding the road would Preserving the Redwood Mountain residence have some minor, permanent, adverse impacts and historic structures in the vicinity of the because some historic fabric would be lost, General Grant Tree, such as the Gamlin cabin, rebuilding the road would result in overall minor would result in minor, beneficial, long-term to moderate, beneficial, and long-term impacts

198 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative impacts to these historic resources. Retaining continued use of the CCC recreation hall at Ash NPS-owned historic structures in the Wilsonia Mountain for that purpose would have minor, Historic District could result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. Inventorying and beneficial, long-term impacts on the district’s evaluating Mission ‘66 structures and preserving resources if they were stabilized or preserved. any that were determined eligible for listing on Privately owned structures in the Wilsonia the National Register of Historic Places would Historic District would remain, resulting in have minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. minor, beneficial, long-term impacts since the district would retain its historical integrity. Retaining trailer sites at the potential Sycamore CCC camp historic district would have a minor, Big Stump Basin — Big Stump Basin would be adverse impact on the integrity of the historic assessed to determine its eligibility for listing on district. If determined eligible for listing on the the National Register of Historic Places as a national register, structures in the potential cultural landscape. Managing the basin to illus­ Sycamore CCC historic district (including the trate a recovering giant sequoia grove would recreation hall) would be preserved, thus having result in the area gradually becoming overgrown minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on these with vegetation, reducing the visual impact of resources. logging. The impact on the cultural landscape would be moderate to major, adverse, and Preserving the historic Colony Mill Road as a permanent because cultural landscape features historic right-of-way would have minor, bene­ would inevitably be overgrown. ficial, long-term impacts.

Sequoia National Park. Lodgepole-Wuksachi The Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation (including Dorst Campground, Wuksachi system would be discontinued when the permit Village, Lodgepole Village, and Wolverton for these facilities expires in 2006. (Hydro­ vicinities) — Evaluating historic structures at electric power generation is a nonconforming Lodgepole and Wolverton to determine their use in the national parks.) Facilities would be eligibility for listing on the National Register of removed in accordance with a plan prepared by Historic Places, and preserving and adaptively the owner in consultation with the National Park reusing them if they were eligible, would have Service and the state historic preservation moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. officer. The plan would fully analyze the im­ Preserving historic structures at Wolverton, the pacts of this action. Removing the hydroelectric Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormitory, facilities and returning the areas to natural and the Lost Grove comfort station would have conditions would likely result in moderate to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. major, adverse, permanent impacts on historic properties because the integrity of functioning Giant Forest — Continuing to adaptively use historic resources would be lost. Mitigation of the market as a museum; rehabilitating and the adverse effects would include documentation interpreting the ranger’s residence and comfort to HABS/HAER/HALS standards. (Hydro­ station; and preserving and interpreting the electric facilities are a special permitted use that Cattle cabin, Squatter’s cabin, and Tharp’s Log is not related to the parks’ purpose and would continue to result in minor to moderate, significance.) beneficial, long-term impacts on historic structures in Giant Forest. Mineral King — Preserving contributing re­ sources of the Mineral King Road Cultural Ash Mountain / Foothills — Preserving historic Landscape District, including the historical residences in the upper Ash Mountain housing character of the road corridor, NPS historic area and the landscape of the potential Ash facilities, the Atwell Mill ranger station and Mountain historic district would have minor, garage, the Atwell Mill site, and the Lookout beneficial, long-term impacts. Preservation and Point residence and garage, would generally

199 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES have minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. groves. Past construction projects such as the However, phasing out cabins in the Cabin Cove, Generals Highway improvements, hydroelectric West Mineral King, and East Mineral King areas production, and the development associated with (according to permit conditions) and restoring Grant Grove, Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and cleared areas to natural conditions would result Mineral King resulted in the loss of historic in moderate to major, adverse, permanent effects structures and the loss or alteration of landscape to the cultural landscape district because some of elements (structures, vegetation, circulation the resources contributing to the significance of features, spatial organization, or land use the cultural landscape would be lost. patterns). In addition, to protect and preserve the internationally significant sequoia groves (the The historic character (alignment and width) of primary reason that the parks were established), the Mineral King Road corridor would be locally significant structures, districts, and land­ preserved. This would result in minor, bene­ scapes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National ficial, long-term impacts to the roadway and the Parks were removed and/or altered. During appurtenances associated with its immediate 1998–99 most structures in the Giant Forest area right-of-way. (some of which dated back to the 1920s) were removed pursuant to a memorandum of agree­ Because the National Park Service would not ment among the National Park Service, the attempt to arrest the continuing deterioration of California state historic preservation officer, and moldering mining remnants at Mineral King, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. these resources would be ultimately lost, Only the ranger’s residence, the comfort station, resulting in moderate to major, adverse, the market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall permanent impacts. were preserved. Adverse impacts associated with visitor access and natural processes were The nearby recreational community of Silver generally long term and negligible to minor in City (an inholding within the park) is historically intensity, but the adverse impacts associated similar to the Cabin Cove, West Mineral King, with the removal of historic structures and loss and East Mineral King permit cabin areas. The or alteration of landscape elements were long community consists of privately owned term or permanent and of moderate to major properties and has not been evaluated for intensity. national register eligibility. While privately owned property can be evaluated for the national Concurrent or reasonably foreseeable future register, properties cannot be listed without the actions occurring throughout the region, such as owner’s permission. the potential expansion of visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth Dillonwood — Facilities at Dillonwood would of communities and subdivision development in be assessed to determine if they are eligible for Tulare County, and proposed improvements to listing on the National Register of Historic Highways 180 and 65 by the California Depart­ Places. The preservation of any historic prop­ ment of Transportation, have the potential to erties would result in minor, beneficial, long- disturb historic structures, districts, and cultural term impacts. landscapes outside the parks’ boundaries. Unavoidable adverse impacts to resources eligible for the national register could range in Cumulative Impacts intensity from minor to major, depending on the resource affected. Over the years historic structures, districts, and cultural landscapes have been adversely im­ Implementation of the no-action alternative pacted by the wear and tear associated with would contribute minor to moderate, beneficial, visitor access, natural processes such as long-term impacts, as well as moderate to major, weathering and erosion, development, and the adverse, long-term or permanent impacts, to the restoration of natural conditions in sequoia

200 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative cumulative impacts of other past, present, and adverse effect, the following actions under this reasonably foreseeable future actions. The alternative would have no adverse effects within overall cumulative impact associated with the the national parks: no-action alternative, however, would be • inventorying and evaluating all potentially adverse. eligible cultural resources in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to deter­ Conclusion mine their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and The no-action alternative would result in minor submitting nomination forms to the to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on keeper of the national register for listing historic structures, districts, and landscapes that • rebuilding the Generals Highway and its would be preserved and adaptively used by the appurtenant structures, preserving historic National Park Service for interpretive purposes structures in the vicinity of Giant Forest, or park operations. Impacts of removing facili­ or preserving historic properties in the ties associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydro­ backcountry (including historic ranger electric generation system would be fully ana­ cabins, the Mount Whitney shelter, and lyzed in a plan prepared by the owner in consul­ the Pear Lake ski hut) tation with the National Park Service and the state historic preservation officer; impacts would • preserving and adaptively using Knapp’s likely be moderate to major, adverse, and cabin, structures in the General Grant Na­ permanent because the integrity of functioning tional Park Historic District, the Redwood historic resources would be lost. Mitigation of Mountain residence, and NPS historic the adverse effects would include documentation structures in the Wilsonia Historic District to HABS/HAER/HALS standards. (Hydroelec­ • preserving the Lost Creek comfort station; tric facilities are a special permitted use that is preserving and adaptively using the Cabin not related to the parks’ purpose and signifi­ Creek ranger residence and dormitory; cance.) Mineral King permit cabins would be stabilizing or preserving identified histor­ removed, resulting in moderate to major, ad­ ic structures and landscapes in the poten­ verse, permanent impacts on the cultural tial Lodgepole, Wolverton, Ash Moun­ landscape district because individual contri­ tain, and Sycamore CCC camp historic buting elements would be removed. districts; and preserving the Colony Mill Road as a historic right-of-way Despite the moderate to major, adverse, perma­ nent impact of this alternative on the Mineral • preserving the Atwell Mill ranger station King Road Cultural Landscape District, there and garage, the Atwell Mill site, the would be no major adverse impacts on resources Lookout Point residence, contributing or values necessary to fulfill specific purposes resources to the Mineral King Road identified in the enabling legislation or procla­ Cultural Landscape District that are used mations for the parks, or key to the natural or as essential NPS historic facilities; and cultural integrity of the parks or to opportunities maintaining / preserving the historic for the enjoyment of the parks. There would be character of the Mineral King Road no impairment of park resources or values. corridor (alignment and width) This alternative would result in adverse effects to historic structures, districts, and landscapes in Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, the national parks from the following actions: Section 106 • managing the Big Stump Basin (if deter­ In accordance with the regulations of the mined eligible as a historic landscape) as Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 a recovering giant sequoia grove, CFR 800.5) that address the criteria of effect and

201 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

resulting in the area gradually returning to line was installed and the trench backfilled, the natural conditions disturbed ground would be restored to its pre- construction contour and condition. Any adverse • removing some permit cabins in the Cabin impacts associated with construction during the Cove, West Mineral King, and East installation of underground utilities would be Mineral King areas, some of which are negligible and short term. contributing elements of the district, in order to allow the restoration of natural Historic structures could suffer wear and tear conditions from increased visitation, but the carrying • removing facilities associated with the capacity of historic structures would be moni­ Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation tored, and visitation levels or constraints could system and returning areas to natural be imposed that would contribute to the stability conditions or integrity of the resources without unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or • allowing mining remnants at Mineral minimally staffed structures could be more sus­ King to continue to molder ceptible to vandalism. Any adverse impacts would be negligible to minor in intensity and Impacts of the Preferred Alternative long term or permanent in duration.

Analysis Generals Highway. Like the no-action alterna­ tive, the National Park Service would continue Under this alternative, as described for the no- to rebuild the Generals Highway. Operations action alternative, all potentially historic struc­ associated with rebuilding the road would have tures, districts, and landscapes would be inven­ negligible to minor, adverse visual impacts toried and evaluated under National Register of during construction. Even though rebuilding the Historic Places criteria to determine their eligi­ road would have some minor, permanent, bility for listing on the register, and the listing adverse impacts because some historic fabric process would be completed for those resources would be lost, rebuilding the road would result determined to be eligible. Historic structures, in overall minor to moderate, beneficial, and districts, and landscapes would be preserved, long-term impacts for the preservation and safe restored, rehabilitated, and adaptively used in use of this historically significant highway. accordance with the “Secretary’s Standards.” Although actions under this alternative could Where adverse effects such as removal or result in changing use and visitor experience of neglect were unavoidable, mitigation measures Generals Highway, historic structures and would be determined through consultation with landscapes associated with the highway would the California state historic preservation officer. not change.

Numerous diverse historic facilities would be Backcountry. The following impacts would be preserved and adaptively reused, resulting in similar to the no-action alternative: minor to moderate, beneficial impacts to cultural • preserving historic structures, districts and resources over the long term. landscapes in the backcountry (such as historic ranger cabins, the Mount Whitney The undergrounding of utilities would have shelter, the Pear Lake ski hut, and the minimal, if any, effects on topography, spatial Shorty Lovelace Historic District cabins) organization, or land use patterns of historic — minor, beneficial, long-term impacts districts or cultural landscapes. If the above- ground utilities were contributing elements to a • conducting surveys and research historic district or cultural landscape, placing necessary to determine the eligibility of a them underground would be a minor, adverse, structure, district, or landscape for listing long-term impact. Once the underground utility on the National Register of Historic

202 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Places (a prerequisite for understanding Big Stump Basin — As described under the no- the resource’s significance, as well as the action alternative, the National Park Service basis of informed decision-making in the would evaluate the Big Stump Basin under future regarding how the resource should National Register of Historic Places criteria to be managed) — negligible to minor, determine its eligibility for listing on the beneficial, long-term impacts. national register as a historic landscape. If eligible, managing a portion of the basin to Kings Canyon National Park. Cedar Grove preserve its visible logging history would result and the Floor of the Kings Canyon — The in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on impacts of this alternative would be the same as potential cultural landscape features. However, for the no-action alternative: the inevitable loss of cultural landscape values in • preserving Knapp’s cabin — minor, part of the basin managed as a recovering se­ beneficial, long-term impact quoia grove would have moderate to major, • conducting surveys and research neces­ adverse, long-term impacts on potential cultural sary to determine the eligibility of a landscape features. structure, district, or landscape for listing Sequoia National Park. Lodgepole-Wuksachi on the National Register of Historic — The impacts of preserving and adaptively Places (a prerequisite for understanding using the Cabin Creek ranger residence and the resource’s significance, as well as the dormitory and preserving the Lost Grove basis of informed decision-making in the comfort station would be minor to moderate, future regarding how the resource should long term, and beneficial, as described for the be managed) — negligible to minor, no-action alternative. beneficial, long-term impacts Grant Grove — Under the preferred alternative Surveys and research necessary to determine the NPS-owned historic structures in the Wilsonia eligibility of a structure, district, or landscape for Historic District would be preserved and adap­ listing on the National Register of Historic tively reused. This would result in minor to Places (a prerequisite for understanding the moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. resource’s significance, as well as the basis of Privately owned historic structures would informed decision-making in the future regard­ remain, resulting in minor, beneficial impacts to ing how the resource should be managed) would the integrity of the Wilsonia Historic District. result in negligible to minor, beneficial, long- The Land Protection Plan would be updated to term impacts. Preserving historic structures at acknowledge the national register status of the Lodgepole and Wolverton that could be adap­ Wilsonia Historic District tively reused would have minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. In order to meet The following impacts would be similar to those critical housing needs for the parks, new infill for the no-action alternative: housing at Lodgepole and relocated housing • preserving and adaptively using structures from Wolverton would be provided, resulting in contributing to the significance of the minor, adverse, long-term impacts on the setting General Grant National Park Historic of the potential historic district, but this action District — minor to moderate, beneficial, would be mitigated through consultation with long-term impacts the state historic preservation officer. • preserving and adaptively using the Red­ Giant Forest — As described for the no-action wood Mountain residence and historic alternative, impacts as a result of preserving, structures in the vicinity of the General rehabilitating, adaptively using, and interpreting Grant Tree (such as the Gamlin cabin) — the market, the ranger’s residence and comfort minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term station, and the Cattle cabin, Squatter’s cabin, impacts and Tharp’s Log would continue to result in

203 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term Mineral King — Under the preferred alternative, impacts. preserving selected historic properties that illus­ trate historic themes related to the Mineral King Ash Mountain / Foothills — Under the preferred area (such as logging, mining, recreational com­ alternative, removing trailers in the Sycamore munities, the conservation movement, and housing area would result in moderate, bene­ national park evolution) would result in minor, ficial impacts on the historic landscape of the beneficial, long-term impacts to the selected potential Sycamore CCC camp historic district. resources.

The Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation The National Park Service would acquire special system would be discontinued when the permit use permit cabins for public use. Two thirds of for these facilities terminates in 2006. Facility the over 60 permit cabins are contributing removal and the reestablishment of natural elements of the Mineral King Road Cultural conditions would be done in accordance with a Landscape District. Planning for the preserva­ plan developed by the owner in consultation tion and public use of permit cabins would with the National Park Service and the state follow approval of the general management plan historic preservation officer. Impacts would be and would occur in consultation with the state fully analyzed in that plan. Removing some historic preservation officer and others. Imple­ facilities and returning the areas to natural mentation planning could address the following: conditions would result in moderate to major, (1) appropriate sustainable public uses for adverse, permanent impacts because the integ­ acquired cabins; (2) cabins to be retained for rity of functioning historic resources would be public use; (3) a strategy to ensure that cabins lost. Mitigation of the adverse effects would and related utilities meet appropriate codes; (4) a include documentation to HABS/HAER/HALS viable management / maintenance strategy, standards. (Hydroelectric facilities are a special including an appropriate treatment method permitted use that is not related to the parks’ according to the “Secretary’s Standards”; (5) a purpose and significance.) plan to identify any hazardous materials, along with a remediation plan; (6) a self-sustaining Other impacts on historic structures in the Ash funding strategy, as well as short- and long-term Mountain / Foothills vicinity would be the same financing; and (7) a decision tree for manage­ as the no-action alternative: ment in case of natural disaster (such as high • evaluating and preserving historic resi­ winds, tree falls, or flooding). Therefore, overall dences in the upper Ash Mountain hous­ impacts would be minor to moderate, beneficial, ing area, the landscape of the potential and long term for specific structures, the district, Ash Mountain historic district, and struc­ and the landscape because historic resources that tures in the potential Sycamore CCC contribute to the significance of the cultural camp historic district, including the recre­ landscape district would be preserved. ation hall (if determined eligible for list­ ing on the national register) — minor, The nearby recreational community of Silver beneficial, long-term impacts City (an inholding within the park) is historically similar to the Cabin Cove, West Mineral King, • evaluating and preserving the historic and East Mineral King permit cabin areas. The Colony Mill Road as a trail — minor, community consists of privately owned proper­ beneficial, long-term impacts ties, which have not been evaluated for their • inventorying and evaluating Mission ‘66 national register eligibility. While privately structures and preserving any that were owned property can be evaluated for the national determined eligible for listing on the register, properties cannot be listed without the National Register of Historic Places — owner’s permission. minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts

204 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

The following impacts would be the same as for agreement among the National Park Service, the the no-action alternative: California state historic preservation officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. • preserving contributing resources of the Only the ranger’s residence, the comfort station, Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape the market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall District (the Atwell Mill ranger station, were preserved. Adverse impacts associated garage, and mill site, and the Lookout with visitor access and natural processes were Point residence) — minor, beneficial, generally long term and negligible to minor in long-term impacts intensity, but the adverse impacts associated • preserving the historic character (align­ with the removal of historic structures and the ment and width) of the Mineral King loss or alteration of landscape elements were Road corridor — minor, beneficial long term or permanent and of moderate to impacts over the long term major intensity. • allowing some mining remnants at Concurrent or reasonably foreseeable future Mineral King to molder — moderate to actions occurring throughout the region, such as major, adverse, long-term impacts the potential expansion of visitor facilities in Dillonwood — As described for the no-action Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth alternative, preserving any historic properties of communities and subdivision development in determined eligible for listing on the national Tulare County, and proposed improvements to register would result in direct, minor, long-term California Highways 180 and 65 by the beneficial impacts. California Department of Transportation, have the potential to disturb historic structures, districts, and cultural landscapes outside the Cumulative Impacts parks’ boundaries. Impacts to resources eligible for the national register that could not be As described for the no-action alternative, over avoided could be adverse and range in intensity the years historic structures, districts, and from minor to major, depending on the resources cultural landscapes have been adversely affected. impacted by wear and tear associated with visitor access, natural processes such as As described above, the preferred alternative weathering and erosion, development, and the would contribute minor to moderate, beneficial, restoration of natural conditions in sequoia long-term impacts, as well as moderate to major, groves. Past construction projects, such as the adverse, long-term or permanent impacts, to the Generals Highway improvements, hydroelectric cumulative impacts of other past, present, and production, and the development associated with reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Grant Grove, Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and overall cumulative impact associated with the Mineral King, resulted in the loss of historic preferred alternative, however, would be structures and the loss or alteration of landscape adverse. elements (structures, vegetation, circulation features, spatial organization, or land use patterns). In addition, to protect and preserve the Conclusion internationally significant sequoia groves (the primary reason that the parks were established), The preferred alternative would preserve cultural locally significant structures, districts, and resources that portray the parks’ diverse cultural landscapes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon themes, with minor to moderate, beneficial, National Parks were removed or altered. During long-term effects for these properties. Removing 1998–99 most structures in the Giant Forest area some historic structures would generally have (some of which dated back to the 1920s) were moderate to major, adverse, short- and long-term removed pursuant to a memorandum of or permanent effects. Removing some facilities

205 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric Whitney shelter, the Pear Lake ski hut, generation system and returning areas to natural cabins associated with the Shorty conditions, in accordance with a plan prepared Lovelace Historic District) by the owner in consultation with the National • retaining, stabilizing, preserving, and Park Service and the state historic preservation adaptively using Knapp’s cabin, struc­ officer, would have moderate to major, adverse, tures in the potential General Grant permanent impacts. Mitigation of the adverse National Park Historic District, the effects would include documentation to HABS/ Redwood Mountain residence, and NPS HAER/HALS standards. (Hydroelectric facili­ historic structures in the Wilsonia Historic ties are a special permitted use that is not related District; managing the Big Stump Basin to the parks’ purpose and significance.) Retain­ to maintain its visible logging history, as ing, preserving, and adaptively reusing resources well as to illustrate a recovering giant contributing to the significance of the Mineral sequoia grove King Road Cultural Landscape District would have minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term • preserving the Lost Creek comfort station impacts. and preserving and adaptively using the Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormi­ Despite some moderate to major, adverse, per­ tory; stabilizing / preserving historic manent impacts on individual locally significant structures in the potential Lodgepole, cultural resource sites or districts (e.g., Kaweah Wolverton, Ash Mountain, and Sycamore no. 3), there would be no major adverse impacts CCC camp historic districts; removing on resources or values necessary to fulfill spe­ nonhistoric trailers in the Sycamore cific purposes identified in the enabling legis­ housing area; preserving the Colony Mill lation or proclamations for the parks, or key to Road as a trail the natural or cultural integrity of the parks or to • preserving the Atwell Mill ranger station opportunities for the enjoyment of the parks. and garage, the Atwell Mill site, the There would be no impairment of park resources Lookout Point residence, contributing or values. resources to the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District that are used Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, as essential NPS historic facilities Section 106 (facilities that were removed would be documented to HABS/HAER/HALS In accordance with the regulations of the standards to mitigate any adverse effect), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 and maintaining / preserving the historic CFR 800.5), the following actions within the character of the Mineral King Road parks would have no adverse effects: corridor (alignment and width) • inventorying and evaluating all potentially This alternative would result in adverse effects eligible cultural resources in Sequoia and to historic structures, districts, and landscapes Kings Canyon National Parks to deter­ within the parks from the following actions: mine their eligibility for listing on the • removing structures at Lodgepole and National Register of Historic Places, and Wolverton that could not be adaptively submitting nomination forms to the used (effects on the historic structures that keeper of the national register were removed as well as the historic • rebuilding the Generals Highway and its landscapes of those potential historic appurtenant structures, preserving historic districts) structures in the vicinity of Giant Forest, • removing some facilities associated with or preserving historic properties in the the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation backcountry (ranger cabins, the Mount

206 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative A

system and returning the areas to natural action was completed and the trench backfilled, conditions the disturbed ground would be restored to its pre-construction contour and condition. Any • allowing mining remnants at Mineral adverse impacts associated with construction King to continue to molder would be short term and negligible.

Impacts of Alternative A Historic structures could suffer wear and tear from increased visitation. Monitoring the Analysis carrying capacity of historic structures could result in the imposition of visitation levels or Under this alternative, as described for the no- constraints that would contribute to the stability action alternative, all potentially historic struc­ or integrity of the resources without unduly tures, districts, and landscapes would be inven­ hindering interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or toried and evaluated under National Register of minimally staffed structures could be more Historic Places criteria to determine their eligi­ susceptible to vandalism. Any adverse impacts bility for listing on the register, and the listing would be long term or permanent and range in process would be completed for those resources intensity from negligible to minor. that were determined eligible. Historic struc­ tures, districts, and landscapes would be pre­ Generals Highway. Continued rebuilding of the served, rehabilitated, and adaptively used in Generals Highway, as described under the no- accordance with the “Secretary’s Standards” and action alternative, would have negligible to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation minor, adverse visual impacts during construc­ Act. Where adverse effects such as removal or tion. Even though rebuilding the road would neglect were unavoidable, mitigation measures have some minor, permanent, adverse impacts would be determined through consultation with because some historic fabric would be lost, the California state historic preservation officer. rebuilding the road would result in overall minor to moderate, beneficial, and long-term impacts Key historic resources would be preserved and for the preservation and safe use of this adaptively reused under alternative A, resulting historically significant highway. Although in minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term actions under this alternative could result in impacts on those structures, districts, and changing use and visitor experience of Generals landscapes afforded preservation treatment. Highway, historic structures and landscapes However, implementation of this alternative associated with the highway would not change. could result in the removal of a number of historic structures that are associated with Backcountry. Preserving historic structures in patterns of local history (private or permit the backcountry (such as historic ranger cabins, recreation cabin communities at Wilsonia, Silver the Mount Whitney shelter, and the Pear Lake City and Mineral King). Such removal would ski hut) if they were needed for park operations, result in moderate to major, adverse, and long- would result in minor, beneficial, long-term term to permanent impacts on affected historic impacts on those structures that were preserved. structures, districts, and landscapes. If structures could not be used, they would be recorded and allowed to deteriorate, subject to As previously described, the undergrounding of consultation with the state historic preservation utilities would have minimal, if any, effect on officer, resulting in moderate to major, adverse, topography, spatial organization, or land use long-term impacts. patterns of historic districts or cultural land­ scapes. If aboveground utilities were contribut­ The surveys and research necessary to determine ing elements to a historic district or cultural the eligibility of a structure, district, or land­ landscape, placing them underground would be a scape for listing on the National Register of minor, adverse, long-term effect. Once the Historic Places, as well as establish a basis for

207 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES future resource management. Such surveys and permanent impacts to the historic district. Since research would result in negligible to minor, all privately owned land would be acquired, all beneficial, long-term impacts. cabins in the Wilsonia Historic District would eventually be removed and the area returned to Kings Canyon National Park. Cedar Grove natural conditions. The removal of all cabins in and the Floor of the Kings Canyon — Conduct­ the district would result in a moderate to major, ing surveys and research necessary to determine adverse, permanent impact since the integrity of the eligibility of a structure, district, or land­ the district would be lost. scape for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as establishing a basis Big Stump Basin — If Big Stump Basin was for future resource management, would result in determined eligible for listing on the National negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term im­ Register of Historic Places as a cultural land­ pacts, the same as under the no-action alterna­ scape, managing the basin to illustrate a recover­ tive. Under alternative A, however, allowing ing giant sequoia grove would result in the area Knapp’s cabin to molder would have a moderate gradually becoming overgrown with vegetation to major, adverse, long-term impact. and reducing the visual impact of logging. As described for the no-action alternative, the Grant Grove — Preserving some historic struc­ impact would be indirect, moderate to major, tures in the potential General Grant National adverse, and permanent. Park Historic District, particularly structures in the Grant Grove village area that could be adap­ Sequoia National Park. Lodgepole-Wuksachi tively used for park operations and administra­ — Similar to the no-action alternative, the Lost tion or for visitor services, would have minor to Grove comfort station would be preserved, re­ moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on some sulting in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. historic structures. All other contributing re­ However, under alternative A the Cabin Creek sources in the historic district would eventually ranger residence and dormitory would be be recorded and removed, subject to consultation recorded and removed, subject to consultation with the state historic preservation officer, re­ with the state historic preservation officer, re­ sulting in moderate to major, adverse, permanent sulting in moderate to major, adverse, permanent impacts on the structures that were removed. impacts to historic properties. Depending on how many structures were removed, the integrity of the historic district Historic structures, districts, and landscapes at could be affected, with moderate to major, Lodgepole and Wolverton would be surveyed adverse, permanent impacts. and evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Preserving historic properties in the vicinity of Places. At Lodgepole only historic structures the General Grant Tree, such as the Gamlin that could be adaptively used would be pre­ cabin, would result in minor, beneficial, long- served, resulting in minor to moderate, bene­ term impacts. ficial, long-term impacts for selected structures. However, the removal of other historic struc­ Recording the Redwood Mountain residence and tures in consultation with the state historic then removing it, subject to consultation with the preservation officer would result in moderate to state historic preservation officer, would result major, adverse, permanent impacts. Recording in a moderate to major, adverse, permanent and removing historic structures at Wolverton, impact because a historic resource would be lost. subject to consultation with the state historic preservation officer, would result in moderate to Recording and removing NPS structures in the major, adverse, permanent impacts to the Wilsonia Historic District, subject to consulta­ potential historic district. tion with the state historic preservation officer, would result in moderate to major, adverse,

208 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative A

Giant Forest — As described for the no-action Mineral King — Stabilizing and preserving his­ alternative, preserving, rehabilitating, and adap­ toric structures that could be used for essential tively using historic Giant Forest structures (the NPS functions and that contribute to the signifi­ market, the ranger’s residence and comfort cance of the cultural landscape district (the station, the Cattle cabin, Squatter’s cabin, and Atwell Mill ranger station and garage, the mill Tharp’s Log) would continue to result in minor site, and the Lookout Point residence) would to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts since result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts to national register properties would be preserved. those resources, similar to the preferred alterna­ tive. Other historic structures that are contribut­ Ash Mountain / Foothills — As described for the ing resources to the Mineral King Road Cultural no-action alternative, historic structures and Landscape District, however, would be recorded landscapes at Ash Mountain and the Sycamore and removed, subject to consultation with the CCC camp, as well as the Colony Mill Road, state historic preservation officer. Permit cabins would be inventoried and evaluated to determine in the Cabin Cove, West Mineral King, and East their eligibility for listing on the national register Mineral King areas would be phased out as historic districts and/or landscapes. A mini­ (according to provisions of the transfer legisla­ mum number of housing units would be pre­ tion), and natural conditions would be restored. served in the upper Ash Mountain housing area, These actions would result in moderate to major, having minor, beneficial, long-term impacts o adverse, permanent impacts to the cultural the potential historic district. Recording and landscape district since resources contributing to removing other historic residential structures at the significance of the district would be lost. As Ash Mountain, along with historic residential described for the no-action alternative, the structures at the Sycamore CCC camp and the historical character of the Mineral King Road CCC recreation hall at Ash Mountain, would corridor would be preserved; over the long-term result in moderate to major, adverse, permanent impacts would be minor and beneficial. impacts. Maintaining and preserving the Colony Mill Road as a trail would result in minor, bene­ Mining remnants at Mineral King would ficial, long-term impacts to that resource. continue to be allowed to deteriorate, resulting in moderate to major, adverse, permanent As described for the no-action alternative, the impacts. Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation system would be removed (in consultation with the state Dillonwood — The preservation of any historic historic preservation officer) because it is a properties that were determined to be eligible for nonconforming use in the national parks, and the listing on the National Register of Historic permit for these facilities is scheduled to termi­ Places would result in minor, beneficial, long- nate in 2006. Impacts would be fully analyzed in term impacts, as described for the no-action a plan prepared by the owner in consultation alternative. with the National Park Service and the state historic preservation officer. Removing the facil­ ities and returning the areas to natural conditions Cumulative Impacts would likely result in moderate to major, adverse, permanent impacts because the integ­ As described for the no-action alternative, over rity of functioning historic resources would be the years historic structures, districts, and cul­ lost. Mitigation of the adverse effects would tural landscapes have been adversely impacted include documentation to HABS/HAER/HALS by wear and tear associated with visitor access, standards. (Hydroelectric facilities are a special natural processes such as weathering and permitted use that is not related to the parks’ erosion, development, and the restoration of purpose and significance.) natural conditions in sequoia groves. Past construction projects, such as the Generals Highway improvements, hydroelectric

209 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES production, and the development associated with future actions. The overall cumulative impact Grant Grove, Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and associated with alternative A, however, would Mineral King, resulted in the loss of historic be adverse. structures and the loss or alteration of landscape elements (structures, vegetation, circulation features, spatial organization, or land use Conclusion patterns). In addition, to protect and preserve the internationally significant sequoia groves (the Alternative A would result in minor to moderate, primary reason that the parks were established), beneficial, long-term impacts on historic struc­ locally significant structures, districts, and tures, districts, and landscapes that would be landscapes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon preserved and adaptively used by the National National Parks were removed or altered. During Park Service for interpretive purposes or park 1998–99 most structures in the Giant Forest area operations. However, preserving only key (some of which dated back to the 1920s) were cultural resources and removing others, or removed pursuant to a memorandum of agree­ allowing them to deteriorate, would generally ment among the National Park Service, the have moderate to major, adverse, long-term to California state historic preservation officer, and permanent impacts. Removing facilities the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric Only the ranger’s residence, the comfort station, generation system and returning areas to natural the market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall conditions, in accordance with a plan prepared were preserved. Adverse impacts associated by the owner in consultation with the National with visitor access and natural processes were Park Service and the state historic preservation generally long term and negligible to minor in officer, would likely have moderate to major, intensity, but the adverse impacts associated adverse, permanent impacts since the historical with the removal of historic structures and the function and associated facilities would be lost. loss or alteration of landscape elements were Mineral King permit cabins would be removed, long term or permanent and of moderate to resulting in a moderate to major, adverse, major intensity. permanent impact on the cultural landscape district. Concurrent or reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring throughout the region, such as Despite some moderate to major, adverse, the potential expansion of visitor facilities in permanent impacts on individual locally Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth significant cultural resource sites or districts that of communities and subdivision development in are associated with local history (e.g., Kaweah Tulare County, and proposed improvements to no. 3 electric power plant and Mineral King California Highways 180 and 65 by the permit cabins), there would be no major adverse California Department of Transportation, have impacts on resources or values necessary to the potential to disturb historic structures, fulfill specific purposes identified in the districts, and cultural landscapes outside the enabling legislation or proclamations for the parks’ boundaries. Impacts to resources eligible parks, or key to the natural or cultural integrity for the national register that could not be of the parks or to opportunities for the avoided could be adverse and range in intensity enjoyment of the parks. There would be no from minor to major, depending on the resources impairment of park resources or values. affected.

Alternative A would contribute minor to Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, moderate, beneficial, long term impacts, as well Section 106 as moderate to major, adverse, long-term or permanent impacts, to the cumulative impacts of In accordance with the regulations of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36

210 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative C

CFR 800.5), the following actions within the • removing the Cabin Creek ranger resi­ parks would have no adverse effects: dence and dormitory, historic structures at Lodgepole and the upper Ash Mountain • inventorying and evaluating all potentially housing area that could not be used, and eligible cultural resources in Sequoia and all historic structures at Wolverton, the Kings Canyon National Parks to deter­ Sycamore CCC camp, and the CCC mine their eligibility for listing on the recreation hall at Ash Mountain National Register of Historic Places, and submitting nomination forms to the • removing all structures (as permits expire) keeper of the national register in the recreational communities of Cabin Cove, West Mineral King, and East • rebuilding the Generals Highway and its Mineral King that contribute to the appurtenant structures, preserving historic significance of the Mineral King Road structures in the vicinity of Giant Forest, Cultural Landscape District; and allowing or preserving historic properties in the mining remnants at Mineral King to backcountry that could be utilized (e.g., molder ranger cabins, the Mount Whitney shelter, the Pear Lake ski hut) • removing facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation • preserving and adaptively using selected system and returning the area to natural structures in the potential General Grant conditions National Park Historic District • removing backcountry structures if they • preserving the Lost Creek comfort station, could not be adaptively reused structures at Lodgepole that could be adaptively used, and a minimum number • allowing mining remnants at Mineral of housing units in the upper Ash Moun­ King to continue to molder tain housing area; preserving the Colony Mill Road as a trail Impacts of Alternative C • preserving the Atwell Mill ranger station and garage, the Atwell Mill site, the Analysis Lookout Point residence and garage, contributing resources to the Mineral Under this alternative, as described for the no- King Road Cultural Landscape District action alternative, all potentially historic struc­ that are used as essential NPS historic tures, districts, and landscapes would be inven­ facilities, and maintaining / preserving the toried and evaluated under National Register of historic character of the Mineral King Historic Places criteria to determine their Road corridor (alignment and width) eligibility for listing on the register, and the listing process would be completed for those This alternative would result in adverse effects resources that were determined eligible. Historic to historic structures, districts, and landscapes structures, districts, and landscapes would be within the parks from the following actions: preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used in • removing the Redwood Mountain resi­ accordance with the “Secretary’s Standards” and dence, structures in the potential General section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Grant National Park Historic District that Act. Where adverse effects such as removal or could not be used, and NPS and privately neglect were unavoidable, mitigation measures owned structures in the Wilsonia Historic would be determined through consultation with District; managing the Big Stump Basin the California state historic preservation officer. (if determined eligible as a historic land­ scape) as a recovering giant sequoia As previously described, the undergrounding of grove, resulting in the area gradually utilities would have minimal, if any, effect on returning to natural conditions the existing topography, spatial organization, or

211 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES land use patterns of historic districts or cultural Backcountry. The impacts of preserving landscapes. If aboveground utilities were historic structures in the backcountry would be contributing elements to a historic district or minor, beneficial, and long term, the same as for cultural landscape, placing them underground the no-action alternative. However, information would be a minor, adverse, long-term effect. would be provided to park visitors regarding Once the action was completed and the trench selected historic backcountry areas, which could backfilled, the disturbed ground would be cause increased use in these areas and result in restored to its pre-construction contour and indirect, negligible to minor, long-term adverse condition. Any adverse impacts associated with impacts on these resources. construction would be short term and negligible. Kings Canyon National Park. Cedar Grove Careful design would ensure that the rehabilita­ and the Floor of the Kings Canyon — Impacts tion of parking areas and the expansion or would be the same as for the no-action development of trails would minimally affect the alternative: scale and visual relationships among landscape • preserving Knapp’s cabin — minor, features. In addition, the topography, vegetation, beneficial, long-term impact circulation features, and land use patterns of any historic district or cultural landscape would • conducting surveys and research neces­ remain largely unaltered. Any adverse impacts sary to determine the eligibility of a would be long term or permanent and range in structure, district, or landscape for listing intensity from negligible to minor. on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as establishing a basis for Historic structures could suffer wear and tear future resource management — negligible from increased visitation. Monitoring the to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts carrying capacity of historic structures could Grant Grove — Under this alternative NPS- result in the imposition of visitation levels or owned historic structures in the Wilsonia His­ constraints that would contribute to the stability toric District would be preserved and adaptively or integrity of the resources without unduly reused. Privately owned structures in the Wil­ hindering interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or sonia Historic District would not be affected. minimally staffed structures could be more This would result in minor to moderate, susceptible to vandalism. Any adverse impacts beneficial, long-term impacts (the same as the would be long term or permanent and range in preferred alternative). intensity from negligible to minor. The following impacts would be the same as the Generals Highway. Continued rebuilding of the no-action alternative: Generals Highway, as described under the no- action alternative, would have negligible to • preserving and adaptively using structures minor, adverse visual impacts during construc­ contributing to the significance of the tion. Even though rebuilding the road would General Grant National Park Historic have some minor, permanent, adverse impacts District — minor to moderate, beneficial, because some historic fabric would be lost, long-term impacts rebuilding the road would result in overall minor • preserving the Redwood Mountain resi­ to moderate, beneficial, and long-term impacts dence and historic structures in the vicin­ for the preservation and safe use of this ity of the General Grant Tree (such as the historically significant highway. Although Gamlin cabin) — minor, beneficial, long- actions under this alternative could result in term impacts changing use and visitor experience of Generals Highway, historic structures and landscapes Big Stump Basin — If Big Stump Basin was associated with the highway would not change. determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, managing the basin

212 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative C to maintain its visible logging history would • evaluating and preserving historic resi­ result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on dences in the upper Ash Mountain hous­ the historic landscape. ing area, the landscape of the potential Ash Mountain historic district, and Sequoia National Park. Lodgepole-Wuksachi structures in the potential Sycamore CCC — As described for the no-action alternative, the camp historic district, including the impacts of preserving the Cabin Creek ranger recreation hall (if determined eligible for residence and dormitory and the Lost Grove listing on the national register) — minor, comfort station would be minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts long term, and beneficial. • rehabilitating the historic Colony Mill Surveys and research necessary to determine the Road as a historic right-of-way — eligibility of a structure, district, or landscape for moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts listing on the National Register of Historic • inventorying and evaluating Mission ‘66 Places, as well as establishing a basis for future structures and preserving any that were resource management, would result in negligible determined eligible for listing on the to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. How­ National Register of Historic Places — ever, as a result of a housing shortage, new infill minor, beneficial, long-term impacts housing at Lodgepole and relocated housing Mineral King — The following impacts would (from Wolverton) would result in minor to mod­ be the same as for the no-action alternative: erate, adverse, long-term impacts on the poten­ tial historic district (the same as the preferred • preserving contributing resources of the alternative). Other structures at Wolverton Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape would be removed if they could not be rehabili­ District (the Atwell Mill ranger station tated and adaptively used, resulting in moderate and mill site, and the Lookout Point to major, adverse, permanent impacts. These residence) — minor, beneficial, long-term actions would be taken in consultation with the impacts state historic preservation officer. • allowing mining remnants at Mineral King to continue to molder — moderate Giant Forest — As described for the no-action to major, adverse, long-term impacts alternative, preserving, rehabilitating, and adaptively using historic Giant Forest structures • preserving the historic character (align­ (the market, the ranger’s residence and comfort ment and width) of the Mineral King station, the Cattle cabin, Squatter’s cabin, and Road corridor — minor, beneficial Tharp’s Log) would continue to result in minor impacts over the long term to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. As described for the preferred alternative, the National Park Service would acquire special use Ash Mountain / Foothills — Under alternative C, permit cabins for public use. Two thirds of the preserving facilities associated with the Kaweah over 60 permit cabins are contributing elements no. 3 hydroelectric generation system would of the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape have minor, beneficial, long-term impacts District. Planning for preservation and public because a property listed on the National use of permit cabins would follow approval of Register of Historic Places would continue its the general management plan and would occur historic use. The facilities could also be in consultation with the state historic preserva­ interpreted, thus increasing the public’s tion officer and others. Overall impacts would awareness of their historical significance. be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term The following impacts on historic structures in for specific structures, the district, and the land­ the Ash Mountain / foothills vicinity would be scape because historic resources that contribute the same as for the no-action alternative: to the significance of the cultural landscape district would be preserved.

213 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Dillonwood — As described for the no-action Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth alternative, preserving any historic properties of communities and subdivision development in determined eligible for the national register Tulare County, and proposed improvements to would result in minor, beneficial, long-term California Highways 180 and 65 by the Cali­ impacts. fornia Department of Transportation, have the potential to disturb historic structures, districts, and cultural landscapes outside the parks’ Cumulative Impacts boundaries. Impacts to resources eligible for the national register that could not be avoided could As described for the no-action alternative, over be adverse and range in intensity from minor to the years historic structures, districts, and cul­ major, depending on the resources affected. tural landscapes have been adversely impacted by wear and tear associated with visitor access, Alternative C would contribute minor to natural processes such as weathering and moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts, as well erosion, development, and the restoration of as moderate to major, adverse impacts that were natural conditions in sequoia groves. Past long term or permanent, to the cumulative construction projects, such as the Generals impacts of other past, present, and reasonably Highway improvements, hydroelectric foreseeable future actions. Because of the production, and the development associated with greater emphasis on the preservation of historic Grant Grove, Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and resources under alternative C, the beneficial Mineral King, resulted in the loss of historic impacts associated with this alternative would be structures and the loss or alteration of landscape a larger component of any overall cumulative elements (structures, vegetation, circulation impact than with any of the other alternatives. features, spatial organization, or land use patterns). In addition, to protect and preserve the internationally significant sequoia groves (the Conclusion primary reason that the parks were established), locally significant structures, districts, and land­ This alternative would provide for the preserva­ scapes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National tion of more historic structures, districts, and Parks were removed or altered. During 1998–99 landscapes than under any of the other alterna­ most structures in the Giant Forest area (some of tives, and impacts would be generally minor to which dated back to the 1920s) were removed moderate, beneficial, and long term. However, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement among removing some historic structures and elements the National Park Service, the California state of historic landscapes, along with the deteriora­ historic preservation officer, and the Advisory tion of others, would have minor to major, ad­ Council on Historic Preservation. Only the verse, permanent impacts. Preserving facilities ranger’s residence, the comfort station, the associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall were generation system would result in minor, bene­ preserved. Adverse impacts associated with ficial, long-term impacts. Acquiring permit visitor access and natural processes were cabins for public use would result in minor to generally long term and negligible to minor in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on intensity, but the adverse impacts associated resources contributing to the Mineral King Road with the removal of historic structures and the Cultural Landscape District. loss or alteration of landscape elements were long term or permanent and of moderate to Despite some moderate to major, adverse, per­ major intensity. manent impacts on individual locally significant cultural resource sites or districts, there would Concurrent or reasonably foreseeable future be no major adverse impacts on resources or actions occurring throughout the region, such as values necessary to fulfill specific purposes the potential expansion of visitor facilities in identified in the enabling legislation or

214 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative D proclamations for the parks, or key to the natural • preserving the Atwell Mill ranger station or cultural integrity of the parks or to opportuni­ and garage, the Atwell Mill site, the ties for the enjoyment of the parks. There would Lookout Point residence, contributing be no impairment of park resources or values. resources to the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District that are used as essential NPS historic facilities, and Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, maintaining / preserving the historical Section 106 character of the Mineral King Road corridor (alignment and width) In accordance with the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 This alternative would result in adverse effects CFR 800.5), the following actions would have to historic structures, districts, and landscapes no adverse effects within the parks: within the parks from the following actions: • inventorying and evaluating all potentially • relocating a residence from Wolverton to eligible cultural resources in Sequoia and Lodgepole, and removing structures at Kings Canyon National Parks to deter­ Lodgepole and Wolverton that could not mine their eligibility for listing on the be adaptively reused National Register of Historic Places, and • allowing mining remnants in the Mineral submitting nomination forms to the King area to continue to molder keeper of the national register • rebuilding the Generals Highway and its Impacts of Alternative D appurtenant structures, preserving historic structures in the vicinity of Giant Forest, Analysis or preserving historic properties in the backcountry (ranger cabins, the Mount Under this alternative, as described for the no- Whitney shelter, the Pear Lake ski hut, action alternative, all potentially historic struc­ cabins associated with the Shorty Love­ tures, districts, and landscapes would be inven­ lace Historic District) toried and evaluated under National Register of • stabilizing, preserving, and adaptively Historic Places criteria to determine their using Knapp’s cabin, structures in the eligibility for listing on the register, and the potential General Grant National Park listing process would be completed for those Historic District, the Redwood Mountain resources that were determined eligible. Historic residence, and NPS historic structures in structures, districts, and landscapes would be the Wilsonia Historic District; managing preserved, rehabilitated, and adaptively used in the Big Stump Basin to maintain its accordance with the “Secretary’s Standards” and visible logging history section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Where adverse effects such as removal or • preserving the Lost Creek comfort station neglect were unavoidable, mitigation measures and preserving and adaptively using the would be determined through consultation with Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormi­ the California state historic preservation officer. tory; preserving / adaptively using eligible structures in the potential Lodgepole, Actions related to cultural resources under alter­ Wolverton, Ash Mountain, and Sycamore native D would generally be minor to moderate, CCC camp historic districts; rehabilitating beneficial, and long term since most historic the Colony Mill Road as a historic right- resources would be retained and preserved (with of-way; rehabilitating preserving facilities the exception of the potential historic district at associated with the Kaweah no. 3 Lodgepole). hydroelectric generation system

215 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

As previously described, the undergrounding of historic structures and landscapes associated utilities would have minimal, if any, effect on with the highway would not change. the existing topography, spatial organization, or land use patterns of historic districts or cultural Under alternative D steps would be undertaken landscapes. If aboveground utilities were to identify and facilitate the use of additional contributing elements to a historic district or features (some of which were previously closed cultural landscape, placing them underground sites, e.g., sequoia groves) along the highway would be a minor, adverse, long-term effect. corridor to disperse visitation and facilitate its Once the action was completed and the trench use as a bus transportation corridor. Efforts backfilled, the disturbed ground would be would also be undertaken to have the highway restored to its pre-construction contour and designated as an “All-American Road.” Al­ condition. Any adverse impacts associated with though these actions could result in changing use construction would be short term and negligible. and visitor experience of the roadway, the impacts of this alternative on historic structures Careful design would ensure that the rehabilita­ and landscapes associated with the Generals tion of parking areas and the expansion or Highway would be the same as those described development of trails would minimally affect the for the no-action alternative. scale and visual relationships among landscape features. In addition, the topography, vegetation, Backcountry. The impacts of preserving circulation features, and land use patterns of any historic structures in the backcountry would be historic district or cultural landscape would minor, beneficial, and long term, the same as for remain largely unaltered. Any adverse impacts the no-action alternative. However, similar to would be long term or permanent and range in alternative C, information would be provided to intensity from negligible to minor. park visitors regarding selected historic back­ country areas, which could cause increased use Historic structures could suffer wear and tear in these areas and result in negligible to minor, from increased visitation. Monitoring the adverse, long-term impacts on these resources. carrying capacity of historic structures could result in the imposition of visitation levels or Kings Canyon National Park. Cedar Grove constraints that would contribute to the stability and the Floor of the Kings Canyon — Impacts or integrity of the resources without unduly would be the same as for the no-action hindering interpretation for visitors. Unstaffed or alternative: minimally staffed structures could be more • preserving Knapp’s cabin — minor, susceptible to vandalism. Any adverse impacts beneficial, long-term impact would be long term or permanent and range in intensity from negligible to minor. • conducting surveys and research neces­ sary to determine the eligibility of a Generals Highway. Continued rebuilding of the structure, district, or landscape for listing Generals Highway, as described under the no- on the National Register of Historic action alternative, would have negligible to Places, as well as establishing a basis for minor, adverse visual impacts during construc­ future resource management — negligible tion. Even though rebuilding the road would to minor, beneficial, long-term impacts have some minor, permanent, adverse impacts Grant Grove — The following impacts would be because some historic fabric would be lost, the same as the no-action alternative: rebuilding the road would result in overall minor to moderate, beneficial, and long-term impacts • preserving and adaptively using structures for the preservation and safe use of this histor­ contributing to the significance of the ically significant highway. Although actions General Grant National Park Historic under this alternative could result in changing District — minor to moderate, beneficial, use and visitor experience of Generals Highway, long-term impacts

216 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative D

• preserving the Redwood Mountain resi­ significance of the potential district would be dence and historic structures in the lost. At Wolverton recording and removing vicinity of the General Grant Tree (such historic structures and landscapes that cannot be as the Gamlin cabin) — minor, beneficial, rehabilitated and adaptively used would also long-term impacts result in moderate to major, adverse, permanent impacts. Under this alternative NPS-owned historic struc­ tures in the Wilsonia Historic District would be Giant Forest — As described for the no-action preserved and adaptively reused. This would alternative, preserving, rehabilitating, and result in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- adaptively using historic Giant Forest structures term impacts (the same as the preferred alterna­ (the market, the ranger’s residence and comfort tive and alternative C). Privately owned struc­ station, the Cattle cabin, Squatter’s cabin, and tures in the Wilsonia Historic District could Tharp’s Log) would continue to result in minor either (1) be removed for public use of the land, to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. resulting in major, adverse, permanent impacts since the historic district would not retain its Ash Mountain / Foothills — Under this alterna­ integrity, or (2) be preserved with no change in tive preserving some historic residences in the management, resulting in minor, beneficial, upper Ash Mountain housing area to provide long-term impacts on the historic district. seasonal and required housing would have minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. However, Big Stump Basin — As described under the no- recording and removing other historic residential action alternative, the National Park Service structures at Ash Mountain, along with historic would evaluate the Big Stump Basin under the residential structures at the Sycamore CCC criteria of the National Register of Historic camp, would result in moderate to major, Places to determine its eligibility for listing on adverse, permanent impacts on any potential the national register as a historic landscape. Like historic landscape districts at Ash Mountain and the preferred alternative, if this area was eligible the CCC camp. Preserving the CCC recreation for listing, management of the basin to maintain hall at Ash Mountain would have a minor, its visible logging history, as well as to illustrate beneficial, long-term impact (the same as the no- a recovering giant sequoia grove, would result in action alternative). Preserving Colony Mill Road minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on the and designating it as a bicycle trail would have a historic landscape. However, the inevitable loss minor, beneficial, long-term impact. of cultural landscape values in part of the basin managed as a recovering sequoia grove would As described for the preferred alternative, the have moderate to major, adverse, long-term Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation system impacts on potential cultural landscape features. would be discontinued when the permit for these facilities terminates in 2006. Facility removal Sequoia National Park. Lodgepole-Wuksachi and the reestablishment of natural conditions — The impacts of adaptively using the Cabin would be done in accordance with a plan Creek ranger residence and dormitory and developed by the owner in consultation with the preserving the Lost Grove comfort station would National Park Service and the state historic be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term, preservation officer. Impacts would be fully as described for the no-action alternative. analyzed in that plan. Removing some facilities and returning the areas to natural conditions Residential areas at Lodgepole would be re­ would likely result in moderate to major, ad­ moved to provide additional public use space, verse, permanent impacts because the integrity adversely affecting a potential historic district. of functioning historic resources would be lost. Recording and removing all structures and land­ Mitigation of the adverse effects would include scapes at Lodgepole under this alternative would documentation to HABS/HAER/HALS stan­ have moderate to major, adverse, permanent dards. (Hydroelectric facilities are a special impacts since the resources that contribute to the

217 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES permitted use that is not related to the parks’ Grant Grove, Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and purpose and significance.) Mineral King, resulted in the loss of historic structures and the loss or alteration of landscape Mineral King — The following impacts would elements (structures, vegetation, circulation be the same as for the no-action alternative: features, spatial organization, or land use • preserving contributing resources of the patterns). In addition, to protect and preserve the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape internationally significant sequoia groves (the District (the Atwell Mill ranger station primary reason that the parks were established), and mill site, the Lookout Point resi­ locally significant structures, districts, and dence) — minor, beneficial, long-term landscapes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon impacts National Parks were removed or altered. During 1998–99 most structures in the Giant Forest area • allowing mining remnants at Mineral (some of which dated back to the 1920s) were King to continue to molder — moderate removed pursuant to a memorandum of to major, adverse, long-term impacts agreement among the National Park Service, the As described for the preferred alternative, the California state historic preservation officer, and National Park Service would acquire special use the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. permit cabins for public use. Two thirds of the Only the ranger’s residence, the comfort station, over 60 permit cabins are contributing elements the market, and the Beetle Rock assembly hall of the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape were preserved. Adverse impacts associated District. Planning for preservation and public with visitor access and natural processes were use of permit cabins would follow approval of generally long term and negligible to minor in the general management plan and would occur intensity, but the adverse impacts associated in consultation with the state historic preserva­ with the removal of historic structures and the tion officer and others. Overall impacts would loss or alteration of landscape elements were be minor to moderate, beneficial, and long term long term or permanent and of moderate to for specific structures, the district, and the land­ major intensity. scape because historic resources that contribute to the significance of the cultural landscape Concurrent or reasonably foreseeable future district would be preserved. actions occurring throughout the region, such as the potential expansion of visitor facilities in Dillonwood — As described for the no-action Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth alternative, preserving any historic properties of communities and subdivision development in determined eligible for the national register Tulare County, and proposed improvements to would result in minor, beneficial, long-term California Highways 180 and 65 by the Cali­ impacts. fornia Department of Transportation, have the potential to disturb historic structures, districts, and cultural landscapes outside the parks’ Cumulative Impacts boundaries. Impacts to resources eligible for the national register that could not be avoided could As described for the no-action alternative, over be adverse and range in intensity from minor to the years historic structures, districts, and major, depending on the resources affected. cultural landscapes have been adversely impacted by wear and tear associated with Alternative D would contribute minor to visitor access, natural processes such as moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts, as well weathering and erosion, development, and the as moderate to major, adverse, long-term or restoration of natural conditions in sequoia permanent impacts, to the cumulative impacts of groves. Past construction projects, such as the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Generals Highway improvements, hydroelectric future actions. The overall cumulative impact production, and the development associated with

218 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Districts, and Cultural Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative D associated with alternative D, however, would • inventorying and evaluating all potentially be adverse. eligible cultural resources in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to deter­ mine their eligibility for listing on the Conclusion National Register of Historic Places, and submitting nomination forms to the Under alternative D preserving a full spectrum keeper of the national register of cultural resources that portray diverse park themes would result in generally minor to mod­ • rebuilding Generals Highway and appur­ erate, beneficial, long-term impacts. Removing tenant structures, preserving historic some facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 structures in the vicinity of Giant Forest, hydroelectric generation system and returning or preserving historic properties in the areas to natural conditions, in accordance with a backcountry (ranger cabins, the Mount plan prepared by the owner in consultation with Whitney shelter, the Pear Lake ski hut) the National Park Service and the state historic • preserving, and adaptively using Knapp’s preservation officer, would likely have mod­ cabin, structures in the potential General erate, adverse, permanent impacts. Mitigation of Grant National Park Historic District, the the adverse effects would include documentation Redwood Mountain residence, and NPS to HABS/HAER/HALS standards. (Hydro­ historic structures in the Wilsonia Historic electric facilities are a special permitted use that District; managing the Big Stump Basin is not related to the parks’ purpose and signifi­ to maintain its visible logging history as cance.) Loss of resources contributing to the well as a recovering sequoia grove significance of the potential Lodgepole historic district would result in moderate to major, • preserving the Lost Creek comfort station; adverse, permanent impacts. At the same time, preserving and adaptively using the Cabin alternative D would result in minor to moderate, Creek ranger residence and dormitory; beneficial, long-term impacts to the Mineral preserving the CCC-era recreation hall at King Road Cultural Landscape District and its Ash Mountain; preserving the Colony contributing resources. Mill Road as a bike trail • preserving the Atwell Mill ranger station Despite some moderate to major, adverse, per­ and garage, the Atwell Mill site, the manent impacts on individual locally significant Lookout Point residence, contributing cultural resource sites or districts, there would resources to the Mineral King Road be no major adverse impacts on resources or Cultural Landscape District that are used values necessary to fulfill specific purposes as essential NPS historic facilities, and identified in the enabling legislation or procla­ maintaining / preserving the historical mations for the parks, or key to the natural or character of the Mineral King Road cultural integrity of the parks or to opportunities corridor (alignment and width) for the enjoyment of the parks. There would be no impairment of park resources or values. This alternative would result in adverse effects to historic structures, districts, and landscapes from the following actions: Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, • removing historic structures at Wolverton Section 106 if they could not be adaptively used; recording and removing historic resi­ In accordance with the regulations of the Ad­ dential structures at Lodgepole visory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5), the following actions would have no • removing structures at the Ash Mountain adverse effects within the national parks: residential area and the Sycamore CCC camp

219 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• removing some facilities associated with Impact Thresholds for Archeological the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric generation Resources system and returning the area to natural conditions Negligible — The impact would be at the lowest levels of detection, with neither adverse nor beneficial consequences. The determination ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative Minor — Adverse impact: Disturbance of a site or sites would result in little, if any, loss of Analysis integrity. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no adverse effect. Prior to demolition of any structure listed on or Beneficial impact: A site or sites would be eligible for the National Register of Historic maintained and preserved. The determi­ Places, a survey for archeological resources in nation of effect under section 106 would be the general vicinity of the affected structure no adverse effect. would be conducted. The excavation, recorda­ tion, and mapping of any significant cultural Moderate — Adverse impact: Disturbance of a site or sites would result in the loss of integ­ remains, if present, would be completed prior to rity. The determination of effect under sec­ demolition to ensure that important archeolog­ tion 106 would be adverse effect . A memo­ ical data that otherwise would be lost was randum of agreement would be executed recovered and documented. Any impacts to among the National Park Service and the archeological resources would be adverse, minor applicable state or tribal h istoric preservation to moderate in intensity, and permanent. officer and, if necessary, the Advisory Coun­ cil on Historic Preservation in accordance As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or with 36 CFR 800.6(b). Measures identified monitoring would precede any construction. in the agreement to minimize or mitigate Known archeological resources would be adverse impacts would reduce the intensity avoided to the greatest extent possible. If of impact under the National Environmental national register eligible or listed archeological Policy Act from major to moderate. resources could not be avoided, an appropriate Beneficial impact: A site or sites would be mitigation strategy would be developed in stabilized. The determination of effect under consultation with the state historic preservation section 106 would be no adverse effect. officer and, if necessary, associated American Indian tribes. Any adverse impacts to archeo­ Major — Adverse impact: Disturbance of a site logical resources would be minor to moderate in or sites would result in the loss of integrity. intensity and long term or permanent in The determination of effect under section 106 would be adverse effect . Measures to duration. minimize or mitigate adverse impacts could not be agreed upon, and the National Park If during construction previously undiscovered Service and applicable state or tribal historic archeological resources were uncovered, all preservation officer and/or Advisory Council work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery are unable to negotiate and execute a would be halted until the resources could be memorandum of agreement in accordance identified and documented and an appropriate with 36 CFR 800.6(b). mitigation strategy developed in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and, if Beneficial impact: There is active intervention necessary, associated American Indian tribes. to preserve a site or sites. The determination of effect under section 106 would be no Any adverse impacts to archeological resources adverse effect. associated with inadvertent discoveries would be

220 Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

activities — for example the recent construction Criteria for Determining Impairment of visitor facilities in the Giant Forest and at An impact would be more likely to constitute an Grant Grove and Wuksachi, as well as the past impairment to the extent that it affects a construction of the Generals Highway, the Pot­ resource or value whose conservation is wisha campground, CCC camps, and hydro­ electric facilities — resulted in ground distur­ • necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden­ bance near archeological resources. Incidences tified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; of inadvertent disturbance or vandalism associ­ ated with visitor access, as well as the erosional • key to the natural or cultural integrity of impacts related to stock grazing, horse use, and the park or to opportunities for enjoyment weather, have also disturbed archeological of the park; or resources. Impacts to archeological resources • identified as a goal in the park’s general resulting from past development, stock grazing, management plan or other relevant NPS visitor access, and erosion were minor to major, planning documents. adverse, and long term or permanent.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring minor to moderate in intensity, and long term or throughout the region, such as the potential permanent in duration. expansion of visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth of communities The Groenfeldt archeological site, which is and subdivision development in Tulare County, listed on the National Register of Historic and proposed improvements to California Places, is in a remote, backcountry area on Highways 180 and 65, have the potential to sloping terrain and away from any trails. disturb archeological resources outside the Incidences of inadvertent disturbance and parks’ boundaries. Unavoidable adverse impacts vandalism are unlikely. Any adverse impacts to to archeological resources that are eligible for this site would be negligible to minor and long listing on the National Register of Historic term. Places could range in intensity from minor to major, and long term or permanent. Continued visitation to the Hospital Rock archeological site, which is also listed on the The no-action alternative would potentially National Register of Historic Places, could result contribute negligible to moderate, adverse, long- in negligible to minor, adverse, and long-term term or permanent impacts to the cumulative impacts from incidences of inadvertent impacts of other past, present, and reasonably disturbance and vandalism. foreseeable future actions. The adverse impacts to archeological resources associated with the Potential impacts to archeological resources no-action alternative, however, would be a resulting from stock use and erosion would be relatively small component of any overall negligible to minor in intensity, adverse, and cumulative impact. long term or permanent.

Conclusion Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts to archeological resources Archeological resources at Sequoia and King’s associated with the removal of historic structures Canyon National Parks are subject to potential would be adverse, minor to moderate in inten­ damage from development, stock grazing and sity, and permanent. Known archeological horse use, visitor access, and natural processes resources would be avoided to the greatest such as erosion. Past development in the parks, extent possible during the construction of picnic and associated excavation and construction areas and the rehabilitation of parking areas and

221 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES trails. If national register eligible or listed adverse, minor to moderate in intensity, and archeological resources could not be avoided, permanent. any adverse impacts would be minor to mod­ erate in intensity and long term or permanent. As appropriate, archeological surveys and/or Long-term, potential impacts to archeological monitoring would precede any construction. sites from visitor use would be adverse but Known archeological resources would be negligible to minor in intensity. Potential avoided to the greatest extent possible during the impacts to archeological resources resulting undergrounding of utilities, the construction of from stock use and erosion would be negligible picnic areas, the rehabilitation of parking areas to minor in intensity, adverse, and long term or and trails, and the upgrading of visitor facilities. permanent. If archeological resources eligible for or listed on the national register could not be avoided, an Because there would be no major, adverse im­ appropriate mitigation strategy would be devel­ pacts to a resource or value necessary to fulfill oped in consultation with the state historic pres­ specific purposes identified in the enabling ervation officer and, if necessary, associated legislation or proclamations for the parks, or that American Indian tribes. Any adverse impacts to is key to the natural or cultural integrity of the archeological resources would be minor to mod­ parks or for opportunities for the enjoyment of erate in intensity and long term or permanent in the parks, there would be no impairment of park duration. resources or values. If previously undiscovered archeological resources were uncovered during construction, Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, all work in the immediate vicinity of the Section 106 discovery would be halted until the resources could be identified and documented and an After applying the Advisory Council on Historic appropriate mitigation strategy developed in Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 consultation with the state historic preservation CFR 800.5), the National Park Service con­ officer and, if necessary, associated American cludes that this alternative would have no Indian tribes. Any adverse impacts to archeo­ adverse effect on the Groenfeldt or Hospital logical resources associated with inadvertent Rock archeological sites, both of which are discoveries would be minor to moderate in listed on the national register. intensity and long term or permanent in duration.

Impacts of the Preferred Alternative The Groenfeldt archeological site, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Analysis Places, is in a remote, backcountry area on sloping terrain and away from any trails. Prior to demolition of any structure listed on or Incidences of inadvertent disturbance and eligible for listing on the National Register of vandalism are unlikely. Any adverse impacts to Historic Places, a survey for archeological this site would be negligible to minor and long resources in the general vicinity of the affected term. structure would be conducted. The excavation, recordation, and mapping of any significant Continued visitation to the Hospital Rock cultural remains, if present, would be completed archeological site, which is also listed on the prior to demolition to ensure that important National Register of Historic Places, could result archeological data that otherwise would be lost in negligible to minor, adverse, and long term would be recovered and documented. Any impacts from incidences of inadvertent impacts to archeological resources would be disturbance and vandalism.

222 Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources — Impacts of Alternative A

Potential impacts to archeological resources Conclusion resulting from stock use and erosion would be adverse, long term or permanent, and negligible Potential impacts to archeological resources to minor in intensity. associated with the removal of historic structures would be adverse, minor to moderate in intensity, and permanent. Known archeological Cumulative Impacts resources would be avoided to the greatest extent possible during the undergrounding of As described for the no-action alternative, past utilities, the construction of picnic areas, the development in the parks, and associated rehabilitation of parking areas and trails, and the excavation and construction activities — for ex­ upgrading of visitor facilities. If archeological ample the recent construction of visitor facilities resources eligible for or listed on the national in the Giant Forest and at Grant Grove and register could not be avoided, any adverse Wuksachi, as well as the past construction of the impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity Generals Highway, the Potwisha campground, and long term or permanent in duration. Long- CCC camps, and hydroelectric facilities — term, potential impacts to archeological sites resulted in ground disturbance near archeo­ from visitor use would be adverse but negligible logical resources. Incidences of inadvertent to minor in intensity. Potential impacts to disturbance or vandalism associated with visitor archeological resources resulting from stock use access, as well as the erosional impacts related and erosion could be adverse, negligible to to stock grazing, horse use, and weather, have minor in intensity, and long term or permanent. also disturbed archeological resources. Resulting impacts to archeological resources were minor Because there would be no major, adverse to major, adverse, and long term or permanent. impacts to a resource or value necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the Reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring enabling legislation or proclamations for the throughout the region, such as the potential parks, or that is key to the natural or cultural expansion of visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia integrity of the parks or for opportunities for the National Monument, the growth of communities enjoyment of the parks, there would be no and subdivision development in Tulare County, impairment of park resources or values. and proposed improvements to California Highways 180 and 65, have the potential to disturb archeological resources outside the Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, parks’ boundaries. Unavoidable adverse impacts Section 106 to archeological resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Places could range in intensity from minor to Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 major, and could be long term or permanent in CFR 800.5), the National Park Service con­ duration. cludes that implementation of this alternative would have no adverse effect on the Groenfeldt The preferred alternative would potentially or Hospital Rock archeological sites, both of contribute negligible to moderate, adverse, long- which are listed on the national register. term or permanent impacts to the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The adverse impacts Impacts of Alternative A to archeological resources associated with the preferred alternative, however, would be a small Analysis component of any overall adverse cumulative impact. Similar to the no-action alternative, archeolog­ ical surveys and/or monitoring would precede

223 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES any construction, as appropriate. During the disturbance and vandalism as a result of rehabilitation of parking areas and the removal continued visitation. of trails or campgrounds under alternative A • stock use and erosion — negligible to known archeological resources would be minor, adverse, long-term or permanent avoided to the greatest extent possible. If impacts. archeological resources eligible for or listed on the national register could not be avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be Cumulative Impacts developed in consultation with the state historic preservation officer and, if necessary, associated As described for the no-action alternative, past American Indian tribes. Similar to the no-action development in the parks, and associated exca­ alternative, any adverse impacts to archeological vation and construction activities resulted in resources would be minor to moderate in inten­ ground disturbance near archeological resources. sity and long term or permanent in duration. Incidences of inadvertent disturbance or vandal­ ism associated with visitor access, as well as the The following actions and resulting impacts on erosional impacts related to stock grazing, horse archeological resources would be similar to use, and weather, have also disturbed archeo­ those described for the no-action alternative: logical resources. Resulting impacts to arch­ eological resources were minor to major, • Conducting a survey for archeological adverse, and long term or permanent. resources in the general vicinity of any structure to be demolished and that is Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as listed on or eligible for the National the potential expansion of visitor facilities in Register of Historic Places, and recording Giant Sequoia National Monument, the growth and mapping any significant cultural re­ of communities and subdivision development in mains, if present, to recover and docu­ Tulare County, and proposed improvements to ment important archeological data — California Highways 180 and 65, could disturb adverse, minor to moderate, permanent archeological resources outside the parks’ impacts if archeological resources were boundaries. Unavoidable adverse impacts to present. archeological resources that are eligible for • Halting construction work if previously listing on the National Register of Historic undiscovered archeological resources Places could range in intensity from minor to were uncovered until the resources could major, and be long term or permanent. be identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed Alternative A would potentially contribute in consultation with the state historic negligible to moderate, adverse, long-term or preservation officer and, if necessary, permanent impacts to the cumulative impacts of associated American Indian tribes — other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable minor to moderate, adverse, long-term or future actions. The adverse impacts to archeo­ permanent impacts if resources were logical resources associated with alternative A, present. however, would be a relatively small component of any overall adverse cumulative impact. • Groenfeldt archeological site — negligi­ ble to minor, adverse, long-term impacts because of its remote location and Conclusion unlikely incidences of inadvertent disturbance or vandalism. Potential impacts to archeological resources • Hospital Rock archeological site — associated with the removal of historic structures negligible to minor, adverse, long-term would be adverse, minor to moderate in inten­ impacts from incidences of inadvertent sity, and permanent. Known archeological resources would be avoided to the greatest

224 Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources — Impacts of Alternative C extent possible during the rehabilitation of park­ remains, if present, to recover and docu­ ing areas and the removal of trails or camp­ ment important archeological data — grounds. If archeological resources eligible for adverse, minor to moderate, permanent or listed on the national register could not be impacts if archeological resources were avoided, any adverse impacts would be minor to present. moderate in intensity, and long term or perma­ • Conducting archeological surveys and/or nent in duration. Long-term, potential impacts to monitoring, as appropriate, before the archeological sites from visitor use would be undergrounding of utilities, the construc­ adverse but negligible to minor in intensity. tion of picnic areas, the rehabilitation of Potential impacts to archeological resources parking areas and trails, and the upgrad­ resulting from stock use and erosion would be ing of visitor facilities; avoiding known negligible to minor, adverse, and long term or archeological resources to the greatest permanent. extent possible during construction; and if national register eligible or listed re­ As described for the no-action alternative, there sources could not be avoided, developing would be no major, adverse impacts to a an appropriate mitigation strategy in resource or value necessary to fulfill specific consultation with the state historic preser­ purposes identified in the enabling legislation or vation officer and, if necessary, associated proclamations for the parks, or that is key to the American Indian tribes — minor to mod­ natural or cultural integrity of the parks or for erate, adverse, long-term or permanent opportunities for the enjoyment of the parks. impacts if resources were present. Consequently, there would be no impairment of park resources or values. • Halting construction work if previously undiscovered archeological resources were uncovered until the resources could Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, be identified and documented and an Section 106 appropriate mitigation strategy developed in consultation with the state historic After applying the Advisory Council on Historic preservation officer and, if necessary, Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 associated American Indian tribes — CFR 800.5), the National Park Service con­ minor to moderate, adverse, long-term or cludes that implementation of this alternative permanent impacts if resources were would have no adverse effect on the Groenfeldt present. or Hospital Rock archeological sites, both of which are listed on the national register. • Groenfeldt archeological site —negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impacts be­ cause of its remote location and unlikely Impacts of Alternative C incidences of inadvertent disturbance or vandalism. Analysis • Hospital Rock archeological site — negligible to minor, adverse, long-term Impacts would be the same as those described impacts from incidences of inadvertent for the preferred alternative, as summarized disturbance and vandalism as a result of below: continued visitation. • Conducting a survey for archeological • stock use and erosion — negligible to resources in the general vicinity of any minor, adverse, long-term or permanent structure to be demolished and that is impacts. listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and recording and mapping any significant cultural

225 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts archeological resources resulting from stock use and erosion would be adverse, long term or As described for the no-action alternative, permanent, and negligible to minor in intensity. archeological resources have been disturbed in the past by construction activities, inadvertent As described for the no-action alternative, there disturbance, vandalism, and erosional impacts would be no major, adverse impacts to a related to stock grazing, horse use, and weather. resource or value necessary to fulfill specific Resulting impacts to archeological resources purposes identified in the enabling legislation or were minor to major, adverse, and long term or proclamations for the parks, or that is key to the permanent. natural or cultural integrity of the parks or for opportunities for the enjoyment of the parks. Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as Consequently, there would be no impairment of expanded visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia park resources or values. National Monument, the growth of communities and subdivision development in Tulare County, and proposed improvements to California Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, Highways 180 and 65, could disturb resources Section 106 outside park boundaries. Impacts could range from minor to major and long term or After applying the Advisory Council on Historic permanent. Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park Service con­ Alternative C would potentially contribute cludes that implementation of this alternative negligible to moderate, adverse, long-term or would have no adverse effect on the Groenfeldt permanent impacts to the cumulative impacts of or Hospital Rock archeological sites, both of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable which are listed on the national register. future actions. The adverse impacts to archeological resources associated with alternative C, however, would be a small Impacts of Alternative D component of any overall adverse cumulative impact. Analysis

Actions and related impacts would be similar to Conclusion those described for the preferred alternative, as summarized below: Potential impacts to archeological resources • Conducting a survey for archeological associated with the removal of historic structures resources in the general vicinity of any would be adverse, minor to moderate in inten­ structure to be demolished and that is sity, and permanent. Known archeological listed on or eligible for the National resources would be avoided to the greatest Register of Historic Places, and recording extent possible during the undergrounding of and mapping any significant cultural utilities, the construction of picnic areas, the remains, if present, to recover and docu­ rehabilitation of parking areas and trails, and the ment important archeological data — upgrading of visitor facilities. If archeological adverse, minor to moderate, permanent resources eligible for or listed on the national impacts if archeological resources were register could not be avoided, any adverse present. impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity and long term or permanent in duration. Long- • Conducting archeological surveys and/or term, potential impacts to archeological sites monitoring, as appropriate, before the from visitor use would be adverse but negligible construction under this alternative of three to minor in intensity. Potential impacts to proposed visitor centers (Wye, Potwisha,

226 Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources — Impacts of Alternative D

and Cedar Grove), the bypass road around Resulting impacts to archeological resources Grant Grove, and the gasoline station, in were minor to major, adverse, and long term or addition to the undergrounding of utilities, permanent. the construction of picnic areas, the reha­ bilitation of parking areas and trails, and Reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the upgrading of visitor facilities; avoid­ expanded visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia ing known archeological resources to the National Monument, the growth of communities greatest extent possible during construc­ and subdivision development in Tulare County, tion; and if national register eligible or and proposed improvements to California listed resources could not be avoided, de­ Highways 180 and 65, could disturb resources veloping an appropriate mitigation stra­ outside park boundaries. Impacts could range tegy in consultation with the state historic from minor to major and would be long term or preservation officer and, if necessary, permanent. associated American Indian tribes — minor to moderate, adverse, long-term or Alternative D would potentially contribute permanent impacts if resources were negligible to moderate, adverse, long-term or present. permanent impacts to the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable • Halting construction work if previously future actions. The adverse impacts to archeo­ undiscovered archeological resources logical resources associated with alternative D, were uncovered until the resources could however, would be a potentially larger be identified and documented and an component of any overall adverse cumulative appropriate mitigation strategy developed impact than any of the other alternatives. in consultation with the state historic pres­ ervation officer and, if necessary, associ­ ated American Indian tribes — minor to Conclusion moderate, adverse, long-term or perma­ nent impacts if resources were present. Potential impacts to archeological resources • Groenfeldt archeological site — negli­ associated with the removal of historic structures gible to minor, adverse, long-term would be adverse, minor to moderate in inten­ impacts because of its remote location and sity, and permanent in duration. Known archeo­ unlikely incidences of inadvertent logical resources would be avoided during the disturbance or vandalism. construction of the three proposed visitor centers (Wye, Potwisha, and Cedar Grove), the bypass • Hospital Rock archeological site — road around Grant Grove, and the gasoline negligible to minor, adverse, long-term station, as well as during the undergrounding of impacts from incidences of inadvertent utilities, the construction of picnic areas, the disturbance and vandalism as a result of rehabilitation of parking areas and trails, and the continued visitation. upgrading of visitor facilities. If archeological • stock use and erosion — negligible to resources eligible for or listed on the national minor, adverse, long-term or permanent register could not be avoided, any adverse impacts. impacts would be minor to moderate in intensity and long term or permanent in duration. Potential impacts to archeological resources Cumulative Impacts resulting from stock use and erosion would be adverse, negligible to minor in intensity, and As described for the no-action alternative, long term or permanent in duration. archeological resources have been disturbed in the past by construction activities, inadvertent As described for the no-action alternative, there disturbance, vandalism, and erosional impacts would be no major, adverse impacts to a related to stock grazing, horse use, and weather.

227 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES resource or value necessary to fulfill specific poses. Because there would be no change, there purposes identified in the enabling legislation or would be no impact on how visitors have access proclamations for the parks, or that is key to the to or use Hospital Rock or the Potwisha natural or cultural integrity of the parks or for campground. opportunities for the enjoyment of the parks. Consequently, there would be no impairment of Some visitors would continue to be unknow­ park resources or values. ingly intrusive to American Indians paying homage, meditating, or otherwise engaging in traditional activities at Hospital Rock or Summary: National Historic Preservation Act, Potwisha. Impacts from inadvertent visitor Section 106 encounters with American Indian practitioners would be minor, adverse (in that inadvertent After applying the Advisory Council on Historic encounters would be distracting to the practi­ Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 tioners), and short term. Similar adverse impacts CFR 800.5), the National Park Service con­ resulting from inadvertent visitor encounters cludes that implementation of this alternative with American Indian practitioners gathering would have no adverse effect on the Groenfeldt plants throughout the parks could also occur. or Hospital Rock archeological sites, both of which are listed on the national register. Continued Native American consultations between the park staff and neighboring American Indian tribes could result in the ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES AND sharing of some knowledge about indigenous LANDSCAPES plants that would lead to better resource management of certain plants and plant areas as ethnographic resources in the parks. Impacts Native American consultations have revealed from increased NPS awareness of such knowl­ that tribes such as the Wuksachi use particular edge would be minor, beneficial, and long term. locations in both parks to gather plants for traditional cultural uses, such as making baskets. Cumulative Impacts However, the Wuksachi Tribe and others have not shared specific information about particular Today, as in the past, minor, adverse, long-term places where plant gathering occurs, about what impacts to ethnographic resources result from species are picked during what seasons for what the inadvertent interruption of traditional purposes, or about what parts of a plant might be practices by visitors in the parks. Ongoing taken and how. The latter is important to prac­ Native American consultations could result in tice conservation for the future propagation of the beneficial sharing of knowledge of indige­ the plant. nous plants with park staff. Consultations with associated tribes by the parks, with other neighboring units of the national park system Impacts of the No-Action Alternative (e.g., Yosemite National Park and Manzanar National Historic Site), and with neighboring Analysis units of the national forest system (Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests, and Sequoia Visitors to Hospital Rock would continue to be National Monument), all contribute to the able to walk among the various features of the enhancement of mutual respect and the sharing rock formation and adjacent interpretive of ethnographic knowledge. The beneficial waysides to learn of Hospital Rock’s importance impacts resulting from such consultations would prehistorically, historically, and culturally. be minor and long term. American Indian visitors in particular would continue to be able to access the Hospital Rock and Potwisha areas freely for traditional pur­

228 Cultural Resources: Ethnographic Resources and Landscapes — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impact Thresholds for Ethnographic Resources Negligible — The impact would be barely per- Beneficial impact: The action would facilitate ceptible and would neither alter resource traditional access and/or accommodate a conditions, such as traditional access or site group’s practices or beliefs. The determination preservation, nor the relationship between the of effect on traditional cultural properties under resource and the affiliated group’s body of section 106 would be no adverse effect. practices and beliefs. The determination of effect Major — Adverse impact: The impact would alter on traditional cultural properties (ethnographic resource conditions. Something would block or resources eligible for the National Register of greatly affect traditional access, site Historic Places) under section 106 would be no preservation, or the relationship between the adverse effect. resource and the affiliated group’s body of Minor — Adverse impact: The impact would be practices and beliefs, to the extent that the slight but noticeable, but it would neither ap­ survival of a group’s practices and/or beliefs preciably alter resource conditions, such as would be jeopardized. The determination of traditional access or site preservation, nor the effect on traditional cultural properties (eligible relationship between the resource and the to be listed in the National Register) under affiliated group’s body of practices and beliefs. section 106 would be adverse effect. The determination of effect on traditional Beneficial impact: The action would encourage cultural properties (eligible to be listed on the traditional access and/or accommodate a national register) under section 106 would be group’s practices or beliefs. The determination no adverse effect. of effect on traditional cultural properties under Beneficial impact: The action would allow section 106 would be no adverse effect. access to and/or accommodate a group’s traditional practices or beliefs. The deter- Criteria for Determining Impairment mination of effect on traditional cultural An impact would be more likely to constitute an properties under section 106 would be no impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or adverse effect. value whose conservation is Moderate — Adverse impact: The impact would be apparent and would alter resource conditions. • necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified Something would interfere with traditional in the establishing legislation or proclamation access, site preservation, or the relationship of the park; between the resource and the affiliated group’s • key to the natural or cultural integrity of the practices and beliefs, even though the group’s park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the practices and beliefs would survive. The park; or determination of effect on traditional cultural properties (eligible to be listed on the national • identified as a goal in the park’s general register) under section 106 would be adverse management plan or other relevant NPS effect. planning documents.

Reasonably foreseeable actions, such as resources could be adverse and minor to expanded visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia moderate in intensity. National Monument, regional population growth, and continued development in Tulare Because existing conditions would remain under County, could impact natural resources and the no-action alternative, there would be no con­ intrude on gathering areas or places of tribution to the cumulative impacts of other traditional cultural importance. Increased tour­ actions. Consequently, there would be no cumu­ ism and outdoor recreation could also intrude on lative impacts to ethnographic resources under American Indians engaging in traditional activi­ this alternative. ties. Over the long term impacts to ethnographic

229 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion resources in the parks, with minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. The continuing impacts of visitors interrupting or distracting traditional American Indian Cumulative Impacts practitioners would be minor, adverse, and long term. The extent to which knowledge was shared Ongoing consultations with associated tribes, by American Indians with park staff about with other neighboring units of the national park indigenous plants would lead to better resource system (e.g., Yosemite National Park and management of certain plants and plant areas as Manzanar National Historic Site), and with ethnographic resources, resulting in minor, neighboring units of the national forest system beneficial, long-term impacts. (Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests, and Sequoia National Monument) could all enhance mutual respect and the sharing of ethnographic Summary, National Historic Preservation Act, knowledge. The resulting impacts would be Section 106 minor, beneficial, and long term. The eligibility of Hospital Rock to be listed on Reasonably foreseeable actions (e.g., expanded the National Register of Historic Places as a visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia National traditional cultural property is undetermined. Monument, regional population growth, and However, after applying the Advisory Council continued development in Tulare County) could on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse impact natural resources and intrude on effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park gathering areas or places of traditional cultural Service concludes that there would be no importance. Increased tourism and outdoor adverse effect on the resource. recreation could also intrude on traditional American Indian activities. Long-term impacts Impacts of the Preferred Alternative could be adverse and minor to moderate in intensity. Impacts on ethnographic resources under the This alternative would not contribute to the preferred alternative would be the same as those cumulative impacts of other past, present, or described for the no-action alternative. reasonably foreseeable actions. • Visitors would continue to be able to walk among the various features at Hospital Rock, and American Indian visitors in Conclusion particular would continue to be able to access the Hospital Rock and Potwisha The continuing impacts of visitors interrupting areas freely for traditional purposes. or distracting traditional American Indian Continuing present uses would have no practitioners would be minor, adverse, and long impact. term, the same as the no-action alternative. If American Indians shared knowledge about • Impacts from inadvertent visitor encoun­ indigenous plants with park staff, certain plants ters with American Indian practitioners at and plant areas could be managed as Hospital Rock or Potwisha, or those ethnographic resources, resulting in minor, gathering plants throughout the parks, beneficial, long-term impacts. would be minor, adverse, and short term. • Continued consultations with neighboring American Indian tribes could result in better resource management of certain plants and plant areas as ethnographic

230 Cultural Resources: Ethnographic Resources and Landscapes — Impacts of Alternative A

Summary, National Historic Preservation Act, Cumulative Impacts Section 106 Ongoing consultations with associated tribes and As described for the no-action alternative, the with neighboring national park and national eligibility of Hospital Rock to be listed on the forest system units could enhance mutual respect National Register of Historic Places as a tra­ and the sharing of ethnographic knowledge, ditional cultural property is undetermined. resulting in minor, beneficial, long-term However, after applying the Advisory Council impacts. on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park Expanded visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia Service concludes that there would be no National Monument, regional population adverse effect on the resource. growth, and continued development in Tulare County could impact natural resources and intrude on gathering areas or places of Impacts of Alternative A traditional cultural importance for American Indians, as could increased tourism and outdoor Under alternative A there would be negligible recreation. Impacts could be minor to moderate long-term impacts on access to ethnographic and adverse over the long term. resources as a result of removing the Potwisha campground. A construction demolition staging Alternative A would contribute negligible to area could result in some minor, adverse, short- minor, adverse, long-term impacts to the term impacts by temporarily obstructing access cumulative impacts of other past, present, and to ethnographic resources. reasonably foreseeable actions. However, the adverse impact contributed by alternative A Other impacts on ethnographic resources would would be a small component of any overall be the same as those described for the no-action cumulative impact. alternative.

• Visitors would continue to have access to Conclusion Hospital Rock, and American Indian visitors in particular would continue to be Removing the Potwisha campground would able to go to Hospital Rock and Potwisha result in negligible, long-term impacts on access areas for traditional purposes. Continuing to ethnographic resources. A construction current uses would have no impact. demolition staging area could result in some • Impacts from inadvertent visitor encoun­ minor, adverse, short-term impacts by ters with American Indian practitioners at temporarily obstructing access to ethnographic Hospital Rock or Potwisha, or those resources. The continuing impacts of visitors gathering plants throughout the parks, interrupting or distracting traditional American would be minor, adverse, and short term. Indian practitioners would be minor, adverse, and long term, the same as the no-action • Continued consultations with neighboring alternative. If American Indians shared American Indian tribes could result in knowledge about indigenous plants with park better resource management of certain staff, certain plants and plant areas could be plants and plant areas as ethnographic managed as ethnographic resources, resulting in resources in the parks, with minor, minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. beneficial, long-term impacts.

231 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Summary, National Historic Preservation Act, growth, and continued development in Tulare Section 106 County could impact natural resources and intrude on gathering areas or places of As described for the no-action alternative, the traditional cultural importance for American eligibility of Hospital Rock to be listed on the Indians, as could increased tourism and outdoor National Register of Historic Places as a tra­ recreation. Impacts could be minor to moderate ditional cultural property is undetermined. and adverse over the long term. However, after applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse This alternative would not contribute to the effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park cumulative impacts of other past, present, or Service concludes that there would be no reasonably foreseeable actions. adverse effect on the resource.

Conclusion Impacts of Alternative C The continuing impacts of visitors interrupting Impacts on ethnographic resources under the or distracting traditional American Indian alternative C would be the same as those practitioners would be minor, adverse, and long described for the no-action alternative. term, the same as the no-action alternative. If American Indians shared knowledge about • Visitors would continue to have access to indigenous plants with park staff, certain plants Hospital Rock. American Indian visitors and plant areas could be managed as ethno­ in particular would continue to be able to graphic resources, resulting in minor, beneficial, access the Hospital Rock and Potwisha long-term impacts. areas freely for traditional purposes. Continuing present uses would have no impact. Summary, National Historic Preservation Act, • Impacts from inadvertent visitor encoun­ Section 106 ters with American Indian practitioners at Hospital Rock or Potwisha, or those As described for the no-action alternative, the gathering plants throughout the parks, eligibility of Hospital Rock to be listed on the would be minor, adverse, and short term. National Register of Historic Places as a tra­ ditional cultural property is undetermined. • Continued consultations with neighboring However, after applying the Advisory Council American Indian tribes could result in on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse better resource management of certain effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park plants and plant areas as ethnographic Service concludes that there would be no resources in the parks, with minor, adverse effect on the resource. beneficial, long-term impacts.

Cumulative Impacts Impacts of Alternative D

Ongoing consultations with associated tribes and Under alternative D there would be minor, with neighboring national and national forest adverse, long-term impacts on access to system units could enhance mutual respect and ethnographic resources as a result of locating a the sharing of ethnographic knowledge, resulting visitor center in a previously disturbed area in minor, beneficial, and long-term impacts. across the road from the Potwisha campground. There could also be minor, adverse, short-term Expanded visitor facilities in Giant Sequoia impacts on access to ethnographic resources National Monument, regional population during construction of a new visitor center.

232 Cultural Resources: Museum Collections and Archives — Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Other impacts on ethnographic resources would Conclusion be the same as those described for the no-action alternative. Under alternative D there would be negligible, adverse, long-term impacts on access to • Visitors would continue to have access to ethnographic resources as a result of locating a Hospital Rock, and American Indian visitor center in a previously disturbed area visitors in particular would continue to be across the road from the Potwisha campground. able to go to Hospital Rock and Potwisha The visitor center could cause minor, adverse, areas for traditional purposes. Continuing short-term impacts on access to ethnographic current uses would have no impact. resources. The continuing impacts of visitors • Impacts from inadvertent visitor encoun­ interrupting or distracting traditional American ters with American Indian practitioners at Indian practitioners would be minor, adverse, Hospital Rock or Potwisha, or those and long term, the same as the no-action gathering plants throughout the parks, alternative. If American Indians shared knowl­ would be minor, adverse, and short term. edge about indigenous plants with park staff, certain plants and plant areas could be managed • Continued consultations with neighboring as ethnographic resources, resulting in minor, American Indian tribes could result in beneficial, long-term impacts. better resource management of certain plants and plant areas as ethnographic resources in the parks, with minor, Summary, National Historic Preservation Act, beneficial, long-term impacts. Section 106

Cumulative Impacts As described for the no-action alternative, the eligibility of Hospital Rock to be listed on the Ongoing consultations with associated tribes, National Register of Historic Places as a tra­ and with neighboring national park and national ditional cultural property is undetermined. forest system units could all enhance mutual However, after applying the Advisory Council respect and the sharing of ethnographic knowl­ on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse edge, with minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. effects (36 CFR 800.5), the National Park Service concludes that there would be no Expanded facilities in Giant Sequoia National adverse effect on the resource. Monument, regional population growth, and continued development in Tulare County could impact natural resources and intrude on places of MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND traditional cultural importance for American ARCHIVES Indians, as could increased tourism and outdoor recreation. Impacts could be minor to moderate, adverse, and long term. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Alternative D would contribute minor, adverse, Analysis long-term impacts to the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable The parks’ museum collections and archives actions. However the adverse impacts contri­ would continue to be housed at the Ash buted by alternative D would be a small compo­ Mountain facility under adequate museum nent of any overall cumulative impact. standards for fire detection and suppression, security, temperature and humidity control, and curation, storage, and research space. However, there is no further space for additional curation and storage or for expanded research. At some point all or part of the museum collections and

233 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES archives would have to be moved to an Impact Thresholds for Museum Collections expanded facility. Most likely the space needed and Archives to accommodate future curation and storage of museum collections would be found at the Museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, archival docu­ headquarters building, with some functions ments, and natural history specimens) are related to park administration moved out of the generally ineligible for listing on the National building so that space dedicated to collections Register of Historic Places. As such, no section and archives could be expanded. If this should 106 determinations of effect are provided. happen, the act of moving the artifacts, Negligible — The impact would be at the lowest specimens, and archives could result in negligi­ levels of detection or barely measurable, with ble to minor, adverse, short-term impacts to the no perceptible consequences, either adverse parks’ collection. The long-term beneficial or beneficial, to museum collections. impacts of additional curatorial and storage Minor — Adverse impact: The integrity of a few space that met museum standards would be items in the museum collection would be moderate. affected, but the usefulness of the collection for future research and interpretation would not be degraded. Cumulative Impacts Beneficial impact: The current condition of the collection or its constituent components would be stabilized to minimize degradation. The Eastern California Museum, in Indepen­ dence, California, on the eastern side of the Moderate — Adverse impact: The integrity of Sierra Nevada, recently completed a new many items in the museum collection would be affected, and the usefulness of the collec­ addition for more exhibit, curation, and storage tion for future research and interpretation space, and improved security and safety. This would be diminished. has resulted in moderate, beneficial, and long- Beneficial impact: The condition of the col­ term impacts to regional museum collections lection would be improved or its constituent and archives. parts would be protected from the threat of degradation. If present conditions for storing, curating, and Major — Adverse impact: The integrity of most displaying park museum collections and items in the museum collection would be archives continued, this alternative would not affected, and the usefulness of the collection contribute to the cumulative impacts of other for future research and interpretation would actions. If, however, the collection was moved be destroyed. to expanded facilities inside the park, the result Beneficial impact: The condition of the collec­ would be a moderate, beneficial, long-term tion as a whole or its constituent components impact contributed to any overall cumulative would be secured from the threat of further degradation. impact. Criteria for Determining Impairment An impact would be more likely to constitute an Conclusion impairment to the extent that it • affects a resource or value whose conser­ Museum collections and archives would con­ vation is necessary to fulfill specific tinue to be safe and secure under this alternative. purposes identified in the establishing Within the life of this general management plan, legislation or proclamation of the park; however, part of the museum collections and • is key to the natural or cultural integrity of archives would likely have to be moved to the park or to opportunities for enjoyment expanded facilities in the parks. Moving of the park; or artifacts, specimens, and documents would have minor, adverse, short-term impacts. The impact • is identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS of having additional curatorial and storage space planning documents.

234 Cultural Resources: Museum Collections and Archives — Impacts of Alternative A that met museum standards would be moderate, Conclusion beneficial, and long term. Housing the parks’ museum collections and There would be no impairment of the parks’ archives in expanded and improved quarters resources or values. meeting state-of-the-art museum standards would be a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact. Impacts of the Preferred Alternative There would be no impairment of the parks’ Analysis resources or values.

The parks’ museum collections and archives would be housed in expanded and improved Impacts of Alternative A facilities in one location that would meet state- of-the-art museum standards for fire detection The parks’ museum collections and archives and suppression, security, temperature and would continue to be housed at Ash Mountain humidity control, and curation, storage, and under adequate museum standards for fire research. Most likely the space needed to detection and suppression, security, temperature accommodate future curation and storage of and humidity control, and curation, storage, and museum collections would be found at the research space, as described for the no-action headquarters building, with some functions alternative. However, because present space is related to park administration moved out of the limited, at some point all or part of the material building so that space dedicated to collections would have to be moved to expanded facilities and archives could be expanded. Impacts to in the parks. Most likely the space needed to museum collections and archives would be accommodate future curation and storage of moderate, beneficial, and long term. museum collections would be found at the headquarters building, with some functions The act of moving the artifacts, specimens, and related to park administration moved out of the archives could result in negligible to minor, building so that space dedicated to collections adverse, short-term impacts. and archives could be expanded. If this should happen, moving the collection could result in negligible to minor, adverse, short-term impacts. Cumulative Impacts The long-term beneficial impacts of having additional curatorial and storage space that met Regional museum collections and archives have museum standards would be moderate. benefited by a recent addition to the Eastern California Museum, in Independence, Cali­ fornia. The addition provides more exhibit, Cumulative Impacts curation, and storage space, as well as more security and safety. This is a moderate, long- As described for the preferred alternative, term impact. regional museum collections and archives have benefited by a recent addition to the Eastern Storing the parks’ collections and archives in California Museum, in Independence, Cali­ expanded and improved facilities under state-of- fornia. The addition provides more exhibit, the-art museum standards, as described above, curation, and storage space, as well as more would add a long-term, moderate, beneficial security and safety. This is a moderate, long- impact to any overall cumulative impacts. term impact.

Storing the parks’ collections and archives in expanded and improved facilities under state-of-

235 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the-art museum standards, as described above, exhibit, curation, and storage space, as well as would add a long-term, moderate, beneficial more security and safety. This is a moderate, impact to any overall cumulative impacts. long-term impact.

Storing the parks’ collections and archives in Conclusion expanded and improved facilities under state-of- the-art museum standards, as described above, Museum collections and archives would con­ would add a long-term, moderate, beneficial, tinue to be safe and secure. Within the life of cumulative impact to any overall cumulative this general management plan, however, part of impact. the museum collections and archives would likely have to be moved to expanded facilities in the parks. Moving artifacts, specimens, and Conclusion documents would have minor, adverse, short- term impacts. The impact of having additional Moving the parks’ museum collections and curatorial and storage space that met museum archives to facilities meeting state-of-the-art standards would be moderate, beneficial, and museum standards would be a moderate, long term. beneficial, long-term impact.

There would be no impairment of the parks’ There would be no impairment of the parks’ resources or values. resources or values.

Impacts of Alternative C Impacts of Alternative D

Analysis Analysis

Impacts under alternative C would be similar to Impacts under alternative D would be similar to those described for the preferred alternative. those described for the preferred alternative. • The parks’ museum collections and • The parks’ museum collections and archives would be housed in expanded archives would be housed in expanded and improved facilities in the parks that and improved facilities in the parks that would meet state-of-the-art museum stan­ would meet state-of-the-art museum stan­ dards, most likely by transferring some dards, most likely by transferring some functions in the headquarters building functions in the headquarters building related to park administration and expand­ related to park administration and ing space dedicated to collections and expanding space dedicated to collections archives, with a moderate, beneficial, and archives, with a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact. long-term impact. • Moving artifacts, specimens, and archives • Moving the artifacts, specimens, and to a new facility could result in negligible archives to a new or expanded facility to minor, adverse, short-term impacts. could result in negligible to minor, adverse, short-term impacts. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts As described for the no-action alternative, regional museum collections and archives have As described for the no-action alternative, benefited by a recent addition to the Eastern regional museum collections and archives have California Museum, which provides more benefited by a recent addition to the Eastern

236 Cultural Resources: Museum Collections and Archives — Impacts of Alternative D

California Museum, in Independence, Conclusion California, which provides more exhibit, curation, and storage space, as well as more Moving the parks’ museum collections and security and safety. This is a moderate, long- archives to expanded and improved quarters term impact. meeting state-of-the-art museum standards would be a moderate, beneficial, long-term Storing the parks’ collections and archives in impact. expanded and improved facilities under state-of- the-art museum standards, as described above, There would be no impairment of the parks’ would add a long-term, moderate, beneficial resources or values. impact to any overall cumulative impacts.

237 Transportation

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING data in the “Visitor Use Study” (BRW, Inc., and Lee Engineering 1999). IMPACTS

Transportation patterns and impacts of the Temporal Distribution of Visitation alternatives are discussed for the following major activity areas: For transportation, carrying capacity is ex­ • Cedar Grove and the floor of the Kings pressed in the number of visitors per day that Canyon can be accommodated at each entrance station, because the number of visitors in the park at one • Grant Grove / Big Stump time is what defines congestion. Expressing • Lodgepole / Wuksachi / Wolverton carrying capacity in terms of the number of visitors monthly or annually is not meaningful in • Ash Mountain terms of transportation measures, because most • Mineral King roads and parking areas in the parks are • Other areas substantially under capacity (and will probably continue to be) except during the summer. Giant Forest (including Crystal Cave, Crescent Meadow, and Moro Rock) is omitted because Hourly traffic count data were recorded at the management actions have already been pre­ Ash Mountain entrance station in the summer of scribed for the area and do not vary among the 1997. These counts generally indicate the rela­ alternatives currently being considered (see the tionship between the peak-hour traffic volume Giant Forest Interim Management Plan, NPS and the peak daily volume for the month at the 1996a). The Sequoia/Kings Canyon backcountry entrance station. They were compared with is not addressed because there are no roads, and monthly visitation estimates for the park as a no trailhead parking capacity issues have been whole. documented.

The 1998 “Visitor Use Study” contains the Roadway Capacity results of transportation, parking, and visitor survey studies done in 1998 (BRW, Inc., and It is assumed that the perception of congestion Lee Engineering 1999). The study also contains and a sense of “crowdedness” on park roadways a brief examination of projected conditions for would likely contribute to a negative experience 2010, based on a series of declining (but still for many visitors. The impact of transportation positive) annual growth rates. These forecasts service quality on visitor experience has not have been used for this analysis where been studied formally, but roadway operations, appropriate. delays, and frequent undesired stops would likely lead to a negative perception of how For each activity area, the transportation vision, visitors experience the parks. To the extent that issues, and actions are discussed with respect to poor roadway operation could result from (or their effect on carrying capacity related to contribute to) inefficient use at many roadside roadways, parking, and transit. To quantify the pullouts, congestion could also lead to safety carrying capacity, several key assumptions were problems at pullouts where lanes (or parts of made about the temporal distribution of visitors, lanes) were blocked, sight lines were obscured, parking behavior, and other minor parameters and pedestrian activity was high. (such as average automobile occupancy). The assumptions are based on traffic and parking

238 Transportation: Methodology for Analyzing Impacts

Roadway capacity (expressed in vehicles per These segments were selected based on their hour) is defined as a limit to reflect the impact of applicability to the major activity areas exam­ roadway congestion on visitor experience. Since ined for this analysis and for the availability of one park goal is to maximize the quality of visi­ traffic data. In addition, segments 3, 6, and 7 (as tor experiences, this limit should reflect a traffic numbered above) would represent the traffic at level above which that goal is not reasonably the three primary entrance stations to the parks. attainable. For this exercise, that limit is defined as the LOS D/E boundary, such that LOS D is acceptable, but LOS E is not (see page 51 for Parking Capacity LOS definitions). Because the value of that capacity varies significantly from one roadway The impact analysis is based on information in segment to another, it is not quantified here. the “Visitor Use Study” on peak occupancy, average duration, and average turnover for 8 lots It is assumed that the hourly vehicle limit can be in the parks. The study gathered data on 11 lots, translated to a daily capacity by assuming that but 3 lots in the Giant Forest area (Sherman the daily distribution of demand (percentage of Tree, Crescent Meadow, and Moro Rock) will daily traffic during the peak hour) remains con­ not retain their current use and configuration, stant across alternatives and for future visitation regardless of the alternative chosen. scenarios. This assumption is reasonable be­ cause the distribution of traffic throughout the The assumption is that delays and visitor frus­ day is governed by factors other than roadway tration in being unable to find a parking place capacity, such as the time visitors start their would compromise positive visitor experiences. activities and how far they must travel to reach a Full parking lots can also contribute to resource desired destination. The daily distribution of damage if visitors park outside delineated park­ traffic can vary significantly from one road ing areas, and to additional roadway operational segment to the next, and it was documented for problems if they park in (and block) traveled many key segments in the “Visitor Use Study.” ways. The following seven roadway segments were selected to represent the five major activity areas for this roadway carrying capacity analysis Effect of Transit on Carrying (listed with each segment’s corresponding Capacity activity area): 1. Kings Canyon Highway west of Cedar Transit service within the parks has the potential Grove (Cedar Grove and the floor of the to increase carrying capacity with respect to both Kings Canyon) parking and roadway operations. The primary benefit would be the reduction of parking con­ 2. Kings Canyon Highway north of Generals gestion at park features. Since roadway Highway (Grant Grove / Big Stump) congestion is worst at or near the entrance 3. Kings Canyon Highway west of Generals stations, transit service could most effectively Highway (Grant Grove / Big Stump) improve roadway carrying capacity if visitors in automobiles were intercepted outside the parks. 4. Generals Highway north of Lodgepole Even though most roads connecting features (Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton) inside the park are not congested even at peak 5. Generals Highway south of Lodgepole times, transit completely internal to the parks (Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton) would still generate some improvement to roadway operations at more popular features. 6. Generals Highway north of Ash Mountain (Ash Mountain) Transit would increase parking capacity by 7. Mineral King Road (Mineral King) using surplus or future parking capacity at areas with less crowded attractions (or none at all) as

239 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

“park-and-ride” locations for visitors. If visitors annual visitation for the parks has changed as had to park only once and visit several attrac­ follows: a 6.0% drop from 1997 to 1998, a 2.2% tions, a given level of visitation would generate gain from 1998 to 1999, a 4.5% drop from 1999 less vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) in the park to 2000, and a 3.2% gain from 2000 to 2001. and would require substantially fewer parking The net visitation change over these five years is spaces in the area served by transit. a 5.5% drop. These figures indicate that visita­ tion can fluctuate broadly from year to year. The effect of the Giant Forest shuttle service has Therefore, the overall growth assumption (just been accounted for in the background carrying under 23%) will be carried forward to this capacity estimates because that service is analysis for the no-action alternative. For included in all five alternatives. For service to alternatives A, C, and D, relative visitation areas other than Giant Forest or expansion in growth assumptions have been formulated based that service, the effects on carrying capacity are on a rough judgment of the effects of manage­ considered through general assumptions about ment actions on visitation on an area-by area service frequency and other parameters. basis. For the purposes of this analysis, from 1997 to 2010 alternative A is estimated to result in 10% less visitation, the preferred alternative Estimating Visitation Growth and alternative C are estimated to increase visitation by 30%, and alternative D is estimated Between 1979 and 2000 annual visitation has to increase visitation by 48%. fluctuated considerably, from a high of 2.23 million in 1987 to a low of 1.35 million in 1996. In 2001 the parks had about 1.34 million visits, CARRYING CAPACITY ESTIMATES very near the 20-year low. (As noted in the “Affected Environment,” the method of count­ Roadways ing visitors to Kings Canyon changed between 1991 and 1993, and visitation estimates for years The peak-hour capacity for each segment has prior to 1994 have not been adjusted to reflect been examined and converted to a daily roadway this change.) traffic limit. For each alternative impacts are analyzed on capacity and projected demand with The “Visitor Use Study” conducted in 1998 respect to roadway operations. The traffic assumed positive visitation growth with a analysis for the seven road segments that are declining rate to estimate 2010 traffic condi­ analyzed with respect to existing carrying tions. It also assumed that traffic would grow at capacity is presented in Table 40. The daily the same rate as visitation, as shown in Table 39. capacity estimates shown in the table assume that the relationship of peak-hour traffic (or TABLE 39: TRAFFIC GAROWTH SSUMPTIONS FROM THE 1998 “peak-hour proportion”) to total daily traffic VUISITOR SE STUDY remains constant as traffic grows. Percentage Percentage Year Increase Year Increase Since roadway segments close to the three 1998 2.5 2005 1.4 primary entrance stations are included in the 1999 2.3 2006 1.3 2000 2.1 2007 1.2 segments analyzed, these volumes and capacities 2001 2.0 2008 1.1 can generally approximate the overall daily 2002 1.8 2009 1.0 capacity for the parks. The existing (1997) total 2003 1.7 2010 0.9 daily traffic volume for the three road segments 2004 1.5 SOURCE: BRW, Inc., and Lee Engineering 1999. near entrance stations was 6,420. If half of these vehicles are assumed to be inbound, then the These growth rates translate to a net visitation daily park visitation was about 3,210 vehicles. growth of just under 23% from 1997 to 2010. With the same basic assumptions, the daily park Since these estimates were made, the actual visitation capacity (strictly from the roadway

240 Transportation: Carrying Capacity Estimates

TABLE 40: ROADWAY CARRYING CAPACITY FOR SELECTED SEGMENTS

Existing Volume Peak-Hour Capacity Segment Peak Hour Daily Proportion Peak Hour* Daily Ki ngs Canyon Highway west of Cedar Grove 160 1,040 0.15 669 4,350 Kings Canyon Highway north of Generals Highway 433 3,270 0.13 669 5,050 Kings Canyon Highway west of Generals Highway 468 3,720 0.13 665 5,290 Generals Highway north of Lodgepole 245 1,990 0.12 608 4,940 Generals Highway south of Lodgepole 349 2,340 0.15 537 3,600 Generals Highway north of Ash Mountain 277 2,470 0.11 733 6,540 Mineral King Road 52 230 0.23 425 1,880 NOTE: All volumes and capacities are expressed in numbers of vehicles. * Peak hour capacity represents LOS D with HCM 2-lane rural road method.

standpoint) would be about 6,860 vehicles per park results from considerable congestion at the day entering the park. Given that this capacity Big Stump entrance station, then the traffic estimate is more than double the actual visitation volume observed there equals the approximate observed on an August day in 1997 (when some capacity of the entrance station. Therefore, the facilities were over capacity), it is quite probable roadway capacity in that segment cannot be that some factor other than roadway capacity achieved unless the bottleneck at the entrance would limit visitation. Examples of such factors station is removed. If the roadway carrying could include entrance station capacity, parking capacity is adjusted for this phenomenon (and no congestion, visitor center capacity, and overall existing congestion is assumed at the Ash resource conditions. Mountain or the Mineral King entrance station), the daily park carrying capacity with respect to Data from the 1970s show as many as 20,000– roadway operations would be reduced by the 25,000 visitors entering the two entrances on a difference between the volume and the capacity single day on summer holiday weekends. Using of the road segment listed as Kings Canyon three persons per vehicle, this would suggest Highway west of Generals Highway. This re­ 6,000–8,000 vehicles entering the parks on a duction (780 vehicles per day) would lower the single day. The Big Stump entrance station estimated daily roadway park carrying capacity experiences considerable congestion at existing to approximately 6,080 vehicles per day. visitation levels. In a theoretical sense, it could be assumed that if existing traffic at the Kings Canyon Highway road segment just inside the

TABLE 41: SUMMARY OF PEAK-SEASON DAILY VEHICLE VOLUME ESTIMATES

Road Segment Representative Road Length Existing No-Action: Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Area Segment (miles) (1997 ) Alternative Alternative A C D Growth Factor 1.23 1.30 0.90 1.30 1.48 Cedar Grove Kings Canyon Highway 8.8 1,040 1,280 1,350 940 1,350 1,540 west of Cedar Grove Grant Grove / Big Kings Canyon Highway 4.7 3,720 4,580 4,840 3,350 4,840 5,510 Stump west of Generals Highway Wuksachi/Lodge- Generals Highway south 2.2 2,340 2,880 3,040 2,110 3,040 3,460 pole/Wolverton of Lodgepole Ash Mountain/ Generals Highway north 6.5 2,470 3,040 3,210 2,220 3,210 3,660 Foothills of Ash Mountain Mineral King Mineral King Road 15.5 230 280 300 210 300 340 SOURCE: URS Corporation. NOTE: Future estimates are for the year 2010.

241 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Parking Areas Given that a new Sherman Tree lot with 250 spaces will replace the existing 74-space lot, the The following eight lots were counted during the increase in daily parking carrying capacity can summer 1997 data collection period and would be estimated. The existing lot has an average remain open in their current configuration in the summer parking duration of 0.5 hour, and each no-action alternative: space is used 12.5 times per day. The new lot would be used as a primary transit staging lot, • Grant Grove visitor center and visitors would use the Giant Forest shuttle • Grant Tree system to visit multiple destinations. This type • Wolverton of use would increase the parking duration and • Lodgepole general store reduce the average turnover. If each space was • Lodgepole visitor center used three times per day, the increase in spaces • Hospital Rock (176) would translate to an additional parking • Ash Mountain west lot capacity of approximately 530 vehicles per day. • Ash Mountain east lot Total carrying capacity with respect to parking would be approximately 4,170 vehicles per day. Combined, these lots have approximately 554 This estimate is 1,910 vehicles per day less than spaces during non-snow conditions. Of these, the estimate of the parks’ carrying capacity with 321 were filled at peak occupancy. This total respect to roadway operations. was estimated by adding the peak occupancy at each lot, and assuming all lots were at peak occupancy simultaneously. Peak occupancy at Transit the Grant Grove visitor center was three cars more than the number of spaces available. Like many parks, Sequoia has operated a volun­ tary bus shuttle system to serve busy attraction Of the 233 unoccupied spaces, 197 were at areas. Transit service in the park has strong Wolverton. Because there are no major summer potential to increase the number of visitors who attractions at Wolverton (the parking lot has its can enjoy and experience park features without highest occupancy during the winter), the the attendant impacts of new or expanded available spaces could be used as a transit roadway and parking facilities. For example, a parking area for the Giant Forest shuttle. This vehicle visiting three features in a day that are transit service is intended to compensate for the served by transit would require three parking summer closure of the Crescent Meadow and spaces at these different locations; however, Moro Rock lots and the reconfiguration of other with transit service only one parking space lots in Giant Forest. As such, the Wolverton would be needed. This consideration is offset by parking area was not included in the reserve the fact that with transit service, a vehicle would carrying capacity estimate. be parked longer while visitors use the transit Excluding Wolverton, the seven remaining service to go to features. It is possible that one parking areas have 304 spaces, 268 of which factor could substantially outweigh the other, were occupied at the peak. These estimates, if and therefore it is conceivable (depending on considered representative of the overall parking parking duration) that transit service could result situation in the parks, indicate that the parks’ in higher parking space requirements overall. If carrying capacity is approximately 13% more this was the case, transit system would still vehicles than entered the parks each day during benefit transportation operations by controlling the study period. In the discussion on roadway where visitors park, and by potentially improv­ carrying capacity, 3,210 daily entering vehicles ing roadway operations by using buses rather were estimated. Under the assumptions used than individual cars to transfer visitors between thus far, the daily capacity of the parks with activity areas. respect to parking would be approximately 3,640 vehicles.

242 Transportation: Impact Definitions and Intensities

The transit system at Giant Forest / Lodgepole Impact Thresholds for Transportation ceased operation at the end of the 2000 visitor Impacts season owing to financial problems. A new transit system is planned to begin in 2005. Negligible — The impact on carrying capacity in the area would be at the lower levels of detection or would not be measurable. IMPACT DEFINITIONS AND Minor — The impact on carrying capacity would INTENSITIES be measurable and could affect the quality of visitor experiences in the area during some peak The transportation analysis looks at the impact visitation hours. of the management alternatives on the parks’ Moderate — The impact would be clearly mea­ carrying capacity with respect to transportation. surable and could have an appreciable effect More specifically, proposed actions are evalu­ on visitor experiences in the area during most ated for their potential to change visitation and visitation periods. the capacity to handle that change. Just as Major — The impact would be severely adverse several aspects of park use could govern the or exceptionally beneficial. Impacts would have level of visitation the park can handle (natural a substantial, highly noticeable, or widespread resources, visitor facilities, or visitor transpor­ influence, affecting the quality of visitor experi­ tation), transportation in the park could limit ences during most visitation times. visitor carrying capacity either through roadway or parking capacity constraints. Either way, transportation capacity can affect the quality of negative impacts during peak months visitor experiences. have the effect of spreading visitation more evenly throughout the day. Impact intensities are analyzed within an area- specific context, while the contribution of the impacts of the proposed actions to cumulative Cumulative Impacts impacts are evaluated in a regional context (i.e., the Sierra Nevada western slope). The impacts of transportation actions inside the parks in each alternative would be affected by The degree to which the ability of an aspect of transportation projects and policies of others in the parks’ transportation capacity is adequate to the area. These projects and policies are repre­ handle visitation demand is defined by the sented on the “supply” side by transportation thresholds in the accompanying text box. capacity improvements outside the parks that could increase visitation by lowering the travel The analysis team used the following terms to time between the parks and the two primary evaluate the duration of transportation impacts: gateway communities. On the “demand” side are • Peak-Season Only — The impact on actions by others outside the parks that could carrying capacity would only be detect­ place additional travel demands on the primary able during peak months. Transportation access routes. actions that would improve overall capacity could be seen as having an Cumulative transportation impacts are described impact to carrying capacity only during for the transportation systems inside the parks peak seasons, since capacity (and and the nearby sections of California 180 from therefore impacts to capacity) is not an Fresno and California 198 from Visalia. issue when visitation levels are low. The following projects could reduce travel times • Year-round — The impact on carrying and affect access capacity to the parks: capacity would affect visitor experiences for much of the year, especially if • The reconstruction of Generals Highway has been underway since the 1980s and

243 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

will continue for several more years. IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION Although the reconstruction does not LTERNATIVE represent a direct capacity improvement A (such as additional travel lanes), some features such as regrading, repaving, and Analysis managing roadside pullouts could have small but potentially measurable benefits On a parkwide basis, the no-action alternative to vehicle travel on the highway. would result in traffic congestion because of changing user groups and increased day use. • California 180 from Fresno is pro­ Currently scheduled transportation improvement grammed to be expanded to a six-lane activities would proceed as planned, but no new expressway in Fresno and a four-lane efforts would be undertaken to address current expressway as far east as Centerville and congestion issues in some activity areas, or to Minkler. address potential increased congestion resulting • California 65 from Bakersfield is pro­ from an increase in visitation. Visitation is grammed for widening to a four-lane projected to increase by 23% by 2010. expressway between Bakersfield and California 198, and perhaps extending as The current major transportation initiatives in far north as Madera County. the parks are rebuilding Generals Highway and implementing a transit shuttle system in Giant • High-speed rail transit service connecting Forest. The Generals Highway project will central California with both the Bay Area upgrade the safety and durability of the roadway and the Los Angeles area is the subject of and provide minor capacity improvements a bond issue scheduled for statewide vote (mostly related to scenic roadside pullouts). The in November 2004. Giant Forest shuttle system will help alleviate On the “demand” side the following plans could parking and roadway congestion in specific place additional travel demands on the primary areas such as Crescent Meadow and Moro Rock. access routes: •The Draft Management Plan / Environ Cedar Grove and the Floor of the Kings mental Impact Statement for Giant Canyon Sequoia National Monument calls for the rehabilitation of portions of California Cedar Grove would continue to be a relatively 180, which would improve access to the quiet destination for backcountry access and a Cedar Grove area, as well as to various “turnaround point” for visitors to the scenic popular destinations on national canyon areas. monument land. The plan also proposes expanded camping opportunities. The no-action alternative would not affect • The Hume Lake Christian Camp, which is vehicle demand or roadway carrying capacity in located within Giant Sequoia National the Cedar Grove / Kings Canyon floor area. Monument, could be expanded. Visitors and staff use California 180 through Grant Parking capacity and utilization were not mea­ Grove village. sured for the 1998 “Visitor Use Study,” but there is no evidence that the area could not support These are the only two foreseeable “demand” more visitors in terms of parking supply. Main­ side actions that could present cumulative taining current uses would have no impact on impacts to transportation in the parks. For both the carrying capacity of the Cedar Grove / of these actions, the Big Stump entrance station canyon floor area. and Grant Grove village are the only areas that would experience cumulative transportation No transit service would be proposed to this impacts. area.

244 Transportation: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative would have a negli­ that the entrance station cannot adequately serve gible, peak-season impact on the transportation existing peak volumes. carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area. Parking capacity would be significantly ex­ ceeded (as it often is now) at the Big Stump Grant Grove / Big Stump picnic area (28 spaces), the Grant Grove visitor center (75 spaces), and Grant Tree (53 spaces). As documented in the “Affected Environment,” The fact that these parking areas are at or near congestion and delays for visitors passing capacity under current conditions implies that through the Big Stump entrance station and their carrying capacity has been reached. Grant Grove village are increasing. However, annual visitation data are not broken down by activity area, so it would be difficult to Under current conditions the Big Stump en­ accurately quantify the effect on overall park trance station could determine carrying capacity carrying capacity. Nonetheless, it is reasonable for the parks because it is the busiest entrance. to assume that retaining current conditions in the As long as this station continued to serve Hume Grant Grove / Big Stump area would subse­ Lake traffic, visitation growth would result in quently limit visitation because Big Stump is the severe delays for even longer periods than under primary gateway to Kings Canyon, Grant Grove, current conditions. Also, because most Hume and several non-park areas. Lake traffic goes through Grant Grove, and because Grant Grove is a popular destination, Under the no-action alternative the viability of traffic congestion in Grant Grove village would local transit service would be assessed, but there worsen under current conditions. is no specific provision to implement such service if it was feasible. If transit service was Two of the key roadway segments for which implemented, the limits that parking capacity daily capacity has been estimated are in the places on visitation could be increased some­ Grant Grove / Big Stump area. Although the what because parking areas could support more entrance station capacity would likely meter visitors. traffic into the parks, these two segments have been examined with respect to how the projected The no-action alternative would have a moder­ increased visitation for this area would affect ate, adverse impact on transportation carrying roadway carrying capacity. Table 42 summa­ capacity in the Grant Grove / Big Stump area rizes this analysis for the two road segments that during peak seasons, with severe parking apply. shortages at Grant Tree and Grant Grove village, and extensive summer congestion for inbound As shown in Table 42, the level of traffic fore­ traffic at the Big Stump entrance station. cast in the 1998 “Visitor Use Study” would not exceed the roadway carrying capacity on either road segment in 2010. However, because no Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton improvements would be made to the Big Stump entrance station, it is highly unlikely that the Wuksachi village was under construction during 2010 daily volumes would be realized, the 1998 “Visitor Use Study,” so transportation especially because recent experience suggests data are limited. Under the no-action alternative

TABLE 42: ROADWAY CARRYING CAPACITY FOR GRANT GROVE ROAD SEGMENTS — NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Road Daily Volumes Segment Capacity Existing 2010 Projected Kings Canyon Highway north of Generals Highway 5,050 3,270 4,020 Ki ngs Canyon Highway west of Generals Highway 5,290 3,720 4,560 Note: All volumes and capacities are expressed in vehicles per day.

245 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wuksachi village would remain a primary ing patrons to park their cars at one location and lodging, food service, and park operations area. use the shuttle system (including Crescent Lodgepole would remain a popular campground, Meadow and Moro Rock). the primary day-use commercial center, and the primary employee housing area. The no-action alternative would have a negli­ gible, year-round impact on carrying capacity in Two of the key roadway segments for which the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area, as daily capacity has been estimated are in the potential parking constraints should be compen­ Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area. sated for by the Giant Forest transit system. Although the entrance station capacity would likely meter traffic into the parks, these two segments have been examined with respect to Ash Mountain how projected visitation for this area would affect roadway carrying capacity. As shown in The two parking areas at Ash Mountain (the Table 43, the 2010 projected traffic level would visitor center and the picnic area) are currently not exceed the roadway carrying capacity on at or near capacity during peak times. The no- either of these two road segments. action alternative would not provide any new parking or transit service, so the carrying Wuksachi would remain a lodging area rather capacity would, in theory, be limited to current than an attraction, and all parking to support fu­ visitation levels. ture buildout has already occurred; no additional parking is anticipated on the site. Parking at The no-action alternative would have a negli­ Lodgepole would become a limiting factor for gible, year-round impact on transportation visitation, as peak lot occupancies for the visitor carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain area. center and the general store (91 spaces com­ bined) have been at or near capacity in recent years. The Wolverton parking area has approxi­ Mineral King mately 250 parking spaces; the 1998 “Visitor Use Study” recorded that no more than 30% of The no-action alternative would maintain the those were occupied in any season. In the no- road alignment and width, RVs would be pro­ action alternative the parking area would serve hibited, and vehicle lengths would be limited on as the primary parking and staging area for the the road. Giant Forest shuttle system. A new parking area The carrying capacity of the Mineral King Road would improve parking capacity for the Sher­ is unlikely to limit visitation because of the drive man Tree, and therefore the carrying capacity to Mineral King is sufficiently long, narrow, with respect to parking at the Wolverton area in winding, and rugged that the perception of its general. However, this new parking area was in­ difficulty probably deters most day-use visitors. cluded in the background parking carrying capa­ Actions proposed under this alternative would city estimate because it is common to all of the not have an impact on the carrying capacity, but alternatives being considered. could keep demand down for certain types of visits. All three areas would be served by the Giant Forest shuttle system, which would allow lodg­ The carrying capacity of parking areas at

TABLE 43: ROADWAY CARRYING CAPACITY FOR WUKSACHI / LODGEPOLE / WOLVERTON ROAD SEGMENTS — NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Road Daily Volumes Segment Capacity Existing 2010 Projected Generals Highway north of Lodgepole 4,940 1,990 2,440 Generals Highway south of Lodgepole 3,600 2,340 2,890 Note: All volumes and capacities are expressed in vehicles per day.

246 Transportation: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Mineral King is difficult to predict in light of the carrying capacity in the other activity areas area’s inholdings and permit cabins. The examined. primary park-related attraction in this area is the large selection of backcountry trailheads. The parking capacity at trailhead lots has not been Cumulative Impacts measured, but park staff report parking demand has exceeded supply on some holiday weekends If proposed actions for Giant Sequoia National (July 4th and Labor Day), and during some Monument resulted in significant additional special events cars have been parked illegally in traffic, then cumulative impacts in the Grant the Mineral King Valley trailhead area. It Grove/Big Stump area under the no-action appears that Mineral King could support alternative would be major and adverse during additional visitation throughout the use season peak seasons. Specifically, traffic growth without substantial facility upgrades, but it is beyond that forecast in the no-action scenario unlikely that demand would increase without without additional roadway capacity and/or new and/or upgraded facilities. access reconfiguration could significantly worsen peak-season congestion at the Big Stump No transit service would be provided to Mineral entrance and result in severe parking shortages King under the no-action alternative. and intersection congestion problems in Grant Grove village. The no-action alternative would have a negligi­ ble, year-round impact on transportation Programmed roadway improvements on carrying capacity in the Mineral King area. California 180 and 198 in the Central Valley could reduce travel times for park visitors, especially if those routes were not congested. Other Areas However, both routes would continue to be two- lane mountainous roads near the parks, with Proposed transportation-related actions at features such as sharp curves and limited several minor activity areas could contribute to shoulders that limit functional capacity. As such, changes in visitor demand or capacity. These the cumulative impact of these “supply” side areas include North Fork, South Fork, and actions on transportation under the no-action Dillonwood. Roadway traffic and parking data alternative would be negligible and adverse. have not been collected for these areas, and no transit service is proposed. Conclusion Maintaining the trailhead and small parking area at North Fork, and retaining the old Colony Mill Under the no-action alternative traffic is pro­ Road as a trail connecting the North Fork area jected to increase by 23% by 2010. There would with the Crystal Cave road, would be unlikely to be a negligible, adverse, peak-season impact on limit or encourage visitation, and therefore transportation carrying capacity in the Cedar should not affect carrying capacity. Grove area. There would be negligible, year- round impacts at Wuksachi / Lodgepole / The South Fork’s small campground and Wolverton (potential parking constraints should trailhead would be maintained. It is unlikely that be compensated for by the Giant Forest transit visitation would be limited or encouraged, so no system), Ash Mountain, and Mineral King. effect on carrying capacity is anticipated. Impacts in the other activity areas examined (North Fork, Colony Mill Road, South Fork, and A plan for Dillonwood has not yet been Dillonwood) would also be negligible. The no- developed. action alternative would have a moderate adverse impact on transportation carrying The no-action alternative would have a negli­ capacity in the Grant Grove / Big Stump area gible, year-round impact on transportation

247 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES during peak seasons, with severe parking and the canyon. Since this action would not capacity shortages at Grant Tree and Grant affect travel on a daily basis, it would not affect Grove village, and extensive summer congestion the daily carrying capacity of the roadway or for inbound traffic at the Big Stump entrance visitor demand. station. As described for the no-action alternative, there On a cumulative basis, potential increases in is no evidence that the area could not support peak-season daily travel through the Big Stump additional visitation in terms of parking supply. entrance and Grant Grove village as a result of Proposed actions would have no impact on the foreseeable actions in Giant Sequoia National carrying capacity of the Cedar Grove / canyon Monument could result in a major, adverse floor area. No transit service is proposed to this impact to roadway operations in those areas area. during the peak season. The preferred alternative would have a negli­ gible, peak-season impact on transportation IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area. ALTERNATIVE Grant Grove / Big Stump Analysis Grant Grove village would continue as a popular The primary goals of the preferred alternative destination, but no major transportation are to preserve resources and to encourage di­ enhancements would be made. Facility and verse new user groups while preserving tradi­ visitation growth would be capped to control tional uses in the parks. The preferred alternative utility demand. Some parking and roadway would also seek to preserve some of the tradi­ circulation elements would be redesigned to tional park character and rustic architecture reduce congestion. while containing negative resource impacts. Transit services would only be provided in the The Big Stump entrance station would be either Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Giant Forest area. Some relocated to a more appropriate location or roads and parking areas would be redesigned to redesigned to accommodate increased traffic help reduce congestion and to accommodate flow. Either of these actions would increase the limited visitation growth. Visitation is projected actual roadway carrying capacity because the to increase by 30% by 2010. bottleneck at the entrance station would be removed. The capacity analysis for this road segment under the preferred alternative would Cedar Grove and the Floor of the Kings be the same as for the no-action alternative (see Canyon Table 42, page 245). That analysis indicates that the capacity of the roadway at this key location The vision for this area is to strengthen the would accommodate about 48% more traffic identity of Kings Canyon while maintaining a than allowed into the parks in the summer of slower pace and lower visitation than at Grant 1997, while a 30% traffic increase is projected Grove or Giant Forest. Cedar Grove village under the preferred alternative. would be made more efficient, and the variety of overnight accommodations would be increased. Hume Lake traffic would be redirected through Quail Flat, which would reduce the level of The National Park Service would encourage the traffic through Grant Grove. Existing traffic data California Department of Transportation to open appear to indicate that about one third of the the Kings Canyon Highway earlier in the spring daily traffic volume north of the Wye is going to and to keep it open longer in the fall, thus ex­ Hume Lake. Also, volumes on Generals High­ tending the visitor use season in Cedar Grove way are about 15% lower east of the Redwood

248 Transportation: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Mountain / Quail Flat intersection than they are No roadway actions would affect carrying ca­ just east of the Wye. If all traffic to Hume Lake- pacity. Reconfiguring some access ways within used the Quail Flat route, approximately 1,000 Lodgepole village to facilitate traffic flow would vehicle trips per day going to Hume Lake would be unlikely to have a noticeable effect overall be removed from the traffic stream on park roadway operations quality. roads in the Grant Grove village area. There would be minor changes to parking Redirecting Hume Lake traffic through Quail circulation in Lodgepole, with minor upgrades in Flat and other transportation actions for the capacity possible. The impact of this action on Grant Grove / Big Stump area would increase overall parking capacity is not quantified, but is the carrying capacity of the area with respect to expected to be negligible. roadway operations. Transit service for this area would be the same Parking in Grant Grove village would be rede­ as described for the no-action alternative, with signed, and parking at Grant Tree would remain only a shuttle stop for the Giant Forest shuttle at existing levels. While the extent of changes in system. parking at the Grant Grove visitor center have not been quantified, to estimate impacts it was Overall, the preferred alternative would have a assumed that parking capacity would be in­ negligible, year-round impact on transportation creased by one third (25 spaces). The resulting carrying capacity in the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / net gain in parkwide carrying capacity would be Wolverton area. about 163 vehicles per day (or approximately 2.8%). While this amount might not seem major on a parkwide basis, it would relieve an existing Ash Mountain congestion problem and allow for some of the forecast growth to be accommodated. Ash Mountain area would continue as the parks’ primary administrative and operations center, As described for the no-action alternative, the with increased visitor use opportunities. viability of local transit would be assessed. This action would not affect carrying capacity. No roadway actions are proposed for the Ash Mountain area. Parking areas at the visitor Overall, the preferred alternative would have a center would be redesigned to improve circu­ minor, beneficial impact on transportation lation and reduce congestion. The feasibility of carrying capacity in the Grant Grove / Big transit service to various park areas and sur­ Stump area in peak seasons with the relocation rounding communities for the public, park staff, of the entrance station and some additional and concession employees would be investigated circulation and parking improvements. but not definitely implemented. Since transit service would not be proposed, the impacts were not quantified. Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton The preferred alternative would have a negli­ Wuksachi village would remain as a primary gible, year-round impact on the transportation lodging and food service facility, with resi­ carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain area since dential and park operations areas in accordance minor improvements to visitor center parking with the concession contract. Lodgepole would areas would not substantially affect capacity. undergo minor redesign to separate day and While the feasibility of transit service would be overnight uses and to improve traffic flow and studied, the impacts have not been quantified circulation. Wolverton would be the main day- and would probably be relatively limited. use staging area for Giant Forest shuttles as well as backcountry access and expanded winter uses.

249 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Mineral King improving or relocating the Big Stump entrance station would not have the same beneficial The Mineral King Road would continue to impact documented above if the cumulative provide access to the cabins, resort, and the scenario was realized. Sequoia backcountry, and the road would be maintained in its current configuration. As described for the no-action alternative, programmed roadway improvements on As described for the no-action alternative, main­ California 180 and 198 in the Central Valley taining the present alignment and width of the could reduce travel times for park visitors, road would likely help limit future visitor use. It especially if those routes were not congested. appears that parking areas in Mineral King could However, both routes would continue to be two- accommodate more use throughout the visitor lane mountainous roads near the parks, with season, although probably not on holiday week­ features such as sharp curves and limited ends, when shortages have been observed. No shoulders that limit functional capacity. As such, transit service is proposed for the Mineral King the cumulative impact of these “supply” side area. actions on transportation under the preferred alternative would be negligible and adverse. The preferred alternative would have a negligi­ ble, peak-season impact on the transportation In combination with the proposed actions in the carrying capacity in the Mineral King area. preferred alternative, the cumulative scenario would result in a negligible overall impact.

Other Areas Conclusion No proposed actions would affect transportation carrying capacity in the North Fork area, Colony Under the preferred alternative traffic is pro­ Mill Road, or South Fork. Future public road jected to increase by 30% by 2010. The pre­ access to Dillonwood would be determined in ferred alternative would have a negligible, peak- long-term planning. season impact on transportation carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area and a minor, The preferred alternative would have a minor, beneficial impact in the Grant Grove / Big beneficial, year-round impact on transportation Stump area in peak seasons as a result of carrying capacity in other activity areas. relocating the entrance station and making circulation and parking improvements. The preferred alternative would have negligible, Cumulative Impacts year-round impacts on carrying capacity in the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area, Ash From a transportation standpoint, most of the Mountain, and Mineral King. In other activity impacts under the cumulative analysis would be areas (North Fork, Colony Mill Road, South in the Grant Grove village area. More open Fork, and Dillonwood) impacts would be minor management of the Giant Sequoia National and beneficial. Monument and expansion of the Hume Lake Christian Camp could introduce additional On a cumulative basis the potential minor peak- traffic demand beyond the 30% increase forecast season benefit of improvements to the Big for park visitation. Stump entrance station and the redirection of Hume Lake traffic through Quail Flat would be Although redirecting traffic to Hume Lake offset by increased traffic activity if traffic to through Quail Flat would substantially reduce Giant Sequoia National Monument increased the potential impact to transportation conditions and the private Hume Lake Christian Camp was in the Grant Grove area, increases in monument expanded. traffic would offset this benefit. In addition,

250 Transportation: Impacts of Alternative A

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A capacity on the Kings Canyon Highway to be used more effectively.

Analysis Lower visitation is prescribed for the area, but redirecting Hume Lake traffic through Quail Flat Alternative A would scale back visitor-oriented and removing the Big Stump entrance station in services and provide visitor experiences directly favor of Cedar Grove and Lost Grove stations connected to natural resources. It would mini­ would basically allow free access to the attrac­ mize transportation improvements (and even tions and amenities in the Grant Grove area. One remove some parking) for the purpose of result of having no entrance station or fees in the improving the natural environment. The Grant Grove area could be an increase in day use Generals Highway improvements and Giant of the area for picnicking and other recreational Forest transit system would be implemented as activities. This situation, when combined with described for the no-action alternative. Visita­ reduced parking at the Grant Tree, for example, tion is projected to decrease by 10% by 2010. could lead to severe local congestion at certain features. Otherwise, the transportation actions Cedar Grove and the Floor of the Kings for the Grant Grove / Big Stump area would Canyon increase the carrying capacity of the area with respect to roadway operations. No transportation actions under alternative A for this area would affect its carrying capacity or its The Grant Tree parking area would be reduced ability to meet or limit visitation demand. An to improve resource conditions (although the entrance station would be provided at Cedar reduction is not yet quantified). Parking at Grant Grove. Alternative A would have a negligible Tree and the visitor center/store would become a impact on transportation carrying capacity in the limiting factor in visitation, and congestion Cedar Grove area year-round. could increase in the area because traffic flow would no longer be restricted by the Big Stump entrance station. No transit service is proposed Grant Grove / Big Stump for the Grant Grove / Big Stump area under alternative A. Entrance stations would be provided at Cedar Grove for Kings Canyon National Park and at Overall, alternative A would have a moderate, Lost Grove for Sequoia National Park. Hume beneficial impact on transportation carrying Lake traffic would be redirected through Quail capacity in the Grant Grove / Big Stump area Flat, which would reduce the level of traffic during peak seasons by improving entrance through Grant Grove. Existing traffic data station capacity and reducing overall use in the appear to indicate that about one third of the area. daily traffic volume north of the Wye is going to Hume Lake. Also, traffic volumes on Generals Highway are about 15% lower east of the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Redwood Mountain / Quail Flat intersection Alternative A would be the same as the no- than they are just east of the Wye. These two action alternative for Wuksachi, but use levels at assumptions indicate that daily entrance station Lodgepole and Wolverton would be reduced by traffic would be approximately 2,180 at Cedar removing some facilities and activities. Grove and 1,810 at Lost Grove. These levels would be much more manageable than the No roadway actions proposed for this area current level at Big Stump. Removing the Big would affect the roadway carrying capacity. Stump entrance station would eliminate a Parking areas at Lodgepole would be reduced in considerable bottleneck and allow the roadway size and redesigned to improve resource conditions, but the reduction has not been

251 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES quantified. To estimate the level of impact, a been quantified. Parking shortages have 20% reduction in parking capacity (18 spaces) occurred in the Mineral King area at trailheads would reduce total park carrying capacity by on holiday weekends; so a reduction in parking about 90 vehicles per day, or about 1.6%. would affect the area’s carrying capacity at peak Transit service for this area would be the same use. Given the relatively small size and low level as the no-action alternative. of use these trailhead parking areas receive, impacts to the overall parking carrying capacity Alternative A would have a negligible impact on of the parks are expected to be negligible. No carrying capacity in the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / transit service is proposed for the Mineral King Wolverton area in peak seasons. area in alternative A.

Overall, alternative A would have a minor, Ash Mountain beneficial, year-round impact on transportation carrying capacity in the Mineral King area by Impacts under alternative A would be similar to reducing overall use. those under the no-action alternative. No specific transportation actions are proposed, but visitation would be limited. Other Areas

No proposed roadway or parking actions would As described for the no-action alternative, affect the carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain maintaining the trailhead and small parking area area. Lower-than-existing visitation would at North Fork, and retaining the old Colony Mill reduce the likelihood of parking congestion at Road as a trail, would not affect overall carrying the visitor center/picnic area lots. No transit capacity. service is proposed for the Ash Mountain / Foothills area under alternative A. The South Fork campground would be reduced in scale to a trailhead with some campsites. Alternative A would have a minor, beneficial, Although use could drop somewhat, no transpor­ year-round impact on transportation carrying tation actions in this area would affect carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain area by reducing capacity. overall use. Alternative A would open the Dillonwood sequoia grove to low use levels, but no vehicular Mineral King access would be allowed. Roads would be converted to trails, and all facilities would be Roadway actions for Mineral King would be removed. A small parking area and trailhead similar to those described under the no-action would be provided outside the gate in coopera­ alternative except that roadways and develop­ tion with other land managers. These actions ment above West Mineral King would be would have no impact to the transportation removed. Since the roadway carrying capacity carrying capacity in Dillonwood. for Mineral King is represented by the capacity of the access road near the entrance station, this Overall, alternative A would have a minor, action is not assumed to have any impact on the beneficial, year-round impact on transportation roadway carrying capacity of the parks. It could carrying capacity in other activity areas area by result in slightly lower visitation to the area, reducing overall use. further reducing the likelihood that roadway capacity would be met or exceeded in the foreseeable future.

Some trailhead parking would be removed to limit resource impacts, but reductions have not

252 Transportation: Impacts of Alternative C

Cumulative Impacts Lodgepole / Wolverton area impacts on trans­ portation carrying capacity in peak seasons Projects considered under the cumulative would be negligible. Reducing overall use would scenario would be in opposition to the goals of result in minor, beneficial, year-round impacts alternative A from a transportation standpoint on transportation carrying capacity in the Ash because traffic through the Grant Grove area Mountain area, the Mineral King area, and other would increase, not decrease. Removing the Big areas (North Fork/Colony Mill Road, South Stump entrance station in favor of park Fork, and Dillonwood) by reducing overall use. entrances at Cedar Grove and Lost Grove could worsen the cumulative impact of increased On a cumulative basis, a projected 10% drop in traffic through the Grant Grove area because peak-season daily travel in the parks from 1997 prospective users of non-park attractions in and to 2010 would be more than offset by increases near the Giant Sequoia National Monument in non-park traffic in the Grant Grove / Big would no longer have a park entrance as a Stump area. If the cumulative scenario was deterrent to their access. In combination with the realized, the result for this area would be a proposed actions in the alternative A, the minor, adverse impact on peak-season cumulative scenario would result in a moderate, transportation operations. adverse, peak-season impact in the Grant Grove / Big Stump area. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C As described for the no-action alternative, programmed roadway improvements on Analysis California 180 and 198 in the Central Valley could reduce travel times for park visitors, Under alternative C developed areas would be especially if those routes were not congested. redesigned to facilitate transportation and reduce However, both routes would continue to be two- congestion, while retaining the feel of yester­ lane mountainous roads near the parks, with year. The Generals Highway improvements and features such as sharp curves and limited Giant Forest shuttle system would be imple­ shoulders that limit functional capacity. As such, mented as described for the no-action alterna­ the cumulative impact of these “supply” side tive. Visitation is projected to increase by 30% actions on transportation under alternative A by 2010, the same as the preferred alternative. would be negligible.

In combination with the proposed actions in Cedar Grove and the Floor of the Kings alternative A, the cumulative scenario would Canyon result in a negligible overall impact. The vision of alternative C for this area is to strengthen the identity of the canyon features Conclusion while maintaining the area’s slower pace and lower visitation compared to Grant Grove or Under alternative A traffic is projected to de­ Giant Forest. The Cedar Grove village would be crease by 10% by 2010. Alternative A would slightly expanded, and the variety of overnight have a negligible, year-round impact on trans­ accommodations increased. portation carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area. Overall, alternative A would have a As described for the preferred alternative, the moderate beneficial impact on transportation visitor season would be potentially lengthened in carrying capacity in the Grant Grove / Big the spring and fall by encouraging the California Stump area during peak seasons by improving Department of Transportation to open the Kings the entrance station capacity and reducing Canyon Highway earlier in the spring and keep overall use in the area. In the Wuksachi / it open longer in the fall, thus providing more

253 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES visitation opportunities. Since this action would Grant Tree remained at the existing level and not affect travel on a daily basis, it would not parking at the Grant Grove visitor center was affect the daily roadway carrying capacity or increased by one third (25 spaces), the net gain visitor demand. As described for the no-action in parking carrying capacity would be about 163 alternative, maintaining current parking areas vehicles per day (or approximately 2.8%). While would have no impact on the carrying capacity this amount would not be substantial parkwide, of the Cedar Grove / canyon floor area. No it would relieve an existing congestion problem transit service would be proposed to this area and allow for some of the forecast growth to be under this alternative. accommodated.

Alternative C would have a negligible, year- A voluntary, local transit system would be round impact on transportation carrying capacity implemented, with parking and maintenance in the Cedar Grove area. functions near the Wye. The system would serve the village and its attractions, as well as shuttle service between local overnight lodging Grant Grove / Big Stump locations such as Hume Lake, USFS camp­ grounds, and Montecito-Sequoia. This system Alternative C would include several actions to would have the effect of increasing carrying expand and improve Grant Grove village, capacity with respect to parking because the including redesigned facilities and increased use. staging area would include additional parking Redesigning the Big Stump entrance station to supply for visitors using transit. The effects of facilitate traffic flow would translate directly to this service on carrying capacity would depend improved capacity for the entrance station. on how many visitors used the transit service, Although spatial limitations at the current which in turn would depend on the comfort, entrance station site could preclude major frequency, and cost of this service. If the staging improvements in capacity, it is likely that the area had 100 parking spaces, it might be bottleneck condition could be removed and that reasonable to assume that 100 vehicles per day roadway capacity on Kings Canyon Highway could be removed from other parking areas west of the Wye could be more fully utilized. along the route served by the transit system. In The capacity analysis for this road segment this event, the transit service would in effect under alternative C would be the same as for the increase the parking carrying capacity by 100 no-action alternative (see Table 42). vehicles per day, or approximately 1.7%.

Under alternative C designating Quail Flat Road Alternative C would have a moderate beneficial as California 180 would help direct some traffic impact on transportation carrying capacity in the around Grant Grove village rather than through Grant Grove / Big Stump area in peak seasons it; however, other strategies would likely be by improving the capacity of the entrance station needed in order to redirect a substantial amount and Grant Grove parking areas and implement­ of traffic. The Quail Flat route to Hume Lake ing a local transit service. and Kings Canyon National Park is slightly longer and more circuitous than the route through Grant Grove. Therefore, increased travel Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton time could be another deterrent to visitors in choosing whether or not to use the Quail Flat Alternative C would be the same as the no- route. action alternative for Wuksachi. Lodgepole would be redesigned and expanded, with an The beneficial impact of improving parking emphasis on overnight use. Wolverton would capacity in Grant Grove village is unknown retain its current character, but some back­ since the change has not been quantified. To country and winter operations would be estimate the level of impact, if parking at the expanded.

254 Transportation: Impacts of Alternative C

No roadway actions under alternative C would The carrying capacity of parking areas at affect carrying capacity in this area. Reconfigur­ Mineral King would not change, as described for ing some access ways within Lodgepole village the no-action alternative, and while demand has to facilitate traffic flow would probably not exceeded supply on some holiday weekends and affect overall roadway operations. No changes during special events, additional visitation could are proposed to the parking capacity in this area. be accommodated throughout the use season Transit service for this area would be by means without substantial facility upgrades. No transit of the Giant Forest shuttle system, the same as service is proposed for the Mineral King area in described for the no-action alternative. alternative C.

Alternative C would have a negligible, year- Alternative C would have a negligible, year- round impact on transportation carrying capacity round impact on transportation carrying capacity in the Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area. in the Mineral King area.

Ash Mountain Other Areas

The Ash Mountain area would continue as the The trailhead at North Fork would be improved parks’ primary administrative and operations in alternative C, and the National Park Service center, with increased visitor use opportunities. would partner with the appropriate agencies to improve the road access. Even though traffic and No roadway actions are proposed for the Ash capacity on this road have not been quantified, Mountain area under alternative C. Parking improvements in surface, width, and possibly would be expanded to meet increased demand alignment would all improve capacity. The level by converting the present picnic site to a parking of use would probably stay relatively low, so the area. The amount of this increase has not been effect on overall park carrying capacity would quantified, but if the parking capacity increased probably be negligible. by approximately half (14 spaces) and the turnover rate remained the same as now, the net As described for the no-action alternative, overall parking carrying capacity would increase maintaining the small campground and trailhead by 49 vehicles per day (or about 0.8%). at South Fork would have no effect on carrying capacity. An employee shuttle service would be provided to reduce staff parking demand in the Road access would be upgraded to Dillonwood administrative areas. Details of this service are in alternative C so that the public could use the not prescribed at this time, and the service would trails and primitive camping facilities there. not affect visitor carrying capacity. Alternative C would have a minor beneficial Alternative C would have a minor beneficial impact on transportation carrying capacity in impact on transportation carrying capacity in the other activity areas in peak seasons. Ash Mountain area during peak seasons.

Cumulative Impacts Mineral King From a transportation standpoint, most of the Under alternative C Mineral King Road would impacts under the cumulative analysis would be continue to provide access to the cabins, the in the Grant Grove village area. More open resort, and the Sequoia backcountry, and it management of the Giant Sequoia National would be preserved in its current configuration, Monument and expansion of the Hume Lake as described for the no-action alternative. Christian Camp could introduce additional

255 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES traffic demand beyond the 30% increase forecast carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain area for park visitation, similar to the preferred during peak seasons as a result of increasing alternative. parking and establishing an employee shuttle. Improving road access to North Fork and Although redirecting traffic to Hume Lake Dillonwood would result in minor, beneficial through Quail Flat (by transferring the impacts. California 180 route designation) would substantially benefit transportation conditions in The cumulative scenario could produce addi­ the Grant Grove area, traffic increases to the tional traffic demand beyond forecast increases monument and other non-park features in the in park visitation, which would offset the mod­ area would offset that benefit. In addition, erate benefit provided by actions in alternative improving or relocating the Big Stump entrance C. If the cumulative scenario was realized, the station would not have the same beneficial result for this area would be a negligible impact impact documented above if the cumulative on transportation operations. scenario was realized.

As described for the no-action alternative, IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D programmed roadway improvements on California 180 and 198 in the Central Valley Analysis could reduce travel times for park visitors, especially if those routes were not congested. Alternative D would encourage diverse new user However, both routes would continue to be two- groups and potentially allow new uses in the lane mountainous roads near the parks, with parks. Transit services would be provided to all features such as sharp curves and limited major activity areas and possibly to transit shoulders that limit functional capacity. As such, services outside the parks. Some roads and the cumulative impact of these “supply” side parking areas would be redesigned to help actions on transportation under alternative C reduce congestion and accommodate visitation would be negligible and adverse. growth. Visitation is projected to increase by 48% by 2010. In combination with the proposed actions in alternative C, the cumulative scenario would result in a negligible impact overall. Cedar Grove and the Floor of the Kings Canyon

Conclusion The visitor season would be potentially length­ ened in the spring and fall by encouraging the Under alternative C traffic is projected to California Department of Transportation to open increase by 30% by 2010, the same as the the Kings Canyon Highway earlier in the spring preferred alternative. Alternative C would have a and keep it open longer in the fall, the same as negligible, year-round impact on transportation the preferred action and alternative C. Main­ carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area, the taining current parking areas would have no Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area, and the impact on the carrying capacity of the Cedar Mineral King area because daily traffic capacity Grove / canyon floor area. No transit service would not be changed. There would be a moder­ would be proposed to this area under the ate, beneficial impact in the Grant Grove / Big alternative D. Stump area in peak seasons as a result of im­ proving the capacity of the entrance station and Alternative D would have a negligible impact on the Grant Grove parking areas and implementing transportation carrying capacity in the Cedar a local transit service. Alternative C would have Grove area in peak seasons. a minor, beneficial impact on transportation

256 Transportation: Impacts of Alternative D

Grant Grove / Big Stump As described for the no-action alternative, maintaining current parking areas would have no Under alternative D the Big Stump entrance impact on the carrying capacity of the Grant station would be relocated outside the park. The Grove / Big Stump area, with the exception that design of the new station would eliminate the tour buses would be accommodated. present bottleneck situation and increase traffic flow. The capacity analysis for this road Alternative D would implement a more exten­ segment would be basically the same as for the sive voluntary day use transit system than under no-action alternative (see Table 42), which alternative C, with service to destinations such indicates that the roadway capacity at this key as Big Stump, Grant Tree, Panoramic Point, and location would accommodate about 48% more national forest sites. The staging area would be traffic than what was accommodated in summer near the expanded visitor center. Transit service 1997. would also be provided between Grant Grove and Giant Forest, so that visitors could see most Hume Lake traffic would be diverted around the of the major destinations by transit. This action Grant Grove area via a new bypass on Giant could significantly increase the carrying capacity Sequoia National Monument land. This action with respect to parking if shuttle service was would substantially reduce traffic volumes frequent, reliable, comfortable, and relatively through the entrance station and Grant Grove inexpensive to visitors. Although roadway village, freeing up additional roadway capacity capacity could be increased as well, it is still for park visitors. Although the overall roadway likely that parking capacity in the area would carrying capacity would be the same as esti­ continue to govern the overall transportation mated previously in this report, approximately carrying capacity. Like the potential transit 1,000 vehicle trips per day to Hume Lake would staging area proposed in alternative C, if the be removed from park roads in the Grant Grove / staging area had 100 parking spaces, it might be Big Stump area. reasonable to assume that 100 vehicles per day could be removed from parking areas served by The portion of Kings Canyon Highway the transit system. In this event, the transit (California 180) between the north end of Grant service would in effect increase the parking Grove village and the park boundary (a distance carrying capacity by 100 vehicles per day, or of about a mile) would be closed so that vehicles approximately 1.7%. could not use the Hume Lake bypass to get around the Big Stump entrance station. This Alternative D would have a major, beneficial, action would have a mixed effect on traffic that impact on transportation carrying capacity in the could be difficult to estimate. Visitors driving Grant Grove / Big Stump area in peak seasons as from Grant Grove village to Kings Canyon a result of a bypass road, additional parking would need to go back south to the Wye, then capacity, transit parking near the Wye, and take either the Hume Lake bypass road or go transit service to activity areas. through Quail Flat and the Hume Lake area itself to get back to the Kings Canyon Highway north of Grant Grove village, and traffic south of Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton Grant Grove would be increased. Trips from Sequoia National Park on Generals Highway Wuksachi would be expanded beyond existing would need to divert at Quail Flat, and trips plans, with additional diverse day and overnight through Grant Grove would be decreased. The uses, picnic areas, trails, and lodging. Lodgepole California Department of Transportation could would be redesigned and expanded, with an object to the closing of this road segment if it emphasis on overnight use. Wolverton would created a more circuitous route for canyon retain its current character, but some back­ visitors and state maintenance vehicles. country and winter operations would be expanded.

257 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

No roadway actions under alternative D would voluntary, no effort has been made in this affect carrying capacity. Reconfiguring some analysis to quantify the impacts. access ways within Lodgepole village to facili­ tate traffic flow would probably not affect over­ Alternative D would have a minor, beneficial, all roadway operations. year-round impact on transportation carrying capacity in the Ash Mountain area since the new At Lodgepole day-use parking would be visitor center would increase parking capacity. expanded and relocated. The primary parking Transit service use, although not quantified, action in this area under alternative D would be would probably be relatively limited. the construction of a 1,700-car parking structure, which would allow for a high number of vehi­ cles to park and use the Giant Forest shuttle Mineral King system. If the garage served an average of 1.5 vehicles per space per day, the parks’ carrying Under alternative D maintaining the current capacity for parking would increase by 2,550 condition of the Mineral King Road would not vehicles per day, or about 44%, which would charge the roadway carrying capacity. Parking surpass the overall roadway carrying capacity. demand could exceed supply on some holiday weekends and during special events, but Transit service for this area would be by means additional visitation could be accommodated of the Giant Forest shuttle system, the same as throughout the use season without substantial described for the no-action alternative. facility upgrades. No transit service is proposed for the Mineral King area in alternative D. Alternative D would have a moderate, beneficial impact on transportation carrying capacity in the Alternative D would have a negligible, year- Wuksachi / Lodgepole / Wolverton area in peak round impact on transportation carrying capacity seasons due entirely to the substantial increase in in the Mineral King area. parking capacity for the transit system.

Other Areas Ash Mountain No proposed actions would affect transportation The Ash Mountain area would continue as the carrying capacity in the North Fork / Colony parks’ primary administrative and operations Mill Road and South Fork areas. Road access center, with increased visitor use opportunities. would be upgraded to Dillonwood in alternative No roadway actions are proposed for the Ash D so that the public could use the trails and Mountain area under alternative D. Parking primitive camping facilities there. would be constructed to accommodate a new visitor center facility in the Potwisha area or Alternative D would have a minor, beneficial outside the park. Since the existing visitor center impact on transportation carrying capacity in lot is over capacity at peak times, parking for a other activity areas in peak seasons. new visitor center should at least relieve parking problems. Cumulative Impacts The feasibility of providing transit service to various park areas and surrounding communities From a transportation standpoint, most of the for the public, park staff, and concession impacts under the cumulative analysis would be employees would be evaluated. The impact of in the Grant Grove village area. More open this service on carrying capacity would depend management of the Giant Sequoia National on the service area, frequency, cost, and comfort Monument and expansion of the Hume Lake of the system. Since transit system use would be Christian Camp would introduce additional

258 Transportation: Impacts of Alternative D traffic demand beyond the 48% increase forecast It is also worth noting that a Grant Grove bypass for park visitation under alternative D. might not meet the criteria for Giant Sequoia National Monument since no roads are to be Although redirecting traffic to Hume Lake allowed other than those in existence at the time through Quail Flat (by transferring the of designation. A transportation plan is to be California 180 route designation) would done. substantially benefit transportation conditions in the Grant Grove area, increases in traffic to the monument and other non-park attractions in the Conclusion area would offset that benefit. In addition, improving or relocating the Big Stump entrance Under alternative D traffic is projected to in station would not have the same beneficial crease by 48% by 2010. Alternative D would impact documented above if the cumulative have a major, beneficial, impact on transporta scenario was realized. However, these two tion carrying capacity in the Grant Grove / Big actions and the closure of the road link between Stump area in peak seasons as a result of a Grant Grove village and California 180 to the bypass road (if allowed), additional parking north would probably provide sufficient capacity, transit parking near the Wye, and tran roadway capacity (and separation between park sit service to activity areas. In the Wuksachi / and non-park road users) to handle even the Lodgepole / Wolverton area alternative D would travel demands under the cumulative scenario. have a moderate beneficial impact on transpor tation carrying capacity in peak seasons as a As described for the no-action alternative, result of the substantial increase in parking programmed roadway improvements on capacity for the transit system. Alternative D California 180 and 198 in the Central Valley would have a negligible impact on transportation could reduce travel times for park visitors, carrying capacity in the Cedar Grove area in especially if those routes were not congested. peak seasons, as well as at North Fork, South However, both routes would continue to be two- Fork, and Dillonwood. Impacts in the Ash lane mountainous roads near the parks, with Mountain area would be minor, beneficial, and features such as sharp curves and limited year-round since the new visitor center would shoulders that limit functional capacity. As such, increase parking capacity; transit service use the cumulative impact of these “supply” side would probably be relatively limited. The impact actions on transportation under alternative C in the Mineral King area would be negligible would be negligible and adverse. and year-round.

In combination with the proposed actions in The cumulative impact of potential independent alternative D, the cumulative scenario would but related actions would be a moderate, result in a moderate, beneficial, peak-season beneficial, peak-season impact in the Grant impact to transportation service quality in the Grove / Big Stump area. Grant Grove / Big Stump area.

259 Visitor Experience

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING programs by park staff, and school programs in the parks. IMPACTS 4. Recreational Opportunities — This sec­ The impact analysis evaluates how the visitor tion analyzes four aspects of recreational experience might vary between alternatives as a opportunities for each alternative: result of applying proposed actions and different • Opportunities to experience a full management zones in the alternatives. The range of park resources as listed in the analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative parks’ purpose and significance state­ because of the conceptual nature of the alter­ ments, for example, sequoia groves, natives. Consequently, professional judgment caves, elevation change from the foot­ was used to reach reasonable conclusions as to hills to alpine environments, cultural the intensity, type, and duration of the potential resources, wild and scenic rivers, and impact. wilderness. The following five broad areas of visitor • Opportunities for basic recreational experience have been analyzed: experiences (hiking, camping, front- and backcountry use, skiing, snow 1. Park Character — How the parks’ play, cave tours, and water play). character would vary as a result of Opportunities to experience recreation differing management prescriptions and communities within the parks or to the effect on visitors’ experiences under visit historic hydroelectric facilities or each alternative. nonprofit camps are addressed in the 2. Visitation — The degree to which each “Private Land and Special Use alternative would generally respond to Permits” chapter. changing visitor demographics and use • Opportunities for nontraditional or patterns. new recreational experiences (new 3. Educational Opportunities — How each activity assessment, bicycling, water­ alternative would provide educational craft, snowmobile, and air tours). facilities, programs, and outreach. Edu­ • Opportunities for stock use. cational facilities such as museums, nature centers, and visitor centers or 5. Visitor Services — This section analyzes contact stations provide orientation to the the differences in overnight lodging and parks and their recreational opportunities, camping opportunities and other facilities as well as offering educational informa­ that the alternatives provide. Other visitor tion. Educational programs include service facilities include restaurants, food methods of education — from personal service, supply stores, gift shops, and gas services provided by NPS staff (ranger stations. Restrooms are discussed under programs / activities and other guided the “Park Management, Operations, and activities) to self-guided activities, and Facilities” chapter. from trail wayside exhibits to park newspapers and publications. Information Intensity. Impact intensities for visitor experi­ programs deal with contacting visitors ence are shown in the accompanying text box. before they reach the parks through Impacts could be temporary or short term (for methods such as Web pages, and outreach example, delays and inconvenience caused by programs focus on regional teacher the reconstruction of the Generals Highway, or education, local / regional visits and

260 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impact Thresholds for Visitor Experiences Development areas would total approximately 1,745 acres, or less than 0.2% of the total park Negligible — The impact would not be barely area (see Table 44). Of that, over 65% would be detectable, would not occur in primary resource for park operations. About 11% of development areas, or would affect few visitors. would be residential, over 15% campgrounds, and 7.5% villages. Frontcountry areas reached Minor — The impact would be slight but by roads would constitute just under 2.3% of the detectable, would not occur in primary resource areas, or would affect few visitors. parks; of that around 1.8% would be low-use frontcountry. Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent, would occur in primary resource Private vehicles would remain the primary areas, or would affect many visitors. The impact means for visitors to experience the parks, and would be clearly detectable by visitors and parking shortages in some areas would contri­ could have an appreciable effect on visitor bute to visitor dissatisfaction. All types of experiences. resources could continue to be accessed by Major — The impact would be severely adverse visitors, with occasional crowding in some high- or exceptionally beneficial, would occur in use, frontcountry areas. Caves, alpine areas, and primary resource areas, or would affect the many trails would remain largely inaccessible to majority of visitors people with disabilities; however, wayside exhibits would provide an alternative way to vicariously experience what the parks offer. The the conversion of Giant Forest to day use) or redesign of some facilities to increase capacity long term. would help mitigate the impacts of increased Beneficial impacts would provide greater avail­ visitation. ability or access to park resources, programs, and activities, while adverse impacts would The no-action alternative would preserve the reduce access or availability of these three low-key, backcountry and rustic character of the aspects of the visitor experience. parks, resulting in a minor to moderate, bene­ ficial, long-term impact on visitors’ abilities to experience park character because of limited IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION development, guidelines to preserve character, and a vast backcountry. ALTERNATIVE

Analysis Visitor Use

Park Character Traditional use patterns (longer stays by smaller groups) would continue to change as the region­ Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks al population grows and new user groups disco­ would retain their basic rustic character — ver the parks. Increased day use, short stays, and offering most visitors opportunities to see the weekend use would become common, resulting many natural and cultural resources for which in more summer weekend congestion and incon­ the parks are significant. The limited amount of venience to visitors. There appears to be a trend development and frontcountry reinforce the that as the nation’s population ages, a smaller parks’ natural and rustic character for visitors, percentage of visitors stay in the backcountry for maintaining the desired visitor experience. Over longer than a day. 97% of the parks would be managed in accor­ dance with the prescriptions for backcountry No visitor use limits would be established. Most zones, offering a small percentage of visitors use would occur in the high-use scenic driving, many opportunities for primitive and unconfined high-use frontcountry, and development zones. recreation.

261 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

TABLE 44: SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ZONES BY ALTERNATIVE

No-Action Alternative Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D Zone Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Development (including camp­ grounds, villages, 1,745 0.20% 1,887 0.22% 1,310 0.15% 1,986 0.23% 2,133 0.25% operations and residential areas) Frontcountry (high-use scenic 20,004 2.31% 17,986 2.08% 18,553 2.14% 19,477 2.25% 31,084 3.59% driving, low- and high­ use frontcountry) Backcountry / Wilder­ ness (including desig­ nated and potential wilderness, major and 843,511 97.49% 845,387* 97.70% 845,398 97.70% 843,798 97.52% 832,043 96.16% secondary trail corri­ dors, and cross-country areas) NOTE: Total area in the parks = ±865,260 acres. Acres were quantified using GIS mapping. * 40 acres of the Hockett Plateau would be excluded from wilderness to allow for a high Sierra camp

Increased visitor use and shorter visits would With insufficient staff, many new populations continue to result in minor to moderate, adverse, visiting the parks could miss information needed long-term impacts resulting from seasonal to make their visits safer, more educational, and crowding in these zones. less impacting to park resources. This situation could worsen somewhat over time. Crowding could occur on summer and holiday weekends, and some visitors might not be able to see major park resources if parking was not Educational Opportunities available. Delays at entry gates would continue to make experiences less pleasant, and regional Educational Facilities. Educational facilities use would eventually self regulate. Year-round are primarily in the high-use frontcountry and frontcountry use and lodging would attract more development zones, with a few small contact visitors. Grant Grove would continue to stations in the low-use frontcountry, so that most experience congestion, with delays at the north visitors have opportunities to access educational entry gate of a half hour or more. Late summer facilities. Visitor centers at Ash Mountain (Foot­ use at the campgrounds in the foothills and hills) and Grant Grove would be updated as along the Middle Fork of the Kaweah River needed to improve education about park inter­ would likely remain high, and parking near the pretive themes, but they would not be able to Ash Mountain visitor center would remain accommodate demand. Visitor contact stations inadequate during summer. would continue to provide limited space for education at Cedar Grove and Mineral King. The no-action alternative would generally result The visitor center at Lodgepole and the Walter in minor to moderate, adverse, long-term Fry Nature Center would have reduced levels of impacts on visitor use, primarily because of educational staffing in order to support Giant continued congestion. Forest facilities, with resulting inconvenience and unmet demand for many visitors. New edu­ cational facilities at the Giant Forest museum Visitor Information and the Beetle Rock education center would fill an important interpretive gap about giant As more people use the Internet to plan trips, sequoia ecology and provide additional group inadequate staffing could result in minor, learning opportunities. Gradual improvements to adverse impacts, primarily on out-of-state educational facilities, combined with new facili­ visitors seeking additional pre-trip information. ties in Giant Forest, would have moderate to

262 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative major, beneficial, long-term impacts on educa­ frontcountry would remain overcrowded, and tional opportunities, but inadequate staffing at parking would be difficult to find during the some facilities would increasingly result in summer; a transit system would be put in place minor, adverse, long-term impacts on visitor only at Giant Forest, resulting in both more experiences. access and less convenience for visitors as they learn to use the system. The likelihood of Educational Programs. Education, Interpreta encountering others would remain similar to tion, and Orientation — The majority of educa­ today. Some opportunities to experience solitude tional and orientation programs would take place would remain even in frontcountry areas. A in the high-use frontcountry and development limited amount of development (2.3% of the zones. Programs would continue to focus on parks), as well as park policy and development visitor safety, basic visitor information, and guidelines, would mean that natural dark would orientation. The highly valued ranger naturalist predominate and light sources could even be programs would still be provided, but they might reduced, allowing visitors to better enjoy the be inadequate to meet the level requested by night skies. Wilderness opportunities would visitors at peak times. Some visitor programs remain, and visitors could experience wilderness and tours would continue to be provided by values such as solitude and freedom from human volunteers or the Sequoia Natural History impacts. As a result, over the long term there Association. New trail centers, wayside exhibits, would still be minor to moderate, seasonal, and an education center at Beetle Rock would be adverse impacts on the ability of visitors to added in the high-use frontcountry zone, encour­ experience park resources because of continued aging more visitors to hike the trail system. congestion. Exhibits would be updated in Grant Grove. Despite improvements to educational programs Opportunities for Basic Recreational Experi and greater use of volunteers, the impact on ences. Trails and Hiking — Without resources to visitors would continue to be moderate, adverse, actively maintain many frontcountry trails in and long term primarily because of the both low- and high-use areas, visitor experiences inadequate ranger naturalist program. would likely be less than satisfactory. Some visitors get lost on the trail system due to lack of Outreach Education — A limited outreach signs, redundant trails, or the presence of visitor- educational program would continue to meet created trails not on trail maps; this situation some regional needs. Inadequate staffing to would likely worsen with increasing visitation. provide outreach education would increasingly affect regional populations with user groups who Long-distance trails, as well as shorter trails in have not traditionally used national parks. Local the frontcountry, would continue to be provided. outreach education has also informed the public The majority of the parks would remain back­ about several critical park issues, such as the country, and while there is an extensive trail importance of fire in the ecosystem. Inadequate system, most of the backcountry would be outreach education would result in minor, without trails. adverse, long-term impacts. Trail conditions affect most visitors wanting to hike, resulting in moderate, adverse, long-term Recreational Opportunities impacts because park staff cannot adequately maintain the extensive frontcountry trail system. Opportunities to Experience Park Resources. Under the no-action alternative most visitors Camping — The 14 frontcountry campgrounds would be able to choose how to experience the would be gradually rebuilt to improve visitor diverse range of resources for which the parks experiences. RV dump stations would be re­ are significant, and road access would be pro­ tained unless they did not comply with state vided to many of them. Features in the high-use regulations. Most frontcountry campgrounds

263 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would be multi-purpose and would contain RV term in terms of providing diverse lodging sites. In backcountry areas, camping would opportunities for a small number of back­ continue by permit, and some areas would country visitors seeking that experience. provide designated campsites. Over the long term camping opportunities would • At Cedar Grove the size of each camp­ improve, resulting in negligible to minor, bene­ ground would be limited to 250 sites, and ficial impacts on visitors wanting to camp. the free RV dump station would remain, resulting in negligible to minor, bene­ Water Play — Summer water play in rivers at ficial, long-term impacts as a result Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and the foothills gradual improvements to campgrounds. would continue when water conditions are safe and would become increasingly popular, particu­ • At Lodgepole the campgrounds would be larly with regional day use visitors. Impacts such redesigned, and an RV dump station as littering, riverbank erosion, unwanted visitor- would be retained, with minor to moder­ created trails, and vegetation loss would occur in ate, beneficial, long-term impacts as a heavily used areas, resulting in localized visitor- result of improvements to the parks’ most generated resource degradation, with minor, popular campgrounds. adverse, long-term impacts. Despite degradation, • In the foothills, the Potwisha and Buckeye the impact on visitor enjoyment would be negli­ Flat campgrounds would be retained, gible and beneficial since waterplay opportuni­ resulting in minor, beneficial impacts on ties would remain readily available. foothills campers as the campgrounds were improved over time. Cave Tours — Offering low-cost, guided tours at Crystal Cave would allow many visitors to • The Cold Spring and Atwell Mill camp­ experience this resource. Several types of tours grounds would remain at Mineral King, are provided. With increased park visitation, resulting in negligible to minor, bene­ visitors might have to take extra efforts to obtain ficial, long-term impacts on those wanting tickets in advance. An unknown number of to camp at Mineral King as the camp­ visitors who might not be able to get advance grounds were gradually improved. Re­ tickets would be denied this experience. Way­ moving the Mineral King dams would side exhibits would provide an alternative way eliminate the potential adverse impact on for disabled visitors or those unable to procure human life and downstream development tickets to vicariously experience park caves. at the Cold Spring campground. As Allowing access to other caves by permit would previously stated, the dams are classified allow cave enthusiasts many opportunities to as “significant hazard” facilities should explore park caves. The impact on those seeking they fail (NPS 1992b), and their removal to visit caves would be negligible, beneficial, would result in a beneficial, permanent and long term since various opportunities would impact on public safety. continue. • In the backcountry the Bearpaw Meadow high Sierra camp and designated camp­ Fishing — Fishing would continue to be highly sites would continue to provide some regulated. No facilities to support fishing would camping or overnight support facilities, be provided. The park would continue to restore such as toilets and bear-proof storage native populations and to eliminate nonnative boxes. Those backcountry users desiring species. Despite increasing visitation, the impact greater freedom and no support facilities on fishing would continue to be negligible, for their overnight backpacking or stock beneficial, and long term. experience would also have many oppor­ tunities. The impact of retaining the Winter Use — Winter use of the parks would popular Bearpaw Meadow camp would be continue to attract more people. Snowplay areas negligible to minor, beneficial, and long would remain popular with families and would

264 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative become increasingly crowded on winter and natural quiet, but it is allowed on USFS weekends with more regional day users, land. Because most of the parks are wilderness, resulting in some minor, adverse, long-term motorized equipment is prohibited, so snow­ impacts. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing mobiles are confined to frontcountry roads, opportunities would remain in the Giant Forest where their use may pose safety concerns for and Grant Grove areas. Crowding and a lack of other winter users. Because snowmobile use is rental equipment during holiday weekends limited to a few areas, and because opportunities would result in some minor, adverse, short-term are provided on adjacent public lands, the impacts. The impact of the no-action alternative impact of this general prohibition would be on winter recreational opportunities would minor, beneficial, and long term for the majority generally be minor, beneficial, and long term of park winter users. since many opportunities would continue to be provided, and concessioner equipment rentals Watercraft — Nonmotorized watercraft use would likely increase to meet demand. would continue to be allowed except on the South Fork of the Kings River in the Cedar Opportunities for Nontraditional Recrea Grove area. On rivers where use is allowed, it tional Experiences. New activities, such as would not be regulated. The resulting impact kayaking, would be assessed against NPS and would be negligible to minor, beneficial, and park policies and resource concerns to determine long term for those seeking this type of their appropriateness, resulting in minor, ad­ experience. verse, short-term impacts on those who would like to freely recreate in the parks. Air Tours — Potential impacts would be analyzed in an air tour management plan Bicycle Use — Bicycle use would continue to be prepared jointly by the National Park Service allowed on park roads in development, high-use and the Federal Aviation Administration. No air scenic driving, and high- and low-use front- tour companies currently operate in the parks, country zones, but not on trails or in the back­ resulting in the preservation of natural quiet and country. Bicycling would be a limited recrea­ sounds for the enjoyment of visitors. tional activity and would not provide an alter­ nate means of transportation within the parks. Opportunities for Stock Use. The 100-year Bike lanes would not be striped, and family bike tradition of using horses and other stock would use would be primarily limited to campgrounds continue under the no-action alternative, in since bicyclists would need to share narrow accordance with current regulations, which roads with motorists, a situation likely to make would be refined based on use surveys and many visitors feel unsafe. Bicycling with resource monitoring. Commercially provided vehicular traffic is likely to be primarily horse / pack trips, as well as the corrals at Cedar experienced by road cyclists. The impact on Grove, Grant Grove, and Mineral King, would those seeking bicycling opportunities would be continue but at reduced levels because use trends minor, adverse, and long term since most have decreased. A new location to replace the bicycling would continue to be on roads also commercial Wolverton pack station would be used by motor vehicles. identified. Any new commercial location would need to be convenient for visitors, the National Snowmobiles / Snow Machines — The use of Park Service, and operators, as well as safe. snowmobiles and snow machines would only be Also, desired resource conditions would need to allowed on roads by private inholders and permit be achieved, and any needed facilities would holders to access their cabins (in Wilsonia and have to be sustainable. About 20 additional Mineral King), in accordance with regulations at commercial operators would continue to provide 36 CFR 2.18 and 7.8. Recreational snowmobil­ pack services. A “Preliminary Draft Franchise ing is not allowed in the parks because it Fee / Feasibility Analysis of Current Saddle adversely impacts the park values of solitude Horse Ride and Pack Stations” (NPS 2004)

265 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES indicates new or existing commercial pack • At Grant Grove lodging would be station / stock ride operations might become expanded by adding nine cabins and increasingly infeasible without government- renovating 19 cabins and some central provided infrastructure, such as roads, utilities baths. The existing mix of cabins and and buildings. This is primarily due to rising lodges at Grant Grove would remain. insurance costs and projected costs for addi­ Visitors would have access to the same tional resource protection requirements, such as types of services as today, with minor to weed-free feed, waste removal, and equipment moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts costs for waste removal. as a result gradual improvements to lodging. Stock use provides traditional opportunities to • At Lodgepole the gas station would be enjoy the parks and could hypothetically provide studied for retention, adaptive use, or access for visitors with disabilities. Based on the removal. Other facilities (store, post number of permits currently issued and discus­ office, showers, laundry, food service) sions with backcountry rangers, there is little use would be retained. There could be an of stock by visitors with disabilities. increasing demand for food service since Undesired stock impacts on hikers (odor, feces, none is provided in the Giant Forest area. urine, dust, and eroded trails) would continue at Lodgepole visitors would retain the same the same level, a minor, adverse, long-term types of services as today, with minor to impact on a small number of backcountry hikers. moderate, beneficial impacts as a result of This impact would be mitigated through improvements over the long term. regulation and education of stock users. • At Wuksachi, 312 additional lodge rooms would be constructed to replace lodging Continuing stock use would provide diverse removed from Giant Forest. An amphi­ visitor opportunities to many regional stock theater would be built, and food service groups and general park visitors, and increased and other services expanded. Wuksachi regulation would somewhat mitigate stock visitors would have increased lodging, impacts. The result would be minor, beneficial, food service, and other services compared long-term impacts on those wanting to use stock, to today, with moderate, beneficial, long- but at the same time generating minor to term impacts for visitors seeking lodging moderate, adverse impacts on hikers in locations in the parks. where trails are shared. • At Wolverton, the concession building for winter use, the picnic area, and the Boy Visitor Facilities and Services Scout camp would remain. A new visitor parking lot / shuttle system would provide Visitors would continue to have access to all Giant Forest visitors an improved experi­ present facilities, with overnight lodging, as well ence, since congestion would be reduced. as camping, opportunities provided in the However, the corral has been removed, development, low-use frontcountry, and reducing recreational opportunities. Ser­ backcountry zones. All existing overnight vices at Wolverton would be improved facilities would remain in the parks. compared to today, resulting in major, beneficial, long-term impacts since most • At Cedar Grove, seasonal use would visitors spend time in the Giant Forest and continue; the small lodge would remain, parking would be more convenient. At the as would the food service and store. same time, because the corral has been Visitors would retain the same types of removed and a new location has not been services as today, with negligible to identified, the impact on the relatively minor, beneficial, long-term impacts as a small number of visitors seeking a riding result of gradual improvements. experience in the Giant Forest would be

266 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

minor, adverse, and short-term since the wilderness forest areas). This confusion could be service would be provided at another mitigated with education. location. The Terminus Reservoir on Lake Kaweah will Overall, maintaining and gradually improving be raised to increase storage, resulting in some present facilities and services, along with the loss or relocation of recreation facilities, such as planned expansion of concession facilities and boat ramps and picnic areas. While these kinds new facilities at Giant Forest, would result in of facilities are not provided in the parks, they minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts primarily serve local and regional users, so this on visitor experiences. action would have a negligible, adverse, long- term impact on recreational opportunities or park visitors. Cumulative Impacts Past actions in the parks (from the 1950s to Lodging, food service, and additional types of 1999) that have affected visitor experiences recreational opportunities are provided in include the following: surrounding communities, such as Three Rivers. Most motels provide swimming pools, and there • The removal of Giant Forest facilities is also a golf course, spa, and seasonal river (roads, parking lots, lodging, dining rafting. It is likely that a similar type and facilities, the general store, informal food number of services will be provided in the service, the photo studio, park and con­ future. cession housing, the Hazelwood picnic area, the corral, and several camp­ Giant Sequoia National Monument, designated grounds). Eventually development at in April 2000 from portions of national forest Wuksachi village will replace the same land to further protect giant sequoia groves, is amount of visitor lodging that was re­ expected to have a negligible impact on existing moved. A future project is the relocation types of visitor uses. Visitor services, such as of an underground electric power line lodging, camping, gas, and food, are provided in running through the center of the sequoia several locations in Giant Sequoia National grove to follow the Crescent Meadow Monument, meeting the needs of both monu­ road. All these actions are intended to ment and park visitors. However, national preserve and improve the condition of the monument status is likely to attract more Giant Forest sequoia grove. visitors, which could add to existing congestion • The rebuilding of Generals Highway to in the parks. Visitors to the national parks preserve its scenic historical character and overlap with visitors to Giant Sequoia National slower mountain driving opportunities. Monument, since they can only get to the north­ ern unit by way of the Big Stump entrance • The replacement of utility systems to station and visitors drive along the Generals meet state standards. In some locations Highway through the monument between comfort stations are being replaced with Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. vault toilets. Monument status could further emphasize • The updating of exhibits at the Grant resource values and recreational opportunities, Grove and Ash Mountain visitor centers. broadening some interpretive stories that could be jointly told. There is some visitor confusion The no-action alternative, in conjunction with about how management regulations differ be­ past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions tween the U.S. Forest Service and the National in the region, would result in visitor opportuni­ Park Service and the types of recreational ties remaining much as they are today. This opportunities that can be offered (for example, would result in moderate, beneficial, long-term hunting and snowmobiling are allowed in non- impacts on visitors to the parks and to Giant Sequoia National Monument.

267 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion many opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. Continuing current management practices and policies would maintain visitors’ present expe­ Development areas would constitute less than riences, with some change as facilities were 1% (0.22%) of the total park area and include replaced. Crowding would persist in some areas, approximately 1,887 acres. Of that, over 65% trails would continue to deteriorate, and educa­ would be for park operations (primarily waste­ tional opportunities would remain inadequate. water treatment), over 15% for campgrounds, Transit would be limited to Giant Forest, and about 11% for residential uses, and 7.5% bicycling would continue to be mixed with villages. Frontcountry areas reached by roads traffic on park roads. At the same time, gradual would amount to about 2.1% of the park, 1.6% improvements of existing facilities would con­ of which would be low-use frontcountry. tinue to occur in all areas of the parks, as would the planned expansion of concession facilities Compared to the no-action alternative, the pre­ and new facilities at Giant Forest. Despite minor ferred alternative would also preserve the low- to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on key, rustic character of the parks because of visitors from gradually improving facilities and limited development, guidelines to preserve the continued opportunities, traffic congestion in the rustic character, and the vast backcountry. most popular areas would generally result in However, improved circulation and education moderate, adverse, long-term impacts. about the parks would result in moderate, bene­ ficial, long-term impacts because congestion The no-action alternative, in conjunction with would be reduced and visitors would have more past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions opportunities to learn about park resources. in the region, would continue visitor opportuni­ ties much as they are today. This would result in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on Visitor Use visitors to the parks and to Giant Sequoia National Monument. Traditional use patterns would continue to be altered as the regional population grows and new user groups discover the parks. Frontcountry visitation would not need to be restricted at the IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED entrance gates in order to ensure a high-quality ALTERNATIVE experience. Day use, short stays, and weekend use would become more common, and visitation Analysis during the spring and fall shoulder seasons would be encouraged. Private vehicles would Park Character remain the primary means to enter the parks, but transit would offer a pleasant way to get around. The parks would retain their basic rustic charac­ The Big Stump entrance station would be rede­ ter, offering most visitors opportunities to see signed or relocated to facilitate traffic flow, the many natural and cultural resources for reducing wait times and making visitor experi­ which the parks are significant. The limited ences more pleasant. Year-round frontcountry amount of development and frontcountry zones use and lodging would attract more visitors. The would reinforce the parks’ natural and rustic number of parking spaces would be increased by character for visitors, helping to maintain the redesigning existing lots. desired visitor experience. Over 97% of the parks would continue to be managed in accor­ The majority of visitation would occur in the dance with the prescriptions for backcountry high-use scenic driving, high-use frontcountry, zones, offering a small percentage of visitors and development zones. Visitors would continue to have access to diverse natural and cultural

268 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative resources for which the parks are significant, be pursued with the U.S. Army Corps of and improved circulation patterns and transit Engineers, the U.S. Forest Service, and others. systems would result in less frequent seasonal • A new visitor center has been proposed at crowding in popular areas. Traditional activities Cedar Grove, which would meet visitor such as hiking, camping, lodging, backcountry needs, resulting in minor, beneficial use, and scenic driving would remain. Park impacts to visitors as a result of improved developed areas would be nearly the same size educational facilities. as they are today, and they would be rebuilt as needed. Over the long term, however, more • The Foothills and Grant Grove visitor facilities could be provided outside the parks in centers would be expanded and updated. collaboration with other entities. Increased opportunities to learn about the history of the parks and the region would While backcountry use would remain low, be provided at Grant Grove, either by expanded educational programs would help redesigning the visitor center or by more visitors gain the skills necessary to visit adaptively reusing sites or structures the backcountry. Additional recreational oppor­ (such as the gas station). This would tunities in the foothills would be provided along result in moderate to major, beneficial, the Middle and North Forks of the Kaweah long-term impacts on educational oppor­ River and at Ash Mountain. Caves, alpine areas, tunities in these highly visited areas. and many trails would remain largely inacces­ • The visitor center at Lodgepole would sible to people with disabilities; however, emphasize backcountry and wilderness wayside exhibits would provide an alternative themes, resulting in moderate, beneficial, way to vicariously experience what the parks long-term impacts since more visitors offer. would be informed about backcountry / wilderness values and recreational oppor­ Accommodating more diverse visitation and day tunities. The Walter Fry Nature Center use, combined with transit and circulation would be eliminated; however, a diverse improvements, would result in a moderate, and more flexible array of educational beneficial, long-term impact on the ability of opportunities in the Giant Forest / Lodge­ visitors, including new user groups, to visit and pole area would be provided to mitigate enjoy the parks. that minor, adverse impact. The result of actions at Lodgepole on visitor education Visitor Information would generally be moderate, beneficial, and long term. People would have additional opportunities to • New educational facilities at the Giant learn about the parks before their visits by Forest museum and the Beetle Rock means of the Internet. This would allow them to education center would be completed, plan their visits to make the best use of their filling an important gap in interpretation time, resulting in a minor, beneficial, long-term about giant sequoia ecology and provid­ impact. ing additional group learning opportuni­ ties for most park visitors. The result of these actions on visitor education would Educational Opportunities be major, beneficial, and long term. Educational Facilities. Facilities would be lo­ • The Mineral King visitor contact station cated primarily in the high-use frontcountry and would be expanded, resulting in minor, development zones. Orientation and exhibits beneficial, long-term impacts on educa­ could be installed at transit stops. Additional tional opportunities in this area. educational opportunities outside the parks could

269 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• At Dillonwood there has been no visitor diverse resources for which the parks are known, use, but further planning would determine and road access would be provided to many of the levels and types of use. them. Features in the high-use frontcountry zone would continue to be crowded occasionally Improvements to educational facilities would during peak times. Redesigning the circulation generally result in moderate to major, beneficial, system in Grant Grove and continuing the transit long-term impacts for park visitors since im­ system in the Giant Forest area would improve provements would occur in developed areas opportunities for visitors to experience park throughout the parks. resources. The likelihood of encountering others Educational Programs. Education, Interpre would remain similar to today. Some opportuni­ tation, and Orientation — Educational programs ties to experience solitude would remain, even in would focus on learning about park resources, frontcountry areas. instilling park stewardship values, leave-no-trace Limited development in the parks, as well poli­ ethics, and backcountry skills, in addition to cies and development guidelines, should help basic visitor orientation and safety information. preserve opportunities for visitors to enjoy the Park orientation would be expanded, with more night skies without inference from artificial light information about recreational opportunities, and sources, and opportunities could be gradually skills needed for safe enjoyment. Additional improved. Many backcountry and wilderness educational staff would result in a greater variety opportunities would remain, and visitors could and amount of programs, so more visitors would experience wilderness values such as solitude have access to programs and activities. Park and freedom from human impacts. exhibits would be updated, and the park news­ paper and publications would continue. New Compared to the no-action alternative, oppor­ trail centers, wayside exhibits, orientation, and tunities to experience diverse park resources trail information would be provided. The pre­ would be similar to those today; however, ferred alternative would have a moderate, bene­ improved circulation would result in negligible ficial, long-term impact on the ability of park to minor, beneficial impacts on visitor access to visitors, as well as local and regional popula­ park resources. tions, to participate in popular educational programs because additional, diverse programs Opportunities for Traditional Recreational would be provided. Experiences. Trails and Hiking — There would be numerous recreational trail opportunities in Educational Outreach — Outreach programs all park environments. Frontcountry trails would be expanded to reach additional diverse currently receive the most use, and they would publics and to encourage participation in continue to be most popular, with gradually regional classrooms by increasing park staff increasing visitation. Trail conditions in both involved in outreach. A classroom-focused low- and high-use areas would be improved, and Website would provide additional educational the system would be somewhat expanded, opportunities, and numerous volunteer and visitor-created trails and redundant trails would partnership efforts would be developed. The be removed, and additional trail information result would be a minor to moderate, beneficial, would be provided. Improving hiking trails and long-term impact on park educational building a footbridge near Hospital Rock would opportunities. result in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts in terms of hiking opportunities in the foothills. Recreational Opportunities The majority of the parks would remain back­ Opportunities to Experience Park Resources. country, with an extensive trail system, and Under the preferred alternative visitors would long-distance trails would continue to be have a choice of opportunities to experience the provided. The backcountry trail system would

270 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative remain similar to today, with no trails in most of sites removed from Atwell Mill, and the backcountry. primitive sites would be added. Improved camping at Mineral King would generally The preferred alternative would have moderate result in minor, beneficial, long-term to major, beneficial, long-term impacts on impacts, even though there would be hiking and trail use for most visitors because of minor, adverse, long-term impacts on an improved trail system, better conditions, and those visitors wanting to camp in a additional directional signs. sequoia grove. Removing the Mineral King dams would eliminate the potential Camping — A variety of camping options would adverse impact on human life and continue to be provided. Twelve frontcountry downstream development at the Cold campgrounds would be gradually rebuilt to im­ Spring campground. As previously stated, prove visitor experiences, to accommodate the dams are classified as “significant diverse user groups, and to separate differing hazard” facilities should they fail (NPS user types. Campgrounds would generally be 1992b), and their removal would result in configured for about 250 sites. A few small a beneficial, permanent impact on public primitive campgrounds could be provided to safety. offer more diverse camping choices. RV dump stations could be eliminated to protect park • In the backcountry the Bearpaw Meadow resources if they did not meet state standards. tent-hotel (high Sierra camp) and desig­ nated campsites provide some camping or • Campgrounds at Cedar Grove would be overnight support facilities such as toilets redesigned to improve camping experi­ and bear-proof storage boxes. The possi­ ences, with more separation between sites bility of providing an additional high and discrete areas for different types of Sierra camp would be explored. The uses, resulting in minor, beneficial, long- impact of retaining the camp would be term impacts. negligible to minor, beneficial, and long • The Crystal Springs campground in Grant term in terms of providing diverse Grove would be converted to a day use opportunities for the small number of function, resulting in moderate, adverse, backcountry visitors seeking this type of long-term impacts. However, park staff experience. would work with Giant Sequoia National • In backcountry areas camping would con­ Monument staff to increase camping tinue by permit, and some areas would opportunities in the vicinity of Grant provide designated campsites, including Grove, so opportunities might remain stock campgrounds. Educational pro­ similar to those today. grams and enforcement efforts by park • Campgrounds at Lodgepole, Dorst, and rangers would be enhanced to make sure South Fork would be upgraded as needed, hikers and backpackers understand how to resulting in negligible, beneficial, long- protect their food supplies from black term impacts. bears. The resulting impact on back­ country camping would be negligible, • In the foothills the Potwisha and Buckeye beneficial, and long term as a result of Flat campgrounds would be retained, and more education about avoiding bear/ a new primitive campground would be human conflicts. added in the North Fork area, resulting in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on The preferred alternative would generally pro­ those seeking a more primitive camping vide minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term experience in the vicinity of Three Rivers. impacts in terms of camping opportunities. • The Cold Spring campground at Mineral Water Play — Seasonal summer water play in King would be expanded to replace camp­ rivers at Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and the foot­

271 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES hills would continue and could become beneficial, and long term for the few anglers in increasingly popular with more regional visitors. the parks. River access points, parking areas, trails, and trailheads would be defined in popular areas to The removal of the Mineral King hydroelectric reduce bank and vegetation damage, as well as dams would reduce fishing opportunities, result­ use impacts such as littering. This would result ing in localized, minor, adverse, long-term in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts as a impacts on visitors wanting to fish in these result of improved river access for a small areas. number of visitors. Winter Use — Expanded winter use would be Cave Tours — Low-cost, guided cave tours of encouraged so visitors could enjoy park re­ various types would continue to be offered at sources year-round. Snowplay areas would be Crystal Cave by the Sequoia Natural History provided at Grant Grove and Wolverton, with Association. With increased park visitation, equipment rentals, limited food service, and visitors might have to plan farther in advance to restrooms being made available. Crowding obtain tickets. An unknown number of visitors would still be common at snowplay sites during who might not be able to get tickets would be weekends and holidays. Cross-country skiing denied this experience. Due to the 0.5-mile steep and snowshoeing would continue to offer access trail, the cave would not be accessible to opportunities to have a quieter experience within those visitors in wheelchairs or those unable to superb front and backcountry park settings. negotiate the terrain. Access by means such as Winter camping would be provided in several educational waysides and photographs of the campgrounds, in addition to backcountry cave could help illustrate cave resources to opportunities. The preferred alternative would visitors who could not access the cave. Rest­ result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts for rooms would remain at the parking lot; they visitors to participate in winter activities as a would only be provided at the cave if it became result of slightly expanded opportunities and technologically and economically feasible to services. meet state wastewater standards with sustainable facilities. The preferred alternative would result Opportunities for Nontraditional Recrea in negligible, beneficial, long-term impacts on tional Experiences. New Activities — New guided cave tours since the tour would remain activities would be assessed against policy and similar to what is offered. resource concerns to determine potential impacts. Low-impact activities that did not To better protect park resources, access to other impair park resources and were related to park caves would be restricted to cave specialists with settings would be allowed. The parks would permits. The preferred alternative would have a encourage basic activities. Measures to separate negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on some activities that would infringe on the expe­ opportunities for the general public to experi­ riences of other visitors would enhance overall ence cave resources, and a minor, adverse, long- park enjoyment for as many visitors as possible. term impact on opportunities for the small The preferred alternative would have minor, number of recreational cavers / spelunkers to beneficial, long-term impacts for visitors to experience park caves. experience new activities deemed appropriate.

Fishing — Fishing would continue to be highly Bicycle Use — Under the preferred alternative regulated. No fishing support facilities would be bicycle use would continue to be allowed on provided to the limited number of anglers in the park roads in the development, high-use scenic parks. The National Park Service would con­ driving, and high- and low-use frontcountry tinue to restore native populations and eliminate zones, but not on trails or in the backcountry. nonnative species. Impacts would be negligible, Bicycling as a recreational activity in a park setting would be enhanced in Cedar Grove and

272 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative near Ash Mountain. Bicycling would only erosion, vegetative impacts, and littering, could provide alternate methods of transportation at also provide access for nonmotorized watercraft Cedar Grove, where bike lanes on existing roads users since the recreational waterplay and and / or separate bike routes would be provided. watercraft seasons do not overlap. As such, the The Shepherd Saddle Road near Ash Mountain preferred alternative would have a minor, would be identified for bicycling, offering a beneficial, long-term impact on those few circular route connecting with the North Fork visitors seeking opportunities to use nonmotor­ area. In other areas, bike lanes would not be ized watercraft on park rivers. striped, and family bike use would be primarily limited to campgrounds since bicyclists would Air Tours — Potential air tours in the future need to share narrow roads with motorists, a would be regulated in accordance with the situation likely to make many visitors feel provisions of the National Parks Air Tour unsafe. Thus, bicycling on Generals Highway or Management Act of 2000. The act directs the Kings Canyon Highway with vehicular traffic Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation would likely be experienced primarily by road with the National Park Service, to develop an air cyclists. Taken as a whole, the preferred alter­ tour management plan whenever a person native would have minor, beneficial, long-term applies for authority to conduct a commercial air impacts for bicycling in the parks as a result of tour operation over a unit of the national park striped lanes and cycling opportunities on the system if such a plan does not already exist for Shepherd Saddle road. that park unit. The purpose of the plan would be to provide acceptable and effective measures to Snowmobiles / Snow Machines — As described mitigate or prevent adverse impacts of commer­ for the no-action alternative, the use of snow­ cial air tour operations on natural and cultural mobiles and snow machines would only be resources and visitor experiences. No air tour allowed on roads by private inholders and permit companies currently operate in the parks, holders for access to their cabins (in Wilsonia although two companies have applied for and Mineral King). Recreational snowmobiling operating authority. is not allowed in the parks because it adversely impacts the park values of solitude and natural Opportunities for Stock Use. Under the pre­ quiet, but it is allowed on USFS land. Because ferred alternative horses and other stock use most of the parks are designated wilderness, would continue, with reasonable regulations and motorized equipment is prohibited, so enhanced monitoring. Areas would be open or snowmobiles are confined to frontcountry roads closed to stock use depending on resource con­ where their use may pose safety concerns for ditions and the capability of the resource to other winter users. Because snowmobile use is withstand use. This sustainable approach has limited to a few areas, and because opportunities substantially reduced stock-related impacts. It is are provided on adjacent public lands, not expected that as leave-no-trace / sustainable allowing recreational snowmobile use in the stock practices and use of supplemental feed parks would have minor, beneficial, and long- increased, resource conditions would continue to term impacts on the majority of park users improve. This would result in a minor, bene­ during the winter. ficial, long-term impact for stock users.

Nonmotorized Watercraft — Nonmotorized Stock use provides traditional opportunities to watercraft would continue to be allowed except enjoy the parks and could provide access for on the South Fork of the Kings River. A study of visitors with disabilities. Currently there is a watercraft use (primarily kayak) would be small amount of stock use by visitors with undertaken on the Middle Fork of the Kaweah disabilities, so the impact would be negligible. River. No commercial use would be allowed. Developed river access points at popular Concession stables / corrals providing day and waterplay areas, which would reduce bank overnight trips would continue at Cedar Grove,

273 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Grant Grove, and Mineral King. About 20 would be gradually improved, resulting in additional commercial operators would continue minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on to provide pack services. Stock use would visitor experiences. continue at present levels, much lower than the • At Grant Grove lodging would be ex­ historical highs. A new, sustainable location to panded with 9 additional cabins; 19 replace the Wolverton corral would be explored cabins would be renovated and some in the Dorst, Wuksachi, Lodgepole, and central baths would be provided. The Wolverton areas. A “Preliminary Draft existing mix of cabins and lodges at Grant Franchise Fee / Feasibility Analysis of Current Grove would remain, but improved Saddle Horse Ride and Pack Stations” (NPS facilities would result in negligible to 2004) indicates new or existing commercial minor, beneficial, long-term impacts to pack station / stock ride operations might visitors wanting to stay at Grant Grove. become increasingly infeasible without government-provided infrastructure, such as • At Lodgepole the gas station would be roads, utilities, and buildings. This is primarily analyzed for retention, adaptive use, or due to rising insurance costs and projected costs removal. Other facilities (store, post for additional resource protection requirements, office, showers, laundry, food service) such as weed-free feed, waste removal, and would be retained in order to provide for equipment costs for waste removal. both day use and camper needs. Demand for food service could increase since none Impacts of horse use (feces, eroded trails, dust) is provided in the Giant Forest area, and would continue to cause minor, adverse, long- concessioners would likely adapt to the term impacts on a small number of backcountry demand. A redesigned circulation system hikers, but increased regulation and stock-free could help visitors find food and other areas would somewhat mitigate this impact. services more easily. There would be moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts Despite adverse impacts on hikers, providing because of improvements to services. stock opportunities would result in minor, • At Wuksachi 312 additional lodge rooms beneficial, long-term impacts because a would be constructed to replace lodging traditional use would continue. Monitoring, removed from Giant Forest. An amphi­ regulation, and education would gradually theater would be built, and food service improve trail and backcountry conditions. and other services would be expanded. Similar to the no-action alternative, this Visitor Facilities and Services alternative would result in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts because of Overnight lodging as well as camping oppor­ additional lodging opportunities within tunities would be provided in the following the parks. zones — development, low-use frontcountry, • At Wolverton the concession building for and backcountry. All existing overnight facilities winter use and the picnic area would would remain in the four lodging areas, along remain. The Boy Scout camp would be with 12 campgrounds and the high Sierra tent- converted to a camp for volunteers. A hotel. (Camping facilities are discussed on page new visitor parking lot / shuttle system 271). would provide an improved experience • At Cedar Grove, seasonal use would con­ for Giant Forest visitors because conges­ tinue, along with modestly expanded tion would be reduced. However, the lodging and more types of lodging, food corral has been removed, reducing recrea­ service and store, and the free RV dump tional opportunities. Services at Wolver­ station, with no change in impact from the ton would be improved compared to no-action alternative; however, facilities today, resulting in major, beneficial, long­

274 Visitor Experience: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

term impacts since most visitors spend regulations differ between the Forest Service time in the Giant Forest and parking and the Park Service and the types of recrea­ would be more convenient. The removal tional opportunities that can be offered (for of the corral (with no new location yet example, hunting and snowmobiling are allowed identified) would adversely affect a in non-wilderness forest areas) could be relatively small number of visitors mitigated with education. seeking a riding experience in the Giant Forest, resulting in a minor, adverse, The Terminus Reservoir on Lake Kaweah will short-term impact until the service was be raised to increase storage, resulting in some replaced at another location. loss or relocation of recreation facilities, such as boat ramps and picnic areas. While these kinds Generally providing a variety of improved of facilities are not provided in the parks, they facilities and services would enhance visitor primarily serve local and regional users, this experiences and better meet the changing needs action would have a negligible, adverse, long- of visitors, resulting in minor to moderate, term impact on recreational opportunities or beneficial impacts on visitor experiences over park visitors. the long term. As described for the no-action alternative, past actions in the parks that have affected visitor Cumulative Impacts experiences include the following: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions • removing Giant Forest facilities, with in the region would be the same as those replacement lodging at Wuksachi village, described for the no-action alternative. Lodging, and in the future relocating an under­ food service, and additional types of recreational ground electric power line running opportunities are provided in surrounding through the center of the sequoia grove to communities, such as Three Rivers. Most motels follow the Crescent Meadow road; these provide swimming pools, and there is also a golf actions are intended to preserve and course, spa, and seasonal river rafting. It is likely improve the condition of the Giant Forest that a similar type and number of services will sequoia grove be provided in the future. • rebuilding the Generals Highway to preserve its scenic historical character and Giant Sequoia National Monument is expected slower mountain driving opportunities to have a negligible impact on existing types of visitor uses. Visitor services (such as lodging, • replacing utility systems to meet state camping, gas, and food) are provided in several standards, with comfort stations in some locations in the monument, meeting the needs of locations being replaced by vault toilets. both monument and park visitors. However, • updating exhibits at the Grant Grove and national monument status is likely to attract Ash Mountain visitor centers additional visitors, which could add to existing congestion in the parks. Visitors to the national The preferred alternative, in conjunction with parks overlap with those to the national monu­ past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions ment since they can only get to the northern unit in the region, would be expanded somewhat, by way of the Big Stump entrance station and resulting generally in moderate, beneficial, long- visitors drive along the Generals Highway term impacts on park visitors due to improved through the monument between Sequoia and facilities and opportunities in the parks and the Kings Canyon National Parks. Monument status attraction of Giant Sequoia National Monument. could further emphasize resource values and recreational opportunities, broadening some interpretive stories that could be jointly told. Some visitor confusion about how management

275 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

The preferred alternative would enhance visitor Analysis recreational and educational opportunities to enjoy and understand the parks while retaining Park Character their basic character and accommodating some growth in visitation. Limited facility expansion The parks would retain their basic rustic char­ and redesign would offer visitors more choice acter, but a limited number of visitors would and convenience, while improving access to have opportunities to see the many natural and park resources. Taken together, the actions in the cultural resources for which the parks are preferred alternative would have moderate to significant. The majority of the parks would be major, beneficial, long-term impacts on managed in accordance with three backcountry experiences for all visitors. The following prescriptions. Development areas would amount actions would specifically contribute to the to 0.15% of the total park area and include beneficial impacts: approximately 1,310 acres, a reduction of • improved diverse and comprehensive around 435 acres from the no-action alternative. visitor orientation and educational pro­ Of that development, park operations would grams, upgraded educational facilities, occupy around 60%, residential 10%, camp­ more ranger naturalist programs, focus on grounds over 20%, and villages about 8%. park values and learning outdoor skills, Frontcountry areas reached by roads would and expanded outreach amount to 2.1% of the parks, and around 1.7% of that would be low-use frontcountry. About • redesigned and more efficient visitor 97.7% of the parks would be managed as circulation systems, including transit backcountry, slightly more than now. • improved trail systems Compared to the no-action alternative, this • more choices in lodging alternative would preserve the low-key, rustic • facility improvements — a new visitor character of the parks by limiting development, center and bike routes at Cedar Grove; with guidelines to preserve rustic character and improved visitor center, historic museum the vast backcountry. However, reduced devel­ and redesigned circulation at Grant opment would result in a minor to moderate, Grove; new facilities at Giant Forest; adverse impact on visitor’s ability to conven­ improved Ash Mountain visitor center, iently experience the parks’ character over the with added bicycling, hiking and camping long term. opportunities in the foothills

• enhanced ability to meet the needs of Visitor Use diverse visitor groups and increased accessibility to park resources by disabled Traditional use patterns would continue to be visitors altered as the regional population grows and as The preferred alternative, in conjunction with new user groups continue to discover the parks, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions which would increasingly contrast with the in the region, would generally result in moder­ surrounding developed area. Day use, short ate, beneficial, long-term impacts on park stays, and weekend use would become more visitors because of improved facilities and common. Private vehicles would remain the expanded opportunities in the parks and the primary way to experience the parks. Crowding attraction of Giant Sequoia National Monument. would be less common in many frontcountry areas except for Grant Grove, which would remain very congested because Hume Lake traffic would still be routed through the village.

276 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative A

Use limits and resulting gate closures would • Limited and inadequate education would deprive some people of opportunities to visit. be provided at Cedar Grove in the contact Caves, alpine areas, and many trails would station, and no visitor center would be remain largely inaccessible to people with provided. Compared to the no-action disabilities, so wayside exhibits would provide alternative, impacts would be negligible an alternative way to see what the parks offer. and adverse over the long term. Many types of visitor facilities would be moved • The Walter Fry Nature Center would be out of the parks, and fewer services would be removed, and the Lodgepole visitor center available to visitors. Year-round frontcountry functions would be moved to the new use and lodging would continue to attract Giant Forest museum. While new facili­ visitors. ties and exhibits would be present, alpine interpretation would no longer be the Visitor use would be limited. The high-use focus. The Beetle Rock education center scenic driving, development, and high-use would provide new group educational frontcountry zones would see the most visita­ opportunities. Fewer educational facilities tion. Crowding would be reduced on weekends, and opportunities would result in minor to and those visitors who could enter and find moderate, adverse impacts to the visitor parking would be able to see significant park experience over the long term. resources in a more relaxed, less crowded atmosphere. Relocated north entry gates would Taken as a whole, this alternative would result in facilitate park entry but would exempt the Grant a minor to moderate, adverse, long-term impact Grove area from use limits, so that area would on visitors’ opportunities to use educational remain congested since most traffic to Hume facilities in the parks. Lake and Cedar Grove passes through the village. Additional planning would be required Educational Programs. Education, Interpreta to visit the parks. With reduced visitation, the tion, and Orientation — Educational efforts quality of the visitor experience would improve. would focus on visitor safety, orientation, and leave-no-trace programs, with a shift to written While limits on the number of visitors allowed materials and exhibits. Guided educational into the parks would have a major, adverse, activities would generally no longer be avai1­ long-term impact on the ability of all visitors to able. Reduced educational opportunities would freely access the park, the subsequent improved have moderate to major, adverse, long-term visitor experiences would result in a minor, impacts on most visitors. beneficial, long-term impact. Educational Outreach — Outreach programs would focus on resource protection. They would Visitor Information be enlarged, utilizing numerous volunteers and partners, and a Website would be established. Information programs would be expanded, using The result would be a minor, beneficial, long- numerous volunteers and partners, and a Web- term impact on park educational programs. site would be established. The result would be a minor, beneficial, long-term impact for those seeking information before they visit. Recreational Activities

Opportunities to Experience Park Resources. Educational Opportunities Under alternative A visitors would have fewer choices to experience the range of park re­ Educational Facilities. Educational facilities sources, although most types of resources could would continue to be primarily provided in the still be accessed by all visitors gaining entrance development and high-use frontcountry zones, to the parks. Fewer people could visit since daily but the amount of facilities would be reduced.

277 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES visitation would be limited. Providing fewer provided, including long-distance, backcountry facilities would result in less convenience and trails. However, most of the backcountry would less choice, as well as more of a need for visitors remain trailless. to plan their visits in advance. Smaller park developed areas would be less crowded than in Alternative A would have minor to moderate, other alternatives because lodging and services beneficial, long-term impacts for hiking and trail would be reduced. With less visitation, the use because trail conditions would be improved. quality of visitor experiences could improve for some visitors, but features would remain busy Camping — Camping would generally offer because less parking would be provided and the more variety, and campgrounds would be rede­ transit system would be more limited. There signed to increase spaces between sites. The size would be fewer frontcountry trails, so the of campgrounds would be capped at 200 sites, likelihood of encountering others would remain and most campgrounds would be reduced in similar to today. Frontcountry subalpine size. Types of camping would be designated, motorist access in Mineral King would be thus improving the overall camping experience. curtailed, but pedestrians could still visit the • At Cedar Grove campgrounds would be valley. Waterplay opportunities might be reduced in size and designated for certain restricted to protect resources. Winter use would types of uses, resulting in minor to be allowed at current levels, but fewer rentals moderate, adverse, long-term impacts to would be available. those wanting to stay overnight at Cedar Grove. Reduced party size requirements would mean that backcountry visitors would have more • At Grant Grove campgrounds would be opportunities to experience solitude and other redesigned to reduce the number of sites wilderness values, as well as wilderness recrea­ and to provide more day use space, result­ tional opportunities. ing in minor, adverse impacts on those who could not find camping in the area. Because of steep terrain, caves, alpine areas, and • At Lodgepole and Dorst the campgrounds many trails would remain largely inaccessible to would be reduced in size, improving people with disabilities. However, wayside camping conditions, but resulting in exhibits would provide an alternative way these minor, adverse impacts on those who individuals to see what the parks offer. could not find campsites in the area. Since opportunities to experience the range of • In the foothills, the Potwisha campground park resources would remain, alternative A would be removed, and South Fork would would have a minor, adverse, long-term impact be converted to a trailhead campground, on how visitors experience the range of park resulting in moderate, adverse impacts on resources. However, fewer visitors would en­ those who could not find camping in these hance the quality of the overall visitor experi­ areas. ence, as well as park values of wilderness and • The Cold Spring campground at Mineral solitude, resulting in minor, beneficial, long- King would be expanded to accommodate term impacts. sites from Atwell Mill, resulting in negligible, beneficial, long-term impacts Opportunities for Traditional Recreational since a similar number of campsites Experiences. Trails and Hiking — As described would be provided, but minor, adverse for the preferred alternative, conditions of impacts on those seeking to camp in a frontcountry trails in both low- and high-use sequoia grove. Removing the Mineral areas would be improved, but the amount of King dams would eliminate the potential frontcountry trails would be reduced. An adverse impact on human life and extensive trail system would continue to be

278 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative A

downstream development at the Cold To better protect park resources, access to other Spring campground (NPS 1992b). caves would be restricted to cave specialists with permits. Alternative A would have a negligible, • The high Sierra camp at Bearpaw Mead­ beneficial, long-term impact on opportunities for ow would be removed, resulting in minor, the general public to experience cave resources, adverse, long-term impacts on the small and a minor, adverse, long-term impact on number of visitors wanting this type of opportunities for the small number of recrea­ backcountry experience. tional cavers / spelunkers to experience park • For backcountry campers educational caves. programs and enforcement efforts by park rangers would be enhanced in order to Fishing — Sportfishing would be more restricted protect black bears from hiker and so as to allow the restoration of native popula­ backpacker food supplies. tions and to eliminate nonnative species. The re­ sulting impact would be minor, long term, and This alternative would generally result in minor, adverse for those anglers seeking nonnative beneficial, long-term impacts on most camping species. experiences, with a moderate, adverse, long- term impact due to the removal of the Potwisha As described for the preferred alternative, the campground in the foothills area. removal of the Mineral King hydroelectric dams would reduce fishing opportunities, resulting in Water Play — Seasonal summer water play in localized, minor, adverse, long-term impacts on rivers at Cedar Grove Lodgepole, and the foot­ visitors wanting to fish in these areas. hills would continue, but with limited access that could result in slightly more people in some Winter Use — Winter use demand would areas, with a minor, adverse, long-term impact continue to expand, and crowding and lack of on visitors. River access points, parking areas, rental equipment would continue to occur during trails, and trailheads would be limited to reduce holiday weekends. Not providing winter use bank and vegetation damage, as well as use facilities at Wolverton would have minor to impacts such as littering. As a result of improved moderate, adverse, long-term impacts since conditions, despite more limited access, there fewer facilities and less rental equipment would would be minor, beneficial, long-term impacts be available. on water play. Opportunities for Nontraditional Recrea Cave Tours — Low-cost, guided cave tours of tional Experiences. New Activities — New various types would continue to be offered at activities would be prohibited, even those with Crystal Cave by the Sequoia Natural History potentially no impact. The result would be a Association. With decreased park visitation, it minor, adverse, long-term impact for those might be easier to obtain tickets in advance. An visitors desiring to try new or extreme activities unknown number of visitors who might not be within the parks since there would be a able to get advance tickets would be denied this comprehensive prohibition. experience. Due to the 0.5-mile steep access trail, the cave would not be accessible to those Bicycle Use — Under alternative A bicycle use visitors in wheelchairs or those unable to would be allowed only on park roads, the same negotiate the terrain. Educational waysides and as the no-action alternative. Safety would not be photographs of the cave could help illustrate improved by striping bike lanes. The result cave resources to visitors who could not access would be minor, adverse, long-term impacts to the cave. Restrooms would remain at the parking bicyclists due to safety concerns. lot. Alternative A would result in negligible, beneficial, long-term impacts on guided cave Snowmobiles / Snow Machines — The use of tours since the tour would remain similar to snowmobiles and other snow machines would be what is offered.

279 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES prohibited, resulting in minor, adverse impacts be provided at sites within the parks, and there over the short and long term for private inhold­ would be less lodging and camping. ers and cabin permit holders who use these • At Cedar Grove, seasonal use would machines to access their cabins during the continue; but public lodging would be winter; the impact would continue until their removed, resulting in minor to moderate, permits expire or the property was acquired. adverse, long-term impacts to those However, all park users would be equally wanting to stay overnight here. subject to restrictions. Because snowmobile use is currently limited to a few areas, and because • At Grant Grove there would be no change opportunities are provided on adjacent USFS in the amount of cabins and other lodging lands, not allowing recreational snowmobile use provided, resulting in negligible, bene­ in the parks would have a minor, beneficial, ficial, long-term impacts to those wanting long-term impact on the majority of park visitors to stay overnight here. during the winter. • At Lodgepole the nature center and post office would be removed, with minor to Nonmotorized Watercraft — Nonmotorized moderate, adverse, long-term impacts due watercraft would be discouraged, resulting in a to fewer amenities. negligible to minor, adverse, long-term impact on recreational opportunities since the number • At Wolverton the picnic area would re­ of visitors enjoying this activity is low but has main, but the winter concession building been growing in recent years. and the Boy Scout camp would be re­ moved and the areas restored to more Air Tours — Potential impacts would be natural conditions. A new visitor parking analyzed in an air tour management plan lot / shuttle system for Giant Forest prepared jointly by the National Park Service visitors would reduce congestion and and the Federal Aviation Administration. improve the experience. Services at Wolverton would be reduced compared to Opportunities for Stock Use. Prohibiting today, resulting in moderate, adverse, horses and other stock throughout the parks long-term impacts on winter use since under alternative A would result in moderate, support facilities would be removed. At adverse, long-term impacts to the relatively the same there would be major, beneficial, small number of visitors seeking this use. long-term impacts on visitation since Commercially provided horse and pack trips most visitors spend time in the Giant would also be eliminated, and the corrals at Forest and parking would be more Cedar Grove, Grant Grove, and Mineral King convenient. would be closed. Permits and discussion with • Like the other alternatives, new visitor backcountry rangers show little or no current use service facilities would be provided in of stock by visitors with disabilities, so the Giant Forest (the museum, the Beetle impact on them would be negligible. Rock education facility, and transit shuttle facilities), resulting in major, beneficial, Visitor Facilities and Services long-term impacts on visitor experiences. This alternative would generally result in minor Fewer facilities would be provided in the to moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on development, low- and high-use frontcountry visitor experiences as a result of fewer facilities. zones under alternative A. Some facilities would be moved outside the parks, resulting in less convenience and choice for visitors. For exam­ ple, gasoline and RV dump stations would not

280 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative A

Cumulative Impacts condition of the Giant Forest sequoia grove Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions • rebuilding the Generals Highway to in the region would be the same as those de­ preserve its scenic historical character and scribed for the no-action alternative. Lodging, slower mountain driving opportunities food service, and additional types of recreational opportunities are provided in surrounding • replacing utility systems to meet state communities, such as Three Rivers. It is likely standards, and replacing comfort stations that a similar type and number of services will with vault toilets in some locations be provided in the future. • updating exhibits at the Grant Grove and Ash Mountain visitor centers Giant Sequoia National Monument is expected to have a negligible impact on existing types of Alternative A, in conjunction with past, present, visitor uses. Visitor services (such as lodging, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region, camping, gas, and food) are provided in several would likely result in less choice and more locations in the monument, meeting the needs of limited visitor opportunities than are currently both monument and park visitors. More visitors provided. This would result in a moderate, to the monument could add to congestion in the adverse, long-term impact on park visitors due parks because visitors to the national monument to reduced facilities and opportunities in the can only get to the northern unit by way of the parks despite the attraction of Giant Sequoia Big Stump entrance station and visitors drive National Monument. along the Generals Highway through the monu­ ment between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Some visitor confusion about Conclusion how management regulations differ between the Forest Service and the Park Service and the Since the focus of alternative A is to reduce use types of recreational opportunities that can be and development, the general impact on visitor offered (for example, hunting and snowmobiling experiences would be moderate, long term, and are allowed in USFS non-wilderness forest adverse. New facilities at Giant Forest would areas) could be mitigated with education. improve education, park experiences, and accessibility for physically disabled visitors. But Raising the level of the Terminus Reservoir on on the whole, the parks would be less convenient Lake Kaweah will result in some loss or and offer less choice, more restrictions, a loss of relocation of recreation facilities, such as boat traditional activities, and fewer facilities to a ramps and picnic areas. While these kinds of limited number of visitors. facilities are not provided in the parks, they primarily serve local and regional users, so this Alternative A, in conjunction with past, present action would have a negligible, adverse, long- and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region, term impact on recreational opportunities or would likely result in less choice and more park visitors. limited visitor opportunities than are currently provided. This would result in a moderate, ad­ Past actions in the parks that have affected verse, long-term impact on park visitors because visitor experiences include the following: of reduced facilities and opportunities in the parks, despite the attraction of Giant Sequoia • removing Giant Forest facilities, with National Monument. replacement lodging at Wuksachi, and in the future relocating an underground electric power line through the center of the sequoia grove to follow the Crescent Meadow road; all these actions are intended to preserve and improve the

281 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C driving, development, and high-use frontcountry zones would see the largest increase in Analysis visitation. Crowding and traffic congestion during the peak Park Character season would remain common in high-use frontcountry and development areas, and some Alternative C focuses on retaining the parks’ visitors would not be able to see significant park basic rustic character and restoring traditional resources because of inadequate parking use patterns, which may not be realistic with facilities during peak periods. Redesigning changes in society. Development areas would developed areas and circulation patterns as increase slightly to around 1,986 acres (0.23% of needed would somewhat improve the quality of the total park area), an increase of 241 acres visitor experiences even with more visitors. compared to the no-action alternative. Within Existing river use and winter use levels would the development zone, park operations would continue, but areas could be modified to reduce occupy around 55% of the area, campgrounds or contain resource impacts. 19%, residential areas 16%, and villages 10%. Frontcountry areas accessible by roads would Cultural resources would be highlighted, and amount to 2.25% of the park, with around 2% slightly more visitors would have opportunities being low-use frontcountry. About 97.5% of the to see the many natural and cultural resources parks would be managed as backcountry and for which the parks are significant. Caves, alpine wilderness. areas, and many trails would remain largely inaccessible to people with disabilities, so Compared to the no-action alternative, alterna­ wayside exhibits would provide an alternative tive C would also preserve the low-key, rustic way to experience what the parks offer. Small character of the parks through limited develop­ groups would be encouraged to visit the back­ ment, guidelines to preserve the rustic character, country, but on a dispersed basis. and the vast backcountry. However, improved parking and circulation would result in a minor The overall result of alternative C would be to moderate, beneficial impact over the long moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on term because it would be more convenient for visitor experiences. visitors to experience the parks.

Visitor Information Visitor Use The emphasis on in-park ranger programs would Traditional use patterns would be emphasized, possibly make it harder for visitors to get infor­ and the parks would meet the needs of a growing mation to plan their trips to the parks, a mod­ regional population. However, new user groups erate, adverse impact on regional park users and might find that the parks do not offer opportuni­ those planning to come to the parks. ties that meet their family or cultural needs. Private vehicles would remain the primary means for experiencing the parks. Redesigning Educational Opportunities the entrance station at Grant Grove would reduce wait times and make visitor experiences Educational Facilities. Additional visitor edu­ more pleasant. Visitor use would not be limited, cational facilities would be developed, and and visitors could access all types of park others would be consolidated. resources. Longer stays would be encouraged through an expanded in-parks education pro­ • A new visitor center would be provided at gram, despite recreation trends toward shorter Cedar Grove, with minor, beneficial, stays and more day use. The high-use scenic long-term impacts due to improved

282 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative C

educational opportunities for the small Educational Programs. Education, Interpreta number of visitors here. tion, and Orientation — Increasing orientation programs and providing more of the popular • The visitor center at Grant Grove would ranger naturalist programs would enhance the be updated as needed, resulting in minor, learning environment for visitors with regard to beneficial, long-term impacts on visitor resource protection and cultural resources. educational opportunities. Additional education about Native American • The visitor center at Lodgepole and the uses of the park and the history of recreation Walter Fry Nature Center would be re­ communities would be provided. The result moved, with functions concentrated in the would be moderate, beneficial, long-term new Giant Forest facilities. Some educa­ impacts on most visitors. tional and nature activities would be pro­ vided at the shuttle stop. Removing popu­ Educational Outreach — Focusing educational lar facilities would result in moderate, programs within the parks and eliminating park adverse, long-term impacts to Lodgepole outreach programs in favor of an expanded visitors. This impact would be somewhat ranger program would result in a long-term, mitigated by more educational opportuni­ moderate, adverse impact on regional park users. ties at shuttle stops and the new facilities at Giant Forest. Recreational Activities • New educational facilities at the Giant Forest museum and the Beetle Rock Opportunities to Experience Park Resources. education center would fill an important Under alternative C opportunities would con­ interpretive gap about giant sequoia tinue to be provided so visitors could experience ecology and provide additional group- the range of resources for which the parks are learning opportunities. Like all the alter­ significant, although the number of frontcountry natives, these actions would result in trails leading to resources would be consolidated major, beneficial, long-term impacts since to eliminate redundant trails and to protect the majority of park visitors stop at Giant resources. There would be more opportunities to Forest. visit park caves, but because of steep terrain, • A new or enlarged visitor center would be caves would still be inaccessible to some visi­ built at Ash Mountain, providing more tors; however, wayside exhibits would provide opportunities to learn about the foothills an alternative way to vicariously experience environment. With these new opportuni­ what the parks offer. Portions of facilities and ties near a main park entrance, the impact park roads would be redesigned to accommodate on visitor educational opportunities would more visitors. Developed areas in the parks be moderate to major, beneficial, and long would have more diverse types of lodging, in­ term. cluding traditional cabins. Regulations would be used to maintain traditional activities, thus im­ • A visitor contact station would continue proving the quality of experiences for most to provide limited space for education at visitors. Features and attractions in the high-use Mineral King, resulting in negligible, frontcountry zone would remain crowded at beneficial, long-term impacts on visitors times, and a limited transit system would be in this area. used to improve circulation at these sites. The overall impact on visitor educational Consolidating frontcountry trails in both low- opportunities of improved and new educational and high-use areas would increase the likelihood facilities would be moderate to major and of visitors encountering others on the trails. beneficial over the long term. Access to heavily used waterplay areas would likely be redesigned to reduce impacts on natural resources and would somewhat restrict visitor

283 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES freedom. Winter use would expand, with more • At Lodgepole the popular campgrounds opportunities for snow play, as well as desig­ would be reduced in size, resulting in nated cross-country and snowshoe trails. improved camping experiences, but a moderate, adverse, long-term impact on Areas managed as backcountry, including desig­ the amount of camping in this area. nated wilderness, would be similar to what is • The Potwisha and Buckeye Flat camp­ available today. Reduced party-size require­ grounds would be upgraded, and the ments and more regulation would adversely South Fork campground would be affect backcountry experiences for some retained, resulting in negligible, long-term visitors. impacts on foothills campers. While opportunities to experience the range of • The Atwell Mill campground would be park resources would remain, there would be a redesigned, and the Cold Spring camp­ number of visitor impacts. Less choice and ground would be retained at Mineral consolidated facilities would result in minor, King, resulting in negligible, beneficial, adverse, long-term impacts on visitors’ abilities long-term impacts on visitors who want to experience the range of park resources. There several camping opportunities at Mineral would also be negligible to minor, adverse, long- King. Measures would have to be taken to term impacts on opportunities to enjoy front- protect public safety in the event of country solitude as a result of consolidating failure of one or more of the dams at trails. Overall, there would be negligible to Mineral King. minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on the • The high Sierra camp at Bearpaw Mead­ quality of visitor experiences. ow would be continued, retaining more Opportunities for Traditional Recreational camping choices for visitors and resulting Experiences. Trails and Hiking — Trails would in a negligible, beneficial, long-term im­ be consolidated, resulting in improved condi­ pact on visitors seeking this type of tions, but fewer choices for hiking. However, the backcountry experience. overall impacts would be moderate and bene­ This alternative would generally result in minor ficial over the long term because of better trail to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts for conditions. visitors who are camping, despite fewer campsites. Camping — Camping would generally offer more variety. Water Play — Seasonal summer water play in • At Cedar Grove campgrounds would be rivers at Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and the foot­ redesigned to better fit family groups, and hills would continue. Similar to the preferred campgrounds would be designated for alternative, river access points, parking areas, certain types of camping. The RV dump trails, and trailheads would be defined in popular station would be retained. The impact on areas to reduce bank and vegetation damage, as campers at Cedar Grove would be minor, well as use impacts such as littering. Improved beneficial, and long term. and defined access would result in minor, bene­ ficial, long-term impacts for a small number of • At Grant Grove popular campgrounds visitors. would be redesigned to provide more space between sites, resulting in moderate Cave Tours — Low-cost, guided tours at Crystal beneficial, long-term impacts because of Cave, with advance ticket sales, would allow improved experiences. some visitors to experience this resource. As • The Dorst campground would continue, described for the no-action alternative, an with a negligible impact on camping unknown number of visitors who might not be opportunities. able to get permits would be denied this

284 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative C experience. Guided tours would be provided at use would result in additional recreational other caves. Generally, the impact of increased opportunities, and the absence of vehicles would cave opportunities on visitors wanting to tour create a safer experience for visitors. Overall, park caves would be minor and beneficial over impacts would be minor, beneficial, and long the long term. term to the relatively small number of bicycle- riding visitors. Fishing — Sportfishing would continue to be highly regulated. No facilities to support fishing Snowmobiles / Snow Machines — Like the no- would be provided. The park would continue to action and preferred alternatives, the use of restore native populations and to eliminate snowmobiles and snow machines would only be nonnative species. The impact on fishing would allowed on roads for private inholders and be negligible, beneficial, and long term since permit holders to access their cabins (in Wil­ fishing opportunities would continue. sonia and Mineral King). Because most of the parks are wilderness and motorized equipment is Winter Use — Winter recreational opportunities prohibited, snowmobiles are confined to would be expanded so visitors could better enjoy frontcountry roads, where their use may pose park resources year-round. Snowplay areas safety concerns for other winter users. Because would be provided at Grant Grove and snowmobile use is limited to a few areas, and Wolverton, with equipment rentals, limited food because opportunities are provided on adjacent service, and restrooms being made available, USFS lands, the impact on the majority of park similar to the preferred alternative. Crowding users during the winter would be minor, would continue to be common at snowplay sites beneficial, and long term. during weekends and holidays. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing would continue to offer Nonmotorized Watercraft — Nonmotorized opportunities for quieter experiences within watercraft would be allowed with regulation on superb front- and backcountry park settings. park rivers, with minor, beneficial, long-term Winter camping would be provided in several impacts on watercraft users. campgrounds, in addition to backcountry opportunities. Like the preferred alternative, Air Tours — Similar to the preferred alternative, alternative C would result in minor, beneficial potential impacts would be analyzed in an air impacts for winter use opportunities over the tour management plan prepared jointly by the long term because of slightly expanded National Park Service and the Federal Aviation opportunities and services. Administration.

Opportunities for Nontraditional Recrea Opportunities for Stock Use. In alternative C tional Experiences. New Activities — Tra­ the use of horses and other stock would continue ditional basic activities would be encouraged, as as a traditional use in the parks, but with regula­ would activities related to the parks’ purposes. tion and reduction in party sizes. The result The result would be a negligible, adverse impact would be minor, long-term, and beneficial for for those few visitors desiring to try new or stock users since the use would continue to be extreme activities within the parks. For other allowed, but the impact would be adverse for visitors it would result in a minor, beneficial backcountry users accustomed to traveling in impact over the long term because the parks’ large groups. traditional character would be preserved. Continuing to provide commercial horse and Bicycle Use — Under alternative C bicycle use pack trips, and keeping the corrals at Cedar would be facilitated at Cedar Grove and Grant Grove, Grant Grove, and Mineral King open, Grove by means of striping bike lanes, giving would result in minor, beneficial, long-term bicyclists a dedicated portion of the roadway to impacts for visitors enjoying this type of use. Opening Shepherd Saddle Road to bicycle activity. A new, sustainable location to replace

285 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the Wolverton corral would be explored at • At Grant Grove lodging would be ex­ Dorst, Wuksachi, Lodgepole, and Wolverton. panded within the limits of current Added stock support would be provided at concession contracts and would include a Dillonwood and in the foothills. A “Preliminary traditional mix of cabins and lodges. The Draft Franchise Fee / Feasibility Analysis of impact of more lodging choices on Current Saddle Horse Ride and Pack Stations” visitors would be minor and beneficial (NPS 2004) indicates that new or existing over the long term. commercial pack station / stock ride operations • At Wuksachi a gas station would be pro­ might become increasingly infeasible without vided, and lodging and visitor services government-provided infrastructure, such as would be expanded within the concession roads, utilities, and buildings. This is primarily contract limits and an amphitheater due to rising insurance costs and projected costs provided, resulting in minor to moderate, for additional resource protection requirements, beneficial, long-term impacts on visitors. such as weed-free feed, waste removal, and equipment costs for waste removal. • At Lodgepole facilities meeting overnight needs (e.g., laundry / showers, groceries) Continuing stock use is expected to have a negli­ would remain, resulting in minor, gible, beneficial impact for visitors with physical beneficial impacts over the long term. disabilities because this would provide another • At Wolverton the concession building for means for them to access various resources in winter use and the Boy Scout camp would the parks. be retained, and picnic facilities would be provided at shuttle stops and new parking Impacts of horse use (feces, eroded trails, dust) areas. Pending the selection of a new could be reduced by education, smaller party corral site, the impact on the relatively size, and regulation enforcement, but hikers small number of visitors seeking a riding would continue to be adversely affected to a experience in the Giant Forest would be minor degree. minor, adverse, and short term. Services Despite minor, adverse impacts on hikers, at Wolverton would be improved com­ opportunities for continued traditional stock use pared to today, resulting in major, bene­ with regulations and monitoring to improve ficial, long-term impacts since most visitor experiences for all would generally result visitors spend time in Giant Forest and in minor, beneficial impacts over the long term. parking would be more convenient. For visitors this alternative would generally result in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- Visitor Facilities and Services term impacts in terms of facilities, visitor convenience, and choices of lodging. Overnight lodging and camping would be accommodated in the development, low-use frontcountry, and backcountry zones. Slightly Cumulative Impacts more overnight facilities would be provided than under the no-action alternative, resulting in more Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions convenience and choices for visitors. Developed in the region would be the same as those areas would not include gas stations. As described for the no-action alternative. Lodging, previously described, campgrounds would food service, and additional types of recreational generally offer more variety. opportunities are provided in surrounding • At Cedar Grove a longer use season and communities, such as Three Rivers. It is likely cabins would be added to offer more that a similar type and number of services will choices in public lodging, resulting in a be provided in the future. minor, beneficial, long-term impact.

286 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative C

Giant Sequoia National Monument is expected • replacing utility systems to meet state to have a negligible impact on existing types of standards, and in some locations replacing visitor uses. Visitor services (such as lodging, comfort stations with vault toilets camping, gas, and food) are provided in several • updating exhibits at the Grant Grove and locations in the monument, meeting the needs of Ash Mountain visitor centers both monument and park visitors. However, national monument status is likely to attract Alternative C, in conjunction with past, present, additional visitors, which could add to conges­ and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region, tion in the parks because visitors can only get to would improve facilities and opportunities in the the northern unit by way of the Big Stump parks, in addition to the attractions of Giant entrance station and they drive along the Sequoia National Monument, resulting in mod­ Generals Highway through the monument erate, beneficial, long-term impacts on visitor between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National experiences. Parks. Some visitor confusion about how management regulations differ between the Forest Service and the Park Service and the Conclusion types of recreational opportunities that can be offered (for example, hunting and snowmobiling Compared to the no-action alternative, alterna­ are allowed in non-wilderness forest areas) tive C would provide improved visitor oppor­ could be mitigated with education. tunities, characterized by moderate, beneficial impacts over the long term. The differences Raising the level of the Terminus Reservoir from the preferred alternative include fewer day could result in some loss or relocation of use facilities, in-park educational programs recreation facilities, such as boat ramps and focused on ranger naturalist programs, and the picnic areas. While these kinds of facilities are elimination of an outreach program. The actions not provided in the parks, they primarily serve in alternative C that would generally contribute local and regional users, so this action would to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on have a negligible, adverse, long-term impact on visitor experiences include: recreational opportunities or park visitors. • new educational facilities at Giant Forest, Cedar Grove, and Ash Mountain Past actions in the parks that have affected visitor experiences include the following: • expanded ranger naturalist programs • removing Giant Forest facilities, with • a limited, voluntary shuttle system replacement lodging at Wuksachi, and in • improved campgrounds, frontcountry the future relocating an underground trails, and bicycling opportunities electric power line running through the center of the sequoia grove to follow the • more lodging Crescent Meadow road; these actions are Alternative C, in conjunction with past, present, intended to preserve and improve the and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region, condition of the Giant Forest sequoia would improve visitor facilities and opportuni­ grove ties, generally resulting in a moderate, bene­ • rebuilding the Generals Highway to ficial, long-term impacts on visitors to the parks preserve its scenic historical character and and to Giant Sequoia National Monument. slower mountain driving opportunities

287 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D use would be in the high-use scenic driving, development, and high-use frontcountry zones.

Analysis While more visitors could come, they would be dispersed by means of a transit system and the Park Character development of additional areas to visit. Developed areas in the parks would be larger The parks would retain their basic rustic charac­ than they are today. High-use areas would ter, offering most visitors opportunities to see remain crowded at times, especially on summer the many natural and cultural resources for weekends, but all visitors should be able to see which the parks are significant. Development significant park resources because of transit areas would total 2,133 acres (0.25% of the total systems. Caves, alpine areas, and many trails park area, an increase of 388 acres over the no- would remain largely inaccessible to people with action alternative. Within the development zone, disabilities, so wayside exhibits would provide park operations would occupy around 50% of an alternative way to see what the parks offer. the area, residential uses around 10%, camp­ Educational programs would include back­ grounds around 24%, and villages about 11%. country skills, so that more people would Frontcountry areas reached by roads would experience the backcountry. Most facilities amount to 3.8% of the parks, the majority of would remain in the parks. which (2.8%) would be in the low-use frontcountry zone. While there would still be More visitation, combined with more areas to vast amounts of backcountry, compared to the visit, transit improvements, and additional other alternatives, there would be less back­ facilities, would result in moderate, beneficial, country and less area compatible with manage­ long-term impacts on visitor experiences. ment as wilderness under this alternative. Higher levels of use might be more common on major backcountry trails. Visitor Information

Compared to the no-action alternative, alterna­ People would have additional opportunities to tive D would also preserve the low-key, rustic learn about the parks before their visits by character of the parks because of limited means of the Internet. This would allow them to development, guidelines to preserve rustic plan their visits to make the best use of their character, and the vast backcountry. However time, resulting in a minor, beneficial, long-term improved circulation and transit would result in impact. moderate, beneficial impacts on visitor experiences. Educational Opportunities

Visitor Use Educational Facilities. New educational facili­ ties / visitor centers would be provided at Cedar Traditional use patterns would continue to be Grove, Grant Grove, and Ash Mountain / altered as the regional population grows and new Foothills or Potwisha. The visitor contact station user groups continue to discover the parks. at Mineral King would continue to provide Visitation would not be limited, and facilities limited space for education. The Lodgepole would be developed to accommodate additional visitor center would be assessed to determine if visitation and more day use. Short stays and several educational facilities could be supported weekend use, in addition to day use, would in the Giant Forest area. A nature facility, which become more common. Private vehicles would would meet the needs of day users as well as remain the primary means of arriving at the overnight guests, would be provided at parks, and relocated entrance stations would Lodgepole. New educational facilities at the make the experience more pleasant. Most visitor Giant Forest museum and the Beetle Rock

288 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative D education center would be completed, filling an solitude. Larger sizes of stock parties would be important interpretive gap about giant sequoia allowed. ecology and providing additional group learning opportunities. The result of new facilities would Because of the terrain, caves, alpine areas, and be major, beneficial, long-term impacts on many trails would remain largely inaccessible to visitors’ abilities to learn about park resources. people with physical disabilities. However there would be more accessible trails and facilities Educational Programs. Education, Interpreta than today, and they would provide more diverse tion, and Orientation — Educational programs experiences for disabled visitors. would be substantially expanded by means of more outreach, popular ranger naturalist pro­ With continued opportunities to experience the grams, and additional programs that would focus range of park resources, there would be moder­ on instilling park stewardship values, leave-no- ate, beneficial, long-term impacts because of trace ethics, and backcountry skills. Park orien­ improved circulation and facilities. tation and wayfinding would be expanded. The overall impact would be a major, beneficial, and Opportunities for Traditional Recreational long term because many more visitors would Experiences. Trails and Hiking — There would have access to educational programs. be numerous recreational opportunities to use trails in all park environments, similar to the Outreach Programs — Visitor outreach pro­ preferred alternative. Conditions of frontcountry grams would be expanded to reach diverse pub­ trails in both low- and high-use areas would be lics, including classrooms throughout the region. improved, and additional trail information would A classroom-focused Website would provide be provided. additional education, and numerous volunteer and partnership efforts would be developed. The The majority of the parks would remain back­ overall impact would be minor, beneficial, and country. While most of the backcountry would long term because a broad segment of the popu­ remain trailless, more major backcountry trails lation would have chances to learn about the would be provided to accommodate higher parks, their ecology, and their history. levels of use. Educational programs and enforce­ ment efforts by park rangers would be enhanced to ensure that hikers and backpackers protected Recreational Activities their food supplies from black bears.

Opportunities to Experience Park Resources. This alternative would have major, beneficial, Under alternative D there would be slightly long-term impacts for hiking and trail use since more opportunities to experience the range of most park visitors would use portions of the resources for which the parks are significant, improved trail system and many more would be with increased access to some resources, such as educated about trails and backcountry hiking alpine areas, caves and features along the Generals Highway. The frontcountry trails Camping — Camping opportunities would system would be improved and expanded, generally offer more variety, as well as greater offering more variety of trails and directional separation of differing camping preferences. information. The likelihood of encountering • At Cedar Grove campground sizes would others would remain similar to today. There be limited and types of camping desig­ would be more opportunities to experience nated, thus improving the camping wilderness values and recreational opportunities. experience, resulting in minor, beneficial, Varied party sizes, dispersion of uses, and long-term impacts. separation of stock and hikers would result in backcountry experiences still likely to provide • The Dorst campground would be rede­ signed to separate uses and provide more types of campsites. The RV dump station

289 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be retained, and a camper store hills would continue. Similar to the preferred would be added. Impacts would be mod­ alternative, river access points, parking areas, erate and beneficial for campers over the trails, and trailheads would be defined in popular long term because different needs of user areas to reduce bank and vegetation damage, as groups would be met. well as use impacts such as littering. This would result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts, • At Lodgepole the campgrounds would be similar to the preferred alternative, because of reduced in size but conditions would be improved and controlled visitor access for a improved, resulting in minor, beneficial, small number of visitors. long-term impacts for the smaller number of campers who could get a campsite. Cave Tours — Low-cost, guided tours of Crystal • In the foothills the Potwisha campground Cave, with advance ticket sales, would continue would be removed, resulting in a moder­ to be offered by the Sequoia Natural History ate, adverse, long-term impact on camp­ Association. As now, the cave would not be ing in the foothills since this is the main accessible to those visitors in wheelchairs or foothills campground. those unable to negotiate the terrain. For these visitors, access could be provided through • Camping would be added along the North educational waysides and photographs. Rest­ Fork, and the South Fork campground rooms would remain at the parking lot; they would be converted to a trailhead camp­ would only be provided at the cave if it became ground, resulting generally in minor, technologically and economically feasible to beneficial, long-term impacts on foothills meet state wastewater standards with sustainable camping. facilities. • Both the Cold Spring and the Atwell Mill campgrounds would be expanded at To better protect park resources, access to other Mineral King, resulting in minor, bene­ caves would be restricted to cave specialists with ficial, long-term impacts because of more permits. Alternative D would have a negligible, camping opportunities. Removing the beneficial, long-term impact on opportunities for Mineral King dams would eliminate the the general public to experience cave resources, potential adverse impact on human life and a minor, adverse, long-term impact on and downstream development at the Cold opportunities for recreational cavers / spelunkers Spring campground (NPS 1992b). to experience park caves. • The high Sierra camp at Bearpaw Mead­ Fishing — Sportfishing would continue and ow would continue to offer low-key, would be regulated in order to restore native backcountry facilities for visitors, and a populations and to eliminate nonnative species. new high Sierra camp would be built, The resulting impact would be negligible, doubling opportunities for visitors seeking beneficial, and long term for the few anglers this type of backcountry experience. The fishing in the parks. result on visitor experiences would be minor to moderate, beneficial, long-term Winter Use — Winter use would be expanded so impacts to a small number of visitors. visitors could enjoy park resources year-round. This alternative would generally result in minor Snowplay areas would be provided at Grant to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on Grove and Wolverton, with equipment rentals, camping due to improved facilities. Removing limited food service, and restrooms being made the Potwisha campground would result in mod­ available. Crowding would be common at erate, adverse impacts over the long term. snowplay sites during weekends and holidays. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing would Water Play — Seasonal summer water play in continue to offer opportunities to have a quieter rivers at Cedar Grove, Lodgepole, and the foot­ experience within superb front- and backcountry

290 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative D park settings. Winter camping would be pro­ Nonmotorized Watercraft — Like the preferred vided in several campgrounds, in addition to alternative, nonmotorized watercraft would be backcountry opportunities. Similar to the allowed with regulation, and access points preferred alternative, alternative D would result would be designated. The result would be minor, in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts by beneficial, long-term impacts on the small but improving winter use opportunities and services increasing number of visitors using nonmotor­ that serve a small number of winter users. ized watercraft.

Opportunities for Nontraditional Recrea Air Tours — Similar to the preferred alternative, tional Experiences. New Activities — New potential impacts would be analyzed in an air activities would be assessed against policy and tour management plan prepared jointly by the resource concerns to determine potential National Park Service and the Federal Aviation impacts. Low-impact activities that did not Administration. impair park resources and were related to park settings would be allowed. The parks would Opportunities for Stock Use. In alternative D encourage basic activities. Measures to separate use by horses and other stock would continue some activities that would infringe on the but with less limitation on party sizes than under experiences of other visitors would enhance the the other alternatives, resulting in minor, bene­ overall enjoyment of park resources for as many ficial, long-term impacts to stock users. There visitors as possible. This alternative would have would be more separation between stock users minor, beneficial, long-term impacts for visitors and hikers than today, resulting in minor, bene­ to experience new activities deemed appropriate. ficial, long-term impacts to hikers, who would be less exposed to impacts from stock use. Bicycle Use — Under alternative D bicycle use would improve with designated bike routes at Continuing commercial horse and pack trips; Cedar Grove, redesigned roads that would retaining the corrals at Cedar Grove, Grant accommodate bicycles at Grant Grove, and Grove, and Mineral King; relocating the Wol­ bicycling opportunities on the road to Crescent verton corral (the Dorst, Wuksachi, Lodgepole, Meadow, the Colony Mill Road, and the and Wolverton areas would be considered); and Shepherd Saddle Road. Impacts on bicycle- expanding and improving riding trails would riding visitors would be moderate, beneficial, result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts to and long term because of safer conditions and visitors seeking stock experiences. Some day use additional opportunities in many popular areas trails would be removed from the Giant Forest of the parks. area, resulting in a minor, adverse, long-term impact on those riders seeking the experience of Snowmobiles / Snow Machines — Like the no- riding in the sequoia grove. action and preferred alternatives, the use of snowmobiles and snow machines would only be Continuing stock use is expected to have a negli­ allowed on roads by private inholders and permit gible, beneficial, long-term impact for visitors holders to access their cabins (in Wilsonia and with physical disabilities because this would Mineral King). Because most of the parks are provide another means for them to access wilderness and motorized equipment is prohi­ various resources in the parks. bited, snowmobiles are confined to frontcountry roads, where their use may pose safety concerns Additional stock camps would be provided at for other winter users. Because snowmobile use Shepherd Saddle and on the Hockett Plateau. is limited to a few areas, and because opportuni­ Stock support facilities would be provided at ties are provided on adjacent USFS lands, the Dillonwood. These additional facilities would impact on the majority of park users during the result in a moderate, beneficial, long-term winter would be minor, beneficial, and long impact on the small number of visitors who are term. stock users.

291 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A “Preliminary Draft Franchise Fee / Feasibility congestion in the village. (A determina­ Analysis of Current Saddle Horse Ride and Pack tion would have to be made whether the Stations” (NPS 2004) indicates new or existing bypass would be compatible with the commercial pack station / stock ride operations presidential proclamation creating Giant might become increasingly infeasible without Sequoia National Monument.) A transit government-provided infrastructure, such as system and related facilities would be roads, utilities, and buildings. This is primarily constructed, the visitor center would be due to rising insurance costs and projected costs relocated near the transit staging area, and for additional resource protection requirements, a gas station would be provided. Lodging such as weed-free feed, waste removal, and would be expanded, with more cabins and equipment costs for waste removal. other lodging types available. The changes in visitor experiences from Impacts of horse use (feces, eroded trails, dust) expanded facilities under alternative D could be reduced by education and regulation would be major, beneficial, and long enforcement, but hikers would continue to be term. Changes in park character resulting adversely affected to a minor degree. from this alternative would be mitigated by design guidelines already in place. In general the impact of improved stock facili­ ties and more accessible and expanded stock • A camper store at Dorst would provide opportunities for visitors would be moderate, more convenient supplies for overnight beneficial, and long term despite adverse campers; however, supplies can be impacts on backcountry hikers. purchased at nearby Stony Creek Lodge in Giant Sequoia National Monument; so the overall impact of a store at Dorst Visitor Facilities and Services would be negligible to minor and beneficial. Slightly more overnight facilities would be • At Wuksachi a mix of cabins and lodges, provided. When economically feasible, some to the extent allowed by contract, as well non-visitor facilities would be moved outside the as a gas station, would be provided, parks where they would be more efficient to resulting in moderate, beneficial, long- operate. As previously described, campgrounds term impacts to visitors seeking overnight would be designed to offer more variety, as well accommodations close to Giant Forest. as separation of differing camping preferences. • At Lodgepole the nature center and post • Operating Cedar Grove year-round or on office would be removed and the need for an extended season would increase use a visitor center assessed. Fewer facilities and change the character of this devel­ would mean less convenience for some oped area. A visitor center would be visitors, with minor to moderate, adverse added, diverse types of public lodging impacts over the long term. would be expanded, and camping pre­ ferences designated, thus improving the • At Wolverton the concession building for overall experience. Opportunities for winter use and the picnic area and would visitors at Cedar Grove would expand remain. The Boy Scout camp would be substantially, resulting in moderate to converted to a camp for volunteers. In major, beneficial, long-term impacts. The addition to a new visitor parking lot / change in character would be mitigated by shuttle system, a 1,700-car parking garage design guidelines already in place. would be developed to allow expanded day use at Giant Forest. While more day • At Grant Grove a bypass road could be visitors would be able to visit Giant constructed to divert Hume Lake traffic Forest, greatly increased parking and around the park, thus reducing traffic improved vehicular circulation would

292 Visitor Experience: Impacts of Alternative D

result in more crowding and degraded camping, gas, and food) are provided in several visitor pedestrian experiences. The re­ locations in the monument, meeting the needs of moval of the corral has reduced recrea­ both monument and park visitors. National tional opportunities at Wolverton, ad­ monument status is likely to attract additional versely affecting a relatively small num­ visitors, which could add to congestion in the ber of visitors wanting to ride in Giant parks because visitors can only get to the Forest until a new location has been northern unit by way of the Big Stump entrance identified, a minor, adverse impact. station and visitors drive along the Generals Visitor services at Wolverton would be Highway through the monument between vastly expanded compared to today, but Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. as a result of crowding, the general impact Some visitor confusion about how management would be major and adverse over the long regulations differ between the Forest Service term since most visitors spend time in the and the Park Service and the types of Giant Forest. While parking would be recreational opportunities that can be offered more convenient, the low-key character of (for example, hunting and snowmobiling are the area would be changed over the long allowed in non-wilderness forest areas) could be term. mitigated with education. • New visitor service facilities in the Giant Raising the level of the Terminus Reservoir on Forest (the museum, the Beetle Rock Lake Kaweah could result in some loss or education facility, and transit shuttle relocation of recreation facilities, such as boat facilities) would result in major, bene­ ramps and picnic areas. While these kinds of ficial impacts for visitors over the long facilities are not provided in the parks, they term, the same as the other alternatives. primarily serve local and regional users, so this • In the foothills, the Potwisha campground action would have a negligible, adverse, long- would be converted to day uses or a new term impact on recreational opportunities. visitor center. The resulting impacts to day use would be major, beneficial, and Past actions in the parks that have affected long term. visitor experiences include the following: This alternative would generally result in • removing Giant Forest facilities, with moderate to major, beneficial, long-term impacts replacement lodging at Wuksachi, and in on visitor experiences due to improved day use the future relocating an underground and educational facilities, as well as better electric power line running through the visitor facility conditions. center of the sequoia grove to follow the Crescent Meadow road; these actions are intended to preserve and improve the Cumulative Impacts condition of the Giant Forest sequoia grove Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions • rebuilding the Generals Highway to in the region would be the same as those preserve its scenic historical character and described for the no-action alternative. Lodging, slower mountain driving opportunities food service, and additional types of recreational opportunities are provided in surrounding • replacing utility systems to meet state communities, such as Three Rivers. It is likely standards, and in some locations replacing that a similar type and number of services will comfort stations with vault toilets be provided in the future. • updating exhibits at the Grant Grove and Ash Mountain visitor centers Giant Sequoia National Monument is expected to have a negligible impact on existing types of Alternative D, in conjunction with past, present, visitor uses. Visitor services (such as lodging, and reasonably foreseeable regional actions,

293 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would generally expand visitor experience • a new visitor center and bike routes at opportunities, resulting in a moderate to major Cedar Grove beneficial impact on park visitors because of • a relocated visitor center and bypass at improved park facilities and opportunities and Grant Grove the attraction of Giant Sequoia National Monument. • new facilities at Giant Forest • a new foothills visitor center Conclusion • added bicycling, hiking, and camping opportunities Alternative D would generally have moderate to • improved and diversified educational major, beneficial, long-term impacts on visitor programs (including more ranger experiences. The expansion of facilities would naturalist programs, as well as a focus on offer choices and convenience, while improving park values and learning outdoor skills), access to park resources. There could be a minor and increased accessibility to park adverse impact on basic activities as a result of resources by disabled visitors. accommodating new activities, but these activities would have to relate to park resources. Alternative D, in conjunction with past, present The following actions would specifically and reasonably foreseeable regional actions, contribute to the beneficial impact: would generally result in moderate to major, beneficial impacts on park visitors because of • a redesigned and more efficient improved facilities and opportunities, plus the circulation system attraction of Giant Sequoia National Monument. • a larger, improved trail system • a maximized transit system • more choices in lodging

294 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land

GUIDING REGULATIONS AND POLICY from the NPS in order to protect park resources and the public interest; The National Park Service was established to – is not prohibited by law or regulation; protect and preserve resources for this and future and generations. – is neither initiated, sponsored, nor • NPS Organic Act of 1916 — requires the conducted by the NPS.” National Park Service “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic According to section 3.3 of Director’s Order objects and the wild life therein and to #53, a special use permit may be a right or a provide for the enjoyment of the same in privilege. A right is based on property such manner and by such means as will ownership, legislative or treaty entitlement, leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment or Constitutional guarantee. Where none of of future generations.” these factors is present, the use is a privilege over which the superintendent may exercise • National Parks and Recreation Act of varying degrees of discretion and control. November 10, 1978 (PL 95-625) — transferred land in the Sequoia Game Refuge to Sequoia National Park and METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING limited special use permits for cabins on IMPACTS what had been U.S. Forest Service land to the permittee of record in 1978. The impact analysis considers how the concept • Public Law 99-338 — does not authorize of public national parks, resource protection, and the National Park Service to extend the public recreational uses would be affected by permit for hydroelectric facilities within • privately owned land within park the park beyond September 8, 2006 (16 boundaries (inholdings) USC 45a-1). Public Law 95-625 amended - Wilsonia Public Law 93-522 to incorporate hydro­ - Oriole Lake electric facilities within the Mineral King - Silver City / Kaweah Han addition. The Federal Energy Regulatory - portions of Mineral King Valley Commission (FERC) license for the Kaweah complex facilities outside the • permitted special park uses (uses based on park (Project 298-000-California) runs congressional legislation or park actions) through December 31, 2021. - hydroelectric utility permit - non-profit campground permit • Director’s Order #53: Special Use - Mineral King permit cabins Permits — A special park use is a short- term activity that takes place in a park • adjacent land / boundary adjustments area and: Beneficial impacts would increase public use – provides a benefit to an individual, and access, while adverse impacts would reduce group or organization, rather than the public use and ownership. Some impacts could public at large; be beneficial to some users while adverse or neutral to others. – requires written authorization and some degree of management control

295 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

private ownership. Since the action would Impact Thresholds for Private Lands and involve willing sellers, impacts on private Permitted Special Uses landowners, their families, or heirs would not be considered adverse. Negligible — Impacts from private and per­ mitted land uses would not be detectable to In terms of achieving national park purposes to visitors, private landowners, or permittees, and preserve and conserve resources and to provide they would have no discernible effect on public for public enjoyment, the purchase of private use and ownership. property and the restoration of purchased sites to Minor — Impacts from private and permitted natural conditions would be consistent with the land uses would be slightly detectable to v isi- current Land Protection Plan. If funds were not tors, private landowners, and permittees, but available to purchase inholdings offered for sale, they are not expected to have an overall effect the park would not be able to fully implement its on public use and ownership. current Land Protection Plan, and private uses Moderate — Impacts from private and per­ within park boundaries would continue mitted land uses would be clearly detectable to indefinitely. visitors, private landowners, and permittees, and they could have an appreciable effect on public Generally, the impact of the no-action alterna­ use and ownership. tive on public use and ownership and private landowners would be negligible, beneficial, and Major — Impacts from private and permitted long term because land inside park boundaries land uses would have a substantial and notice­ would be acquired eventually; however, the land able effect on visitors, private landowners, and permittees, and they could permanently alter is not easily seen by most visitors. There would various aspects of public use and ownership. be a negligible impact on potential public recreation since Wilsonia has limited recrea­ tional potential, the area is not readily apparent to visitors since it is not on main park roads, and IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION there are no plans under this alternative to encourage recreational use of the area. ALTERNATIVE Oriole Lake. Purchasing private lands from up Analysis to four willing sellers, consistent with the 1986 Land Protection Plan (NPS 1986c) and as funds Private Land became available, and restoring sites and the access road to natural conditions would improve Privately owned land would be managed consis­ resource conditions. With the removal of all tent with the parks’ land protection plans, which facilities, this potential wilderness area would would be updated as needed. Privately owned become designated wilderness. Since the action recreational cabin areas would be considered as would involve willing sellers, the impact on residential types of development. private landowners would not be considered adverse. Wilsonia. Private property would be acquired from willing sellers, in accordance with the 1986 Acquisition would have only minor, beneficial, Land Protection Plan and as funds were avail­ long-term impacts on public access since the able (NPS 1986c). Structures would then be area is remote and little used. If funds were not removed and the sites returned to natural available to purchase inholdings offered for sale, conditions. Up to 190 private properties within the park would not be able to fully implement its the park boundary in Wilsonia could be affected. current Land Protection Plan, and private uses This alternative would continue piecemeal within park boundaries would continue acquisition of approximately one property every indefinitely. 12 years, resulting in a patchwork of public and

296 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

The impact of acquiring private property for owner, and the trailhead would be retained. public use and ownership at Oriole Lake would Since this action would involve a willing private generally be minor and beneficial over the long landholder, impacts would not be considered term because the area is remote and only limited adverse. In terms of achieving park purposes, public access would be facilitated under this public ownership would have a moderate, alternative. beneficial, long-term impact on public use and access because continued trailhead access would Silver City. Silver City Resort and private be ensured. cabins would continue, in accordance with the 1984 Land Protection Plan, and remaining lots Acquisition could affect two cabins that are and/or property could be sold without restriction adjacent to the trailhead parking area and that (NPS 1984). The National Park Service has are under long-term leases issued by the land­ already acquired approximately 60 acres. There owner. Because the cabin leases would no would be no impact on approximately 30 private longer apply, and long-standing users would not landowners. have access to the cabins, this action could be perceived as a major, adverse, long-term impact In terms of achieving park purposes to protect to the lessees. The historic cabins would be resources and to provide for public enjoyment, removed, resulting in changes that detract from private land within the park would continue to the character of the cultural landscape or benefit be a visual impact due to development and the natural scenery. However, public acquisition would continue to detract from public use, would improve public access because the cabins resulting in a minor, adverse impact over the imply limited access and public use in this area. long term. Some visual impacts have been Acquiring the backcountry trailhead would have mitigated through existing scenic conservation a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on easements. public use and recreation since many Mineral King visitors use the trailhead parking. The small resort at Silver City provides public lodging and visitor services (restaurant, store Taken as a whole and despite major, adverse, and public showers), which help meet visitor long-term impacts on the cabin leaseholders, the needs in the area. Public access to these services no-action alternative would generally have a would continue, resulting in a minor, beneficial, moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public long-term impact. use and ownership because improvements could be made to public access and use once the area Generally the no-action alternative would result became public land. in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on visi­ tor services, but minor, adverse, long-term im­ pacts on public ownership and visual resources. Special Use Permits on Park Land

Kaweah Han. Private ownership of Kaweah Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities. The Han, which is some distance from the Mineral permit for hydroelectric facilities is due to expire King Road, would continue. Private residential on September 8, 2006, the end of its legal exten­ use at this area does not impact existing patterns sion period. As the permit requires, hydro­ of visitor use or park access. electric facilities would be removed by the operator, and affected areas would be returned to The impact on public ownership under the no- natural conditions according to restoration plans action alternative would be negligible and developed by the operator in consultation with adverse over the long term. the National Park Service. The restoration plan would include mitigation measures to address Mineral King. As funds were available, the access, steep terrain, potentially hazardous largest Mineral King trailhead parking area materials, and the difficulty of facility removal. would be acquired if offered for sale by the

297 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Nevertheless, impacts associated with removing Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin Cove, facilities and reestablishing natural resource West Mineral King, East Mineral King. conditions would likely be moderate to major, Gradually removing permit cabins in three areas adverse, and long term due to removal activities in conformity with the 1978 legislation would and related equipment use. At the same time the affect approximately 60 permit holders and their loss of public recreational uses such as camping families. The full benefits of the action could be near the Mineral King dams and fishing in the delayed since they would likely occur over a lakes, or river access and hiking opportunities long period. As analyzed under “Cultural near the Potwisha campground, would result in Resources,” facilities contributing to the Mineral moderate to major, adverse, long-term impacts King Road Cultural Landscape District would be on public use and enjoyment. removed. Restoring the Cabin Cove and West Mineral King areas to natural conditions, and Removal of the Mineral King dams would increasing public access to the East Mineral eliminate the potential adverse impact on human King area, would fulfill the vision of the 1978 life and downstream development that could legislation and would have moderate, beneficial, jeopardize lives in at least one dwelling in the long-term impacts on public recreational use of Mineral King area and the Cold Spring the former cabin areas. campground. As previously stated, the dams are classified as “significant hazard” facilities Even though permit holders were aware of the should they fail (NPS 1992b), and their removal terms for continuing such special uses when the would result in a beneficial, permanent impact legislation was passed in 1978, they would on public safety. likely perceive the effects of discontinuing permits as major and adverse because their Since public park land would be used for park private uses would no longer be allowed. purposes, the resulting impact to full public control of public land would be moderate, In terms of achieving national park purposes to beneficial, and long term. The impact would be provide for public enjoyment as well as to moderate because the facilities are not readily preserve and conserve resources, this action apparent to many visitors, and the amount of would have major, beneficial, long-term impacts land is relatively small. Removing any hazard to because 65 acres of publicly owned land would structures in the Mineral King area posed by the be available for public use. In general the dams would result in minor, beneficial impacts. impacts on public use and ownership would be However, the impacts of removing facilities and moderate to major, beneficial, and long term. returning areas to more natural conditions would result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on public use because of lost recreational Boundary Adjustments opportunities. Acquiring the Alley property along the North Nonprofit Use — Wolverton Boy Scout Fork of the Kaweah River would allow a Permit Camp. The non-profit Boy Scout camp trailhead to be established and would improve would continue to be permitted, and regional access to the foothills environment. Since this is Boy Scout programs could remain in that loca­ low-use area, the impact on public ownership, tion, resulting in no impact on this organization use, and access would be minor, beneficial, and or other non-profit users and park volunteers long term. who use the facilities. At the same time, the area would remain unavailable for public use. The impact on public use would be minor, adverse, Cumulative Impacts and long term. Around the time that General Grant National Park (now Kings Canyon National Park) was

298 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative established in 1890 there was discussion about development of a downhill ski area. As previ­ acquisition of the private land known as ously described, special use cabin permits were Wilsonia; however, acquisition did not occur. continued with limits — they could only be The private land was subsequently subdivided renewed for the lifetime of the permittee of and sold for seasonal recreational use, making it record in 1978, and at the expiration of the more difficult to acquire all of the land. Over permit the cabins were to be removed and the time the National Park Service has acquired areas returned to natural conditions. private land from willing sellers. Enforcing existing congressional provisions Silver City was built in the late 1800s along the related to phasing out private use of private Mineral King Road, the first road into Sequoia cabins on public lands would be consistent with National Park. A small recreation community existing legislative direction and would result in remained after extractive uses like mining and major, beneficial, long-term impacts because logging stopped. publicly owned land would be available to all for future preservation and enjoyment. Hydroelectric facilities have provided a local clean power source for nearly 100 years. While The management of special use permits affects facilities outside Sequoia National Park could many parks in the national system. Special use continue to operate through 2021 under the permits are defined as a “short-term activity that current FERC license, there would be minor to takes place in a park area and provides a benefit moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on power to an individual, group or organization, rather generation and local users from the loss of facil­ than the public at large” (NPS 2000a). In this ities within the park, even though the amount of case a special use permit is defined as a power generated is small. Also, reservoirs “privilege,” not a “right.”* Director’s Order outside the park would no longer be supplied by #53: Special Use Permits has procedures to be water diverted from within the park, so a local followed for special park uses (NPS 2000a). fire protection water supply would be reduced, Discontinuing special use permits beyond the resulting in a major, adverse, long-term impact current permit period would be consistent with on the local community in terms of its ability to NPS policy and would result in the achievement manage and fight fires. of the core mission for Sequoia National Park. This action would be consistent with the At one time the U.S. Forest Service had a discontinuation by the National Park Service of program that permitted privately owned cabins this type of special use permit systemwide, on public land through 99-year leases. A number resulting in major, beneficial, long-term impacts of recreation cabin communities were estab­ on public use of public land. lished throughout the Sierra Nevada. Within the parks there are examples of privately owned In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably recreational cabin communities at Wilsonia, foreseeable actions, the no-action alternative Oriole Lake, Silver City, and Mineral King. In would have a major, beneficial, long-term im­ addition, permit recreation cabins occur in the pact on public use and ownership of national Hume Lake area of Giant Sequoia National park lands. This would occur primarily as a Monument, and these cabin communities would result of terminating special use permits for continue. Recreation cabin communities are not private cabin use on park land. Removing cabins unique to Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, their surroundings, or the Sierra Nevada. * According to Director’s Order 53, “a right is based on In 1978, following a landmark environmental property ownership, legislative or treaty entitlement, or Constitutional guarantee. Where none of these factors is case, the Mineral King area was transferred from present, the use is a privilege over which the superintendent the U.S. Forest Service to the National Park may exercise varying degrees of discretion and control” Service (PL 95-625, sec. 314) to prevent the (NPS 2000a).

299 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would be consistent with the NPS mission of long-term impacts, similar to the no-action making public land available for public use, alternative. despite the adverse impact on special use cabin permittees. At the same time, this alternative In terms of achieving national park purposes to would have a negligible impact on private land preserve and conserve resources and to provide and property rights within the parks. for public enjoyment, the purchase of private property and the restoration of purchased sites to natural conditions would be consistent with the Conclusion Land Protection Plan (NPS 1986c). The Land Protection Plan would be updated to acknowl­ The no-action alternative would generally result edge the national register status of the Wilsonia in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on Historic District (see discussion under “Cultural public use and ownership of national park lands. Resources”). Only nonhistoric NPS sites would These actions would allow slight increases in the be returned to natural conditions. If funds were public use of public lands. This impact would not available to purchase inholdings offered for result from gradually removing private permit sale, the park would not be able to fully imple­ cabins from public land, acquiring ownership of ment its current Land Protection Plan or any limited amounts of private land within and future plan calling for acquisition on a willing- outside the parks from willing sellers to increase seller, willing-buyer basis, and private uses resource protection in some areas and public within park boundaries would continue access in others, and discontinuing hydroelectric indefinitely. utility use of public land. Similar to the no-action alternative, the impact In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably of the preferred alternative on public use and foreseeable actions, and despite adverse impacts ownership and private landowners would be on special use cabin permittees, the no-action negligible, beneficial, and long term. There alternative would have a moderate to major, would be a negligible beneficial impact on beneficial, long-term impact on public use and potential public recreation since Wilsonia is ownership. neither visually intrusive nor located near visitor destinations or facilities, and there are no plans to encourage recreational use of the area. IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED Oriole Lake. Under the preferred alternative, LTERNATIVE A the Oriole Lake properties would be purchased, the structures removed, and the road would be Analysis converted to a backcountry trail for access to a unique foothills environment. This potential Private Land wilderness area would become federally desig­ nated wilderness with the removal of noncon­ Privately owned land would be managed con­ forming uses. sistent with the parks’ land protection plans, which would be updated as needed. Privately Similar to the no-action alternative, this action owned recreation cabin areas would be would have a minor, beneficial, long-term considered as residential types of development. impact in terms of achieving park purposes. Because properties would be acquired on a Wilsonia. Under the preferred alternative indi­ willing-seller / willing-buyer basis, impacts on vidual properties in the Wilsonia recreational landowners would not be considered adverse. community would continue to be acquired on a Providing trail access to this remote area would willing-seller / willing-buyer basis. Gradually allow use mostly by local and regional visitors, increasing public ownership within park and use is expected to be quite low. Because the boundaries would have negligible, beneficial,

300 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative area is remote, the impact on public recreational seek to acquire properties on a willing-seller / use would be minor and beneficial over the long willing-buyer basis. term. If funds were not available to purchase properties offered for sale, private uses within Generally, the preferred alternative would result park boundaries would continue indefinitely. in a negligible, adverse, long-term impact on public ownership and use because the property is Generally the impact of the preferred alternative not visible or accessible to most visitors. on Oriole Lake would be minor and beneficial over the long term because private property Mineral King. As funds were available, the would be acquired for public ownership and use. largest Mineral King trailhead parking area would be acquired if offered for sale by the Silver City. Under the preferred alternative the owner, and the trailhead would be retained, the Silver City Resort would continue to provide same as the no-action alternative. Since this visitor services and lodging; private land would action would involve a willing seller, impacts on only be acquired on a willing-seller / willing- the private landholder would not be considered buyer basis. Consequently, there would be no adverse. impacts on private landowners. As described for the no-action alternative, two Silver City Resort and private cabins would cabins are located on this property. Acquisition continue in accordance with the 1984 Land could adversely affect the lessees who hold Protection Plan (NPS 1984), and remaining lots long-term leases issued by the private land­ and/or property could be sold without restriction. owner. Because the cabin leases would no The National Park Service has already acquired longer apply, and long-standing users would not approximately 60 acres. There would be no have access to the cabins, this action could be impact on approximately 30 private landowners. perceived as a major, adverse, long-term impact Some visual impacts are mitigated through by the lessees. In terms of achieving park existing scenic conservation easements. purposes, public ownership would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public The Silver City Resort provides public lodging use and recreation since many Mineral King and visitor services (restaurant, store and public visitors use the trailhead and the cabins’ pres­ showers) that help meet visitor needs in the area. ence implies limited access and public use in Public access to these services could increase this area. This alternative would ensure trailhead slightly with higher visitation, which could be access over the long term. accommodated. Despite major, adverse, long-term impacts on Generally, the preferred alternative would result the cabin leaseholders, the preferred alternative in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts on would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term visitor services, but minor adverse impacts on impact on public use and ownership because public ownership and visual resources. improvements could be made to public access and use of public land; historic cabins would be Kaweah Han. Private residential use at Kaweah preserved; and trailhead access would be Han, which is some distance from the Mineral ensured over the long term. King Road, would continue. Private use does not impact existing or future patterns of visitor use or park access. To preserve the visual values of Special Use Permits on Park Land the land under this alternative, the National Park Service would seek to acquire a scenic easement Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities. As from the owner and would update the 1984 Land described for the no-action alternative, the Protection Plan. If the property was to be permit for hydroelectric facilities will expire on subdivided, the National Park Service would September 8, 2006. As the permit requires, hydroelectric facilities would be removed by the

301 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES operator, and affected areas would be returned to in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts related natural conditions according to restoration plans to park management and would therefore benefit developed by the operator in consultation with the public. Although the Boy Scouts would no the National Park Service. The restoration plan longer control scheduling for the camp, some would include mitigation measures to address continued Boy Scout use could be accommo­ limited access, steep terrain, potentially hazar­ dated. The preferred alternative would have a dous materials, and difficulty of facility re­ minor to moderate, adverse impact on the Boy moval. Nevertheless, impacts associated with Scouts because annual use would likely be less reestablishing natural resource conditions would convenient and not guaranteed. Using the area still likely be moderate to major, adverse, and for park purposes would have a negligible, long term due to removal activities and related adverse, long-term impact on public recreation equipment use. Since public park land would be since the site is not currently used for public used for park purposes, the resulting impact to recreation. full public control of public land would be moderate, beneficial, and long term. The impact Despite the adverse impact on the Boy Scouts, would be moderate because the facilities are not the preferred alternative would generally have a readily apparent to many visitors, and the minor, beneficial impact because of improved amount of land is relatively small. park operations, which would benefit the public.

At the same time the loss of public recreational Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin Cove, uses such as camping near the Mineral King West Mineral King, East Mineral King. Cabin dams and fishing in the lakes, or river access and permits would not be extended beyond what is hiking opportunities near the Potwisha camp­ allowed by legislation. Special use permit cabins ground, would result in moderate to major, would be acquired and adaptively reused for adverse, long-term impacts on public use and public purposes through donation or purchase / enjoyment. donation in lieu of the owners removing the structure (as required by the permits). The Removing the Mineral King dams would elimi­ National Park Service would manage acquired nate the potential adverse impact on human life cabins for public use (including lodging) and downstream development that could jeo­ through a non-profit group or a commercial pardize lives in at least one dwelling in the services contract. Public use of public land, Mineral King area, as well as the Cold Spring along with the acquisition and adaptive reuse of campground (NPS 1992b), resulting in a historic resources, would be increased, but over beneficial, permanent impact on public safety. a long period of time. There would be some conflict with management prescriptions that seek Overall, placing slightly more land under full to prevent overlapping residential (private public use and removing any hazard to structures cabins) and public uses. However, since both in the Mineral King area posed by the dams uses involve lodging, this conflict would be would result in minor, beneficial impacts. minor. However, the impacts of removing facilities and returning areas to more natural conditions would Due to how the cabins are dispersed and the cost result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts of providing utilities, typical lodging would be on public use because of lost recreational cabins without baths, similar to the type of opportunities. lodging offered at Grant Grove or formerly offered within Giant Forest. This type of lodging Nonprofit Use — Wolverton Boy Scout was historically present within the parks and was Permit Camp. Under the preferred alternative requested repeatedly during public scoping the Boy Scout camp would be converted to a sessions because it is low key, family friendly, camp for NPS volunteers, with Boy Scout use and affordable. The preferred alternative would allowed when possible. This action would result provide new public use and lodging opportuni­

302 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ties for visitors, resulting in major, beneficial, long period, although some owners could decide long-term impacts on public recreation and use to donate their cabins to the National Park of public land. Service at an earlier date in lieu of demon­ strating that the cabins met applicable health, A cultural resource management plan for the safety, and environmental standards. Even Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District though permit holders were aware of the terms would be developed in consultation with the for continuing such special uses when the California historic preservation officer to make legislation was passed in 1978, they could decisions related to contributing and non-contri- perceive the effects of ending permits as major, buting cabins, appropriate public uses and adap­ adverse, long-term impacts because their tive reuses, and the management of acquired exclusive uses would no longer continue. At the cabins. This would result in major, beneficial, same time, a goal of the permit holders to long-term impacts on public use of park land. In preserve historic cabins for future generations the National Park Service acquired cabins that would be accomplished. do not currently contribute to the district because of the addition of certain incompatible elements, Eventually over 60 permit holders and their the noncontributing cabins would be restored to families would no longer own private cabins on historic condition by removing these elements or public land. However, families of former permit restoring the cabins. The operator would have to holders could still have use the cabins through ensure that utilities met applicable health, safety, the priority reservation system. Also, setting and environmental standards in order to accom­ aside an annual reunion time would allow all modate long-term public use. As a condition for former permit holders to get together at regular the continuation of special use permits, permit intervals, resulting in moderate to major, holders would also have to ensure that their beneficial, long-term impacts on the permit utilities met applicable health, safety, and holder community. environmental standards. A decision process for determining whether to repair, replace, or In terms of achieving national park purposes to remove cabins damaged by natural disaster provide for public enjoyment, as well as to would also be developed by the operator in preserve and conserve park resources, this action consultation with the National Park Service and would have major, beneficial, long-term impacts California state historic preservation officer. because 65 acres of publicly owned land would be available for public use, and historic re­ An agreement for an annual reunion time of sources would be adaptively reused. Making former permit holders and their families would cabins available for public use would have a be developed between the National Park Service moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public and the operator of cabins. Priority reservations recreational use in the Mineral King area. would be available for all former permit holders for the reunion period. Additionally, each family of a former permit holder would be allocated Boundary Adjustments advance priority reservations for a limited number of days per season per permit. As described under the no-action alternative, the park would acquire the Alley property on the Public and recreational use of public land would North Fork of the Kaweah River to create a be increased, resulting in major, beneficial, long- trailhead and a small campground and to term impacts from the adaptive reuse of cabins improve access to the foothills environment. that contribute to the historical character of the Because this area is not highly used, the impact area. on public use and ownership would be minor, beneficial, and long term. The full benefits of this alternative might be delayed since the permits would expire over a

303 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Impacts When the Mineral King area was transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the National As described for the no-action alternative, Park Service in 1978, permits were continued private land in Wilsonia predates the creation of with limits. They could only be renewed for the the park in 1890. At that time the area was not lifetime of the permittees of record in 1978, and acquired, and the private land was subsequently at the expiration of the permit the cabins were to subdivided and sold for seasonal recreational be removed and the areas returned to natural use. Over time the National Park Service has conditions. acquired some private land in Wilsonia from willing sellers. Enforcing present congressional provisions related to the phasing out of special use permits Silver City was built in the late 1800s along the for private cabins on public lands would be Mineral King Road, the first road into Sequoia consistent with the legislative directive. National Park. A small recreation community Biscayne National Park recently adopted a plan remained after extractive uses like mining and that provided the framework for addressing logging stopped. special use permit cabins in an area known as Stiltsville. Under the plan special use permit As described for the no-action alternative, cabins would be acquired for public use, a hydroelectric facilities have provided a local process would be developed to determine the clean power source for nearly 100 years. While best public use, and standards would be set to facilities outside Sequoia National Park could determine responses to major natural disasters. continue to operate under the current FERC Adopting a similar approach for the Mineral license through 2021, there would be minor to King permit cabins under the preferred moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on power alternative would result in minor to moderate, generation and local users from the loss of beneficial, long-term impacts nationwide, facilities within the park, even though the allowing the achievement of park purposes and amount of power generated is small. Also, mission goals because more publicly owned land reservoirs outside the park would no longer be would be available to all for future preservation supplied by water diverted from within the park, and enjoyment. so a local fire protection water supply would be reduced, resulting in a major, adverse, long-term As described for the no-action alternative, the impact on the local community in terms of its management of special use permits affects many ability to manage and fight fires. units in the national park system. Special use permits are defined as a “short-term activity that At one time the U.S. Forest Service had a pro­ takes place in a park area and provides a benefit gram that permitted privately owned cabins on to an individual, group or organization, rather public land through 99-year leases, and a num­ than the public at large” (NPS 2000a). In this ber of recreation cabin communities were case a special use permit is defined as a established. In addition to the three Mineral “privilege,” not a “right,” and Director’s Order King areas, there are examples of privately #53: Special Use Permits has procedures to be owned recreation cabin communities within the followed for special park uses (NPS 2000a). parks at Wilsonia, Oriole Lake, and Silver City. Discontinuing special use permits beyond the There are also permit recreation cabins in the current permit period would be consistent with Hume Lake area of Giant Sequoia National NPS policy and would result in the achievement Monument as well as throughout the Sierra of the core mission for Sequoia National Park. Nevada. This type of recreation community is This action would be consistent with the discon­ not unique to Sequoia and Kings Canyon tinuation by the National Park Service of this National Parks, their surroundings, or the Sierra type of special use permit systemwide, resulting Nevada. in major, beneficial, long-term impacts on public use of public land.

304 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative A

In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably purchase properties offered for sale, private uses foreseeable actions, and despite the adverse within park boundaries would continue impact on special use cabin permittees, the indefinitely, and goals under this alternative preferred alternative would generally have a would not be fully achieved. major, beneficial, long-term impact on public use and ownership. This would occur primarily Wilsonia. As funds were available, private as a result of acquiring and adaptively reusing property would be acquired from willing sellers, special use permit cabins for public use and the structures would be removed, and the sites recreational opportunities. Because special use would be returned to natural conditions. Approx­ permit cabins would be acquired for public use, imately 190 properties could be acquired. Since the impact of this alternative would be more the action would involve willing sellers, there beneficial than the no-action alternative. At the would be no impact on private landowners. same time, this alternative would have a negli­ Similar to the no-action alternative, this alterna­ gible impact on private land and property rights tive would continue piecemeal acquisition, within the parks. leaving a patchwork of public and private properties within the park boundary.

Conclusion In terms of achieving national park purposes, purchases of private property would have a The preferred alternative would result in major, moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public beneficial, long-term impacts because public use ownership and full public use of land within of public land would be increased by removing park boundaries since the area is not within non-public uses, acquiring and adaptively public view or along major roads. Because the reusing special use cabins for public use, and Wilsonia area would be gradually returned to acquiring a limited amount of private land in and natural conditions and the area would not around the parks to increase public access, while provide recreational opportunities, alternative A generally allowing private use of private land to would have a negligible, beneficial impact on continue. public recreational use of the area.

In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably Oriole Lake. As funds were available, up to foreseeable actions, and despite the adverse four private parcels would be purchased from impact on special use cabin permittees, the willing sellers, structures and the road would be preferred alternative would generally have a removed, the area would restored, and only trail major, beneficial, long-term impact on public access would be provided. Since the action use and ownership. would involve willing sellers, there would be no adverse impact on them. As potential wilder­ ness, when non-conforming uses were removed IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A the area would become designated wilderness. Since the action would involve willing sellers, Analysis the impact on private landowners would not be considered adverse. Private Land Because this is a remote area and would be accessed by a backcountry trail, use would Privately owned land would be managed probably be quite low and would be mostly by consistent with land protection plans, which local and regional residents. With the presence would be updated as needed. Privately owned of a trailhead and trail, the impact on the public recreational cabin areas would be considered as recreational use would be minor, beneficial, and residential types of development. Inholdings long term. would be purchased on a willing-seller / willing- buyer basis. If funds were not available to

305 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Silver City. As funds were available, land to preserve and conserve resources, this action would be purchased from willing sellers, struc­ would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term tures would be removed, and the sites would be impact since private land would be acquired for returned to natural conditions. This alternative public ownership, and the cabins, which imply would result in piecemeal acquisition, leaving a limited access and public use in this area, would patchwork of public and private ownership be removed. However, returning the land to affecting approximately 30 cabins / lots within more natural conditions and relocating the trail­ the park boundary. Since the action would head and parking area would have a moderate, involve willing sellers, there would be no adverse, long-term impact on public use and adverse impact on them, the Silver City Resort, recreation since relocated facilities would result or the Silver City recreation community. in added hiking distance for most hikers on popular trails leading out of the valley. In terms of achieving park purposes, purchases of private property would have a moderate, Despite major adverse impacts on the cabin beneficial, long-term impact on public owner­ leaseholders, alternative A would generally have ship of park land since the area is visible along a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on the Mineral King Road. But public use and public ownership as a result of improved re­ recreation would not be improved, and public source conditions. Removing the parking area lodging would no longer be provided in the and relocating the trailhead would have moder­ Mineral King area, resulting in a moderate, ate, adverse impacts on public recreational use. adverse, long-term impact on public use.

Kaweah Han. As funds were available, land Special Use Permits on Park Land would be purchased from willing sellers, and all structures would be removed, resulting in a Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities. As negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on described for the no-action alternative, the public use since the area is expected to have permit for hydroelectric facilities is due to expire little use, is not visible, and is not along the on September 8, 2006. As the permit requires, Mineral King Road. hydroelectric facilities would be removed by the operator, and affected areas would be returned to Mineral King. As funds were available, land on natural conditions according to a restoration plan which the largest Mineral King trailhead parking that would be developed by the operator in area occurs would be acquired if the owner consultation with the National Park Service. The wished to sell; trailhead parking would then be restoration plan would include mitigation mea­ removed, and the trailhead would be relocated in sures to address access, steep terrain, potentially order to better preserve the Mineral King valley. hazardous materials, and the difficulty of facility Since the action would involve a willing seller, removal. Nevertheless, impacts associated with impacts on the private landholder would not be removing facilities and reestablishing natural considered adverse. resource conditions would likely be moderate to major, adverse, and long term due to removal As described for the no-action alternative, two activities and related equipment use. At the same cabins are located on this property. Acquisition time the loss of public recreational uses such as could adversely affect the lessees who hold camping near the Mineral King dams and fishing long-term leases issued by the private land­ in the lakes, or river access and hiking oppor­ owner. Because the cabin leases would no tunities near the Potwisha campground, would longer apply, and long-standing users would not result in moderate to major, adverse, long-term have access to the cabins, this action could be impacts on public use and enjoyment. perceived as a major, adverse, long-term impact by the lessees. In terms of achieving park pur­ Removing the Mineral King dams would elimi­ poses to provide for public enjoyment, as well as nate the potential adverse impact on human life

306 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative A and downstream development that could be available to visitors. Restoring the former jeopardize lives in at least one dwelling in the cabin areas to natural conditions would have Mineral King area, as well as the Cold Spring negligible, adverse impacts on public recrea­ campground (NPS 1992b), resulting in a tional use of the permit cabin areas. beneficial, permanent impact on public safety.

Overall, placing slightly more land under full Boundary Adjustments public use and removing any hazard to structures in the Mineral King area posed by the dams As described under the no-action alternative, would result in minor, beneficial impacts. acquiring the Alley property on the North Fork However, the impacts of removing facilities and of the Kaweah River to create a trailhead and returning areas to more natural conditions would improve access to the foothills environment result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts would result in a minor, beneficial, long-term on public use because of lost recreational impact on public ownership, as well as public opportunities. access and use, since the area would likely experience lower levels of use. Nonprofit Use — Wolverton Boy Scout Permit Camp. Under alternative A the Boy Scout Camp permit would not be extended. The Cumulative Impacts camp would be removed and the area returned to natural conditions, resulting in a moderate, Cumulative impacts would be similar to those adverse, long-term impact on regional Boy described for the no-action alternative. Private Scouts and others who use the facility. At the land at Wilsonia predates the creation of the same time there would be a negligible, park in 1890. At that time the area was not beneficial, long-term impact on public use and acquired, and the private land was subsequently recreation since the area would be restored and subdivided and sold for seasonal recreational public use would be allowed. use. Over time the National Park Service has acquired some private land in Wilsonia from Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin Cove, willing sellers. West Mineral King, East Mineral King. As described under the no-action alternative, Silver City was built in the late 1800s along the gradually removing permit cabins in three areas Mineral King Road. A small recreation in conformity with the 1978 legislation would community remained after extractive uses like affect approximately 60 permit holders and their mining and logging stopped. families. Like the no-action alternative, the cabins would be removed and the area returned As described for the no-action alternative, to natural conditions. The full benefits of the hydroelectric facilities have provided a local action might be delayed since permits would clean power source for nearly 100 years. While expire over a long period. Even though permit facilities outside Sequoia National Park could holders were aware of the terms for continuing continue to operate under the current FERC such special uses when the legislation was license through 2021, there would be minor to passed in 1978, they could perceive the effects moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on power of ending permits as a major and adverse generation and local users from the loss of because their uses would no longer be allowed. facilities within the park, even though the amount of power generated is small. Also, In terms of achieving national park purposes to reservoirs outside the park would no longer be provide for public enjoyment, as well as to pre­ supplied by water diverted from within the park, serve and conserve resources, this action would so a local fire protection water supply would be have major, beneficial, long-term impacts reduced, resulting in a major, adverse, long-term because 65 acres of publicly owned land would

307 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES impact on the local community in terms of its conditions. Under alternative A all private uses ability to manage and fight fires. and private land inside the parks would even­ tually be acquired and the areas returned to Enforcing existing congressional provisions natural conditions, resulting in moderate to related to phasing out private use of private major, beneficial, long-term impacts on public cabins on public lands would be consistent with ownership and use of the parks. At the same existing legislative direction and would result in time reduced opportunities for recreational use major, beneficial, long-term impacts because in the parks would result in moderate, adverse, publicly owned land would be available to all long-term impacts. for future preservation and enjoyment. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably As described for the no-action alternative, the foreseeable actions, alternative A would have a management of special use permits affects many moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public units in the national park system. Special use use and ownership. permits are defined as a “short-term activity that takes place in a park area and provides a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C than the public at large” (NPS 2000a). In this case a special use permit is defined as a Analysis “privilege,” not a “right,” and Director’s Order #53 has procedures to be followed for special Private Land park uses (NPS 2000a). Discontinuing special use permits beyond the current permit period Privately owned land would be managed con­ would be consistent with NPS policy and would sistent with the parks’ land protection plans, result in the achievement of the core mission for which would be updated as needed. Privately Sequoia National Park. This action would be owned recreational cabin areas would be consistent with the discontinuation by the Na­ considered as residential types of development. tional Park Service of this type of special use permit systemwide, resulting in major, bene­ Wilsonia. Wilsonia would continue as a private ficial, long-term impacts on public use of public recreational community and NPS-owned land. property and buildings could be used for more residential and public uses, such as visitor In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably lodging and concessioner / staff housing. This foreseeable actions, alternative A would have action would be a change from the 1986 Land moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on Protection Plan, which would need to be public recreation because special use permit updated. The action would have no adverse cabins would be removed, camping opportuni­ impact on private landowners. ties increased, and land restored and made available for the enjoyment of future In terms of achieving national park purposes of generations. providing for public enjoyment, as well as preserving and conserving resources, this action would have only a negligible, beneficial, long- Conclusion term impact on public ownership and full public use of park land since the area is not visible or Reducing use and development under alternative along a main road. Since there would be little A would substantially increase public ownership change to public recreation, alternative C would of private land in the parks, and non-public uses have a negligible adverse impact on public of public land would be removed. Special use recreational use of the area. permit cabins would be removed from public land and the areas returned to more natural

308 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative C

Oriole Lake. Public access to Oriole Lake public commercial use is very low. If the would be sought under alternative C without property was used for commercial purposes, seeking to purchase private inholdings. The four resulting use would have a minor, adverse, long- landowners at Oriole Lake could experience term impact on Silver City residences from minor noise and social impacts from small levels access road noise and safety concerns. of public access that would be offered. Mineral King. As funds were available, land on In terms of achieving national park purposes, which the most trailhead parking occurs would continuing private property ownership inside be acquired if the owner wished to sell, and the national parks would have a minor, adverse, trailhead would be redesigned to improve visitor long-term impact on public ownership and full trailhead parking. Since the action would public use of park land. Because this area is involve a willing seller, the impacts on the remote and accessed by a backcountry road, landholder would not be considered adverse. public use is expected to be quite low and mostly by local and regional residents. However, As described for the no-action alternative, two the opportunity for public access to the lake, cabins are located on this property. Acquisition which provides an uncommon foothills experi­ could adversely affect the lessees who hold ence, would result in a minor, long-term, and long-term leases issued by the private land­ beneficial impact in terms of recreational use. owner. Because the cabin leases would no longer apply, and long-standing users would not Silver City. Slightly expanded facilities and have access to the cabins, this action could be services at Silver City Resort would be perceived as a major, adverse, long-term impact consistent with alternative C. The resort would by the lessees. The cabins would be retained for continue to provide public lodging and visitor public use. In terms of achieving park purposes, services (restaurant, store, and public showers), public ownership would have a moderate, helping meet visitor needs in the area. Since beneficial, long-term impact on public use and there would be no changes in land status, the recreation since many Mineral King visitors use action would have no adverse impact on private the trailhead and the cabins’ presence implies landowners, the Silver City Resort, or the Silver limited access and public use in this area. This City recreational community. alternative would ensure trailhead access over the long term. In terms of achieving national park purposes, continuing private property inside the parks Redesigning the trailhead would improve re­ would have a moderate, adverse, long-term source conditions and recreational opportunities, impact on public ownership and full public use resulting in moderate, beneficial, long-term of park land since Silver City is on the Mineral impacts on recreational use. If funds were not King Road. Some visual impacts are mitigated available to purchase property offered for sale, through existing scenic conservation easements. private uses within park boundaries would At the same time, because visitor services would continue indefinitely, and park purposes would continue to be provided and modestly expanded not be fully achieved. under this alternative, the impact on public use and recreation would be minor, beneficial, and Despite major, adverse impacts on leaseholders, long term. there would generally be moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on public ownership and Kaweah Han. Under alternative C the goal was public recreational use. to encourage the owners of Kaweah Han to use the facilities for commercial lodging. However, the property has been recently purchased, and Special Use Permits on Park Land there is no indication that commercial use is desired by the new owners, so the likelihood of Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities. Under alternative C hydroelectric facilities would

309 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES continue to operate if authorized by Congress subject to new legislation that would change the through new legislation, and their history and original intent of the 1978 legislation. The use would be interpreted. The park would work resulting impact on public use of public land with an operator through a regulated permitting would be major, adverse, and long term since process to ensure that the facilities were main­ private, exclusive use of public land by a small tained and operated in a manner that did not group of historical users would continue on land impair park resources. The operator would they did not own, a situation in contrast to prepare and update mitigation plans to address nearby private cabins on private land in Silver reduced stream diversion to improve resource City. In terms of achieving national park pur­ conditions, public health and safety issues, poses to provide for public enjoyment, as well as mitigation funding, and plans for recreational to preserve and conserve park resources, this use and interpretation. Retaining the Mineral action would have major, adverse, long-term King dams would require assessment of the impacts because 65 acres of publicly owned land dams and reassessment of the 1992 downstream would still be unavailable for public use. hazard classification (NPS 1992b), particularly to the East Mineral King cabins and the Cold A goal of the permit holders was to preserve Spring campground. historic cabins for future generations, so this alternative would result in a moderate, beneficial Hydroelectric facilities, which are not readily impact over the long term, compared to the no- apparent to many visitors, would continue to action alternative. The National Park Service provide recreational opportunities, such as would continue to use a memorandum of camping near lakes behind dams and hiking understanding with the Mineral King Preser­ along the channels. Since the hydroelectric areas vation Society to protect contributing elements are small and some recreational use is accommo­ of the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape dated, continued special use of public land District. As a permit condition, cabins that do would result in minor, adverse, long-term not contribute to the district would have impacts on public use of public land. incompatible features removed in order to portray a historical appearance. An additional Nonprofit Use — Wolverton Boy Scout permit condition would be a requirement to Permit Camp. The Boy Scout Camp permit ensure that cabins and related infrastructure would be extended under alternative C. There (water, sewer) meet applicable health, safety, would be no impact on the Boy Scouts. At the and environmental standards. same time, since the area would not be used for wholly public purposes, there would be a minor, While cabins could be donated to the National adverse, long-term impact on public use and Park Service, piecemeal acquisition would be recreation as a result of a special use permit difficult for the agency to manage cabins for benefiting a small group of users. public use because they would likely be in disparate locations. Therefore, only the exteriors Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin Cove, of donated cabins would be preserved to West Mineral King, East Mineral King. A contribute to the appearance of the recreation recreation cabin community would illustrate a community. historic private use of public land. If Congress enacted legislation to authorize the continued issuance of special use permits, the National Boundary Adjustments Park Service would still issue permits in five- year increments for permittees deemed eligible As described under the no-action alternative, by Congress as long as such use would be com­ acquiring the Alley property on the North Fork patible with park administration and purposes. of the Kaweah River to create a trailhead and Over 60 permit holders and their families could improve access to the foothills environment continue to have private cabins on public land, would result in a minor, beneficial, long-term

310 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative C impact on public ownership, as well as public the cabins were to be removed and the areas access and use, since the area is expected to see returned to natural conditions. low levels of use. Changing present congressional provisions related to the phasing out of special use permits Cumulative Impacts for private cabins on public lands would be inconsistent with NPS policy and would be Cumulative impacts would be similar to those counter to the intent of the 1978 legislation, described for the no-action alternative. Private resulting in a major, adverse, long-term impact land at Wilsonia predates the creation of the for public use of public land. Alternative C park in 1890. At that time the area was not would extend benefits to a limited number of acquired, and the private land was subsequently private users who would continue to use public subdivided and sold for seasonal recreational land at the expense of the larger public, going use. Over time the National Park Service has against the NPS mission to preserve resources acquired some private land in Wilsonia from for public enjoyment. willing sellers. As described for the no-action alternative, the Silver City was built in the late 1800s along the management of special use permits affects many Mineral King Road. A small recreation com­ units in the national park system. Special use munity remained after extractive uses like permits are defined as a “short-term activity that mining and logging stopped. takes place in a park area and provides a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather Hydroelectric facilities have provided a local than the public at large” (NPS 2000a). In this clean power source for nearly 100 years, and case a special use permit is defined as a new congressional authorization for a permit “privilege,” not a “right,” and Director’s Order would allow the operation of facilities within the #53 has procedures to be followed for special park to supplement those outside the park, which park uses (NPS 2000a). Legislative action to could continue to operate under the current allow continuation of special use permits beyond FERC license through 2021. Additionally, the current permit period would be inconsistent reservoirs outside the park supplied by diverted with NPS policy since short-term privileges water from the park would continue to enhance would become long-term, and the public at large water supply storage for fire protection in the would see this as a de facto conversion of a local community, a major, beneficial, long-term privilege to a right. This action would detract impact. from the achievement of the core Sequoia National Park mission; would be inconsistent At one time the U.S. Forest Service had a pro­ with discontinuations of permits in other parks; gram that permitted privately owned cabins on and would result in major, adverse, long-term public land through 99-year leases. A number of nationwide impacts on public use of public land. recreation cabin communities were established throughout the Sierra Nevada, including three at In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably Mineral King, as well as at Wilsonia, Oriole foreseeable actions, alternative C would have a Lake, and Silver City in the parks, and in the major, adverse, long-term impact on public use Hume Lake area of Giant Sequoia National and ownership as a result of continuing special Monument. Recreation communities are not use permits for private cabins on public land, unique to the parks. When the Mineral King area which would limit public recreational opportun­ was transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to ities and would be contrary to the 1978 the National Park Service in 1978, permits could legislation, which envisioned ending this use. At only be renewed for the lifetime of the permittee the same time, it would have a moderate, of record in 1978. At the expiration of the permit beneficial, long-term impact on the local community because hydroelectric facilities

311 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES would continue, with a moderate, beneficial, Continuing the private community would be at long-term impact on the local community due to odds with public ownership of land within the power generation and water for fire fighting. boundaries of a national park. However, because this area is not readily apparent to most visitors and is not along a main park road, expansion Conclusion would have only a minor, adverse, long-term impact on public ownership and public use of Alternative C would result in major, adverse, park land. long-term impacts because special use permits would continue to allow private use of public Alternatively, if all private land was acquired to lands. At the same a limited amount of private provide public recreation support facilities (such land in and around the parks would be acquired as parking or transit support), alternative D to increase public access, a minor, beneficial would generally have a moderate, beneficial, impact. Private use of private land would be long-term impact on of the area due to increased continued. public use.

On a cumulative basis, alternative C would have Oriole Lake. As funds were available, private a major, adverse, long-term impact on public use lands would be purchased from the four owners and ownership because private uses would on a willing-seller basis, and the structures continue, contrary to the 1978 legislation that would be removed, with the road and trail envisioned ending special use permits and providing access to a primitive picnic area. making public lands available for public use. Since this action would involve willing sellers, impacts on them would not be considered adverse. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D Purchasing private property would have a minor, Analysis beneficial, long-term impact on public owner­ ship and public use of land inside the national park. At the same time, the area’s remoteness Private Land and access by a backcountry road would likely result in low visitor use, mostly by local and Similar to the preferred alternative, privately regional residents. Since the area is remote and owned land would be managed consistent with would have only a small picnic area, trailhead, the parks’ land protection plans, which would be and a trail serving a few visitors, the impact on updated as needed. Privately owned recreational public recreational use would be minor, cabin areas would be considered as residential beneficial, and long term. types of development. The area is potential wilderness, so continuing to Wilsonia. Under alternative D either the provide road access and providing picnic facili­ recreational community of Wilsonia would ties would require a change in its wilderness continue and commercial use allowed (for status. This change would result in a minor, example, public lodging), or all structures would adverse, long-term impact because it would only be acquired and the area managed by the Na­ affect 25 acres (0.003% of the parks’ designated tional Park Service to support park visitor needs. wilderness), even though wilderness character­ Under the first option the impact on private istics might not be protected over the long term. landowners would be minor, beneficial, and long term since their uses would continue and some Despite some minor benefits, alternative D new uses would be allowed. Under the second would have a moderate, adverse, long-term option the impact on private landholders would impact as a result of permanently changing be major, adverse, and long term since facilities wilderness status. would be acquired to support public recreation.

312 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative D

Silver City. Under alternative D the National the best way to preserve rustic structures at the Park Service would partner with the Silver City site. Resort to provide lodging and expand visitor services (restaurant, store, and public showers). Generally, if Kaweah Han was acquired for Public access to these services could increase public use, alternative D would result in moder­ slightly under this alternative as a result of ate, adverse, long-term impacts on private greater partnership efforts with the National landowners in Silver City because of additional Park Service. Private land would only be traffic, safety concerns, and noise. Limited acquired on a willing-seller / willing-buyer public use of Kaweah Han would not provide basis. Consequently, impacts on private sufficient benefits of public ownership. Impacts landowners would not be considered adverse. on the private owner would by major, adverse, and long term. Silver City Resort and private cabins would con­ tinue in accordance with the 1984 Land Protec Mineral King. As funds were available, the tion Plan (NPS 1984), and remaining lots and/or largest Mineral King trailhead parking area property could be sold without restriction. The would be acquired if offered for sale by the National Park Service has already acquired owner, and the trailhead would be redesigned, as approximately 60 acres. There would be no described for alternative C. Since this action impact on approximately 30 private landowners. would involve a willing seller, impacts on the Visual impacts would be mitigated through private landholder would not be considered scenic conservation easements. adverse.

Generally, alternative D would result in minor, As described for the no-action alternative, two beneficial, long-term impacts on public use and cabins are located on this property. Acquisition ownership since the National Park Service could adversely affect the lessees who hold would partner with the resort to better meet long-term leases issued by the private land­ visitor needs. owner. Because the cabin leases would no longer apply, and long-standing users would not Kaweah Han. In alternative D the goal was for have access to the cabins, this action could be the National Park Service or a partnership group perceived as a major, adverse, long-term impact to acquire Kaweah Han and use it as an educa­ by the lessees. In terms of achieving park tional center. The lodge would be evaluated for purposes, public ownership would have a its eligibility for listing on the National Register moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on public of Historic Places. Road access, which bisects use and recreation since many Mineral King the private community of Silver City, would visitors use the trailhead and the cabins’ pres­ result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts ence implies limited access and public use in on private landowners in Silver City because of this area. This alternative would ensure trailhead additional traffic, safety concerns, and noise. access over the long term. This would be inconsistent with management prescriptions, which preclude mixing incom­ Redesigning the trailhead would improve patible residential and public uses. resource conditions and recreational opportuni­ ties, resulting in moderate, beneficial, long-term Kaweah Han was recently purchased, and impacts on recreational use. If funds were not acquisition by the National Park Service would available to purchase property offered for sale, result in a major, adverse, long-term impact on private uses within park boundaries would the new private owners. The Kaweah Han area is continue indefinitely, and park purposes would not readily apparent and is not located along the not be fully achieved. Mineral King Road, so continued private ownership would have a negligible impact on Despite major, adverse impacts on leaseholders, park visitors. Private ownership could provide there would generally be moderate, beneficial,

313 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES long-term impacts on public ownership and Scout camp would be converted to a work center recreational use. or a camp for volunteers. This action would result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts for park management, which would therefore bene­ Special Use Permits on Park Land fit the public. Using the area for park purposes would have a negligible, long-term, adverse Utility Use — Hydroelectric Facilities. As impact on public use and recreation since the described for the no-action alternative, the current use does not accommodate public permit for hydroelectric facilities is due to expire recreational use. on September 8, 2006. As the permit requires, hydroelectric facilities would be removed by the There would be moderate, adverse, long-term operator, and affected areas would be returned to impacts on regional Boy Scouts since they natural conditions according to a restoration plan would no longer have use of a camp to which that would be developed by the operator in con­ they have had long-standing access. The Boy sultation with the National Park Service. The Scouts constitute a more public use than other restoration plan would include mitigation mea­ special use permittees since user groups change sures to address access, steep terrain, potentially regularly. Regional Boy Scouts would need to hazardous materials, and the difficulty of facility find other camping locations. removal. Nevertheless, impacts associated with removing facilities and reestablishing natural Despite the moderate, adverse, long-term resource conditions would likely be moderate to impacts on the Boy Scouts, alternative D would major, adverse, and long term due to removal generally have a minor, beneficial, long-term activities and related equipment use. At the same impact because the area would be used for park time the loss of public recreational uses such as purposes. camping near the Mineral King dams and fishing in the lakes, or river access and hiking oppor­ Mineral King Permit Cabins — Cabin Cove, tunities near the Potwisha campground, would West Mineral King, East Mineral King. Cabin result in moderate to major, adverse, long-term permits would not be extended beyond what is impacts on public use and enjoyment. allowed by legislation. Special use permit cabins would be acquired and preserved for interpre­ Removing the Mineral King dams would tation and education use through donation in lieu eliminate the potential adverse impact on human of required removal. The National Park Service life and downstream development that could would manage selected examples of acquired jeopardize lives in at least one dwelling in the cabins to illustrate the architectural character of Mineral King area, as well as the Cold Spring historic recreation communities. Actions taken campground (NPS 1992b), resulting in a related to acquired cabins would be made in beneficial, permanent impact on public safety. consultation with the California state historic preservation officer. Alternative D would result Overall, placing slightly more land under full in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts public use and removing any hazard to structures because private use of public land would be in the Mineral King area posed by the dams phased out and some educational use would take would result in minor, beneficial impacts. its place. However, the impacts of removing facilities and returning areas to more natural conditions would Eventually about 60 permit holders and their result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts families would no longer have private cabins on on public use because of lost recreational public land. The full benefits of the action might opportunities. be delayed since the permits would expire over a long period. Public and private use could be Nonprofit Use — Wolverton Boy Scout mixed, with minor conflicts between manage­ Permit Camp. Under alternative D the Boy ment prescriptions that preclude mixing

314 Private Land and Special Use Permits on Park Land: Impacts of Alternative D residential use (private cabins) with public use the park in 1890. At that time the area was not (education). Even though permit holders were acquired, and the private land was subsequently aware of the terms for continuing such special subdivided and sold for seasonal recreational uses when the legislation was passed in 1978, use. Over time the National Park Service has they could perceive the effects of ending permits acquired some private land in Wilsonia from as a major, adverse, long-term impact because willing sellers. their uses would cease. At the same time, a goal of the permit holders was to preserve historic Silver City was built in the late 1800s along the cabins for future generations; therefore, retain­ Mineral King Road, the first road into Sequoia ing only selected examples of cabins would not National Park. A small recreation community meet their goal. However, since some cabins remained after extractive uses like mining and would be retained and this alternative would logging stopped. provide for public use of public land, it would result in a minor to moderate, beneficial impact As described for the no-action alternative, over the long term, compared to the no-action hydroelectric facilities have provided a local alternative. clean power source for nearly 100 years. While facilities outside Sequoia National Park could In terms of achieving national park purposes to continue to operate under the current FERC provide for public enjoyment, as well as to pre­ license through 2021, there would be minor to serve and conserve park resources, this action moderate, adverse, long-term impacts on power would have major, beneficial, long-term impacts generation and local users from the loss of because 65 acres of publicly owned land would facilities within the park, even though the be available for public use. Making selected amount of power generated is small. Also, cabins available for public educational and reservoirs outside the park would no longer be interpretive use would have a minor to moder­ supplied by water diverted from within the park, ate, beneficial, long-term impact on public so a local fire protection water supply would be recreational use in the Mineral King area. reduced, resulting in a major, adverse, long-term impact on the local community in terms of its ability to manage and fight fires. Boundary Adjustments At one time the U.S. Forest Service had a pro­ Under alternative D the Alley property on the gram that permitted privately owned cabins on North Fork of the Kaweah River would be public land through 99-year leases, and a num­ acquired to provide a primitive stock and bicycle ber of recreation cabin communities were campground and ranger residence, and established. In addition to the three Mineral cooperative management would be pursued with King areas, permit recreation cabins are spread the Bureau of Land Management. The area is throughout the Sierra Nevada and locally in the small, and it would probably attract mostly Hume Lake area of Giant Sequoia National regional and local use, meeting some Monument. When the Mineral King area was recreational needs. It would also provide transferred from the U.S. Forest Service to the improved park access and access to the Colony National Park Service in 1978, permits were Mill Road area, resulting in a minor to moderate, continued with limits. They could only be beneficial, long-term impact on public owner­ renewed for the lifetime of the permittees of ship, as well as public access and use. record in 1978, and at the expiration of the permit the cabins were to be removed and the areas returned to natural conditions. Cumulative Impacts Enforcing present congressional provisions As described for the no-action alternative, related to the phasing out of special use permits private land in Wilsonia predates the creation of for private cabins on public lands would be

315 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES consistent with the legislative directive. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably Biscayne National Park recently adopted a plan foreseeable actions, alternative D would have a that provided the framework for addressing major, beneficial, long-term impact on public special use permit cabins in an area known as use and ownership. As described for the pre­ Stiltsville. Under the plan special use permit ferred alternative, this would occur primarily as cabins would be acquired for public use, a a result of acquiring special use permit cabins process would be developed to determine the for public use and recreational opportunities and best public use, and standards would be set to managing the parks consistent with the NPS determine responses to major natural disasters. mission (that is, making public land available for Adopting a similar approach for the Mineral public use). Because only some historic cabins King permit cabins under this alternative would would be retained when special use permit result in minor to moderate, beneficial, long- cabins were acquired for public use, the impact term impacts nationwide, allowing the under this alternative would be more beneficial achievement of park purposes and mission goals than under the no-action alternative, but less because more publicly owned land would be beneficial that under the preferred alternative. At available to all for future preservation and the same time, this alternative would have some enjoyment. adverse impacts on private landowners within the parks, primarily as the result of acquiring As described for the no-action alternative, the Kaweah Han. management of special use permits affects many units in the national park system. Special use permits are defined as a “short-term activity that Conclusion takes place in a park area and provides a benefit to an individual, group or organization, rather Alternative D would result in major, beneficial, than the public at large” (NPS 2000a). In this long-term impacts because public use of public case a special use permit is defined as a land would be increased by removing non-public “privilege,” not a “right,” and Director’s Order uses, acquiring special use cabins and retaining #53: Special Use Permits has procedures to be some of them for public interpretive and followed for special park uses (NPS 2000a). educational use, and acquiring a limited amount Discontinuing special use permits beyond the of private land in and around the parks to current permit period would be consistent with increase public access. Private use of private NPS policy and would result in the achievement land would be continued at Wilsonia and Silver of the core mission for Sequoia National Park. City. This action would be consistent with the discon­ tinuation by the National Park Service of this In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably type of special use permit systemwide, resulting foreseeable actions, alternative D would have a in major, beneficial, long-term impacts on public major, beneficial, long-term impact on public use of public land. use and ownership.

316 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING Impact Thresholds for Park Management, IMPACTS Operations, and Facilities Negligible — Impacts would have no discerni­ The impact analysis evaluated the effects of the ble effect on park operations or facilities. alternatives on the following aspects of park Minor — Impacts would be slightly detectable operations: but are not expected to have an overall effect • staffing, infrastructure, visitor facilities, on the ability of the parks to provide services and services and facilities. • operations of non-NPS entities, including Moderate — Impacts would be clearly detect­ the Sequoia Natural History Association, able and could have an appreciable effect on concessioners, commercial permittees, park operations and facilities. partners, and volunteers Major — Impacts would have a substantial influence on park operations and facilities and • operations of other federal agencies (for could reduce the staff’s ability to provide example, the U.S. Forest Service and the adequate services and facilities to visitors and Bureau of Land Management) staff. The analysis was conducted in terms of how park operations and facilities might vary under the different management alternatives. The analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative Analysis because of the conceptual nature of the alterna­ tives. Consequently, professional judgement was Impacts of Operational Needs used to reach reasonable conclusions as to the intensity, duration, and type of potential impact. Utilities. Aging utilities would be replaced as needed when funds were available, and more Beneficial impacts would improve park opera­ stringent water and wastewater standards would tions and/or facilities. Adverse impacts would need to be met. Studies would be undertaken to negatively affect park operations and/or facilities assess when infrastructure replacements were and could hinder the staff’s ability to provide needed. Each utility system would be assessed to adequate services and facilities to visitors and determine what sustainable approach would best staff. Some impacts could be beneficial to some meet needs and legal requirements, as well as operations or facilities and adverse or neutral to make use of improved technology. Eventually, others. more sustainable and efficient utility systems would replace existing aging systems, resulting in moderate, beneficial impacts over the long IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION term. LTERNATIVE A Wastewater systems at Ash Mountain were designed to work at specific levels, but they Park development, which includes the majority would continue to operate inefficiently due to of park operational facilities, consists of around reduced volume, and it is possible that other 1,745 acres, or 0.2% of the park. About 65% of wastewater systems could experience similar the developed area is used for administration and inefficiencies. These inefficiencies result in operations and 11% for residential purposes. added staff time and funds to keep the systems functioning.

317 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Water supply would continue to be inadequate in Winter Operations. Winter park operational some drought years at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, needs and snow removal would continue to have Ash Mountain, and Mineral King, and drought a substantial impact on seasonal park operations. plans might have to be implemented. The entire length of Generals Highway would be kept open during winter, with winter road In Wilsonia private properties would be acquired closures generally of short duration. However, from willing sellers at the rate of approximately heavy snowfall could result in minor to major one property every 12 years. Nonhistoric prop­ adverse impacts on park operations over the erties owned by the National Park Service would short term. However, since this is an ongoing be removed and the areas returned to more situation, the impact of the no-action alternative natural conditions. Over time there would be a on winter operations would generally be negli­ reduced number of private utility systems except gible and adverse over the long term. for those serving historic structures. Administrative Helicopter Use. Administrative As the Mineral King special use permits expire, helicopter use would continue to support both private water and wastewater systems would be search-and-rescue operations as well as main­ removed according to requirements in the legis­ tenance and backcountry deliveries. The park lation, reducing the number of individual utility operational use of helicopters is valuable, and it systems. would be considered a minimum tool in order to accomplish backcountry work in a timely Over time, some comfort stations would be re­ fashion and to speed up backcountry seasonal placed by vault toilets, necessitating long-term openings. The impact of continued helicopter use of a pumping service, resulting in a perma­ use on park operations would be negligible and nent cost in the maintenance budget. RV dump beneficial over the long term. stations would continue to place a burden on park wastewater systems since sludge is hauled Administrative Stock Use. Administrative to municipal facilities outside the parks. stock use, which comprises over 40% of the stock use in the parks, would continue to be vital The impact of this alternative on the utility for supporting backcountry operations. Stock are infrastructure and park operations would primarily used to improve resource conditions, generally be moderate, adverse, and short term facilitate public access, and deliver supplies. as a result of the aging infrastructure, but long- Impacts of administrative stock use are miti­ term impacts would be moderate and beneficial gated through such methods as monitoring, as systems were replaced. regulation, supplemental feed, and winter pasturing outside the parks. Visitor Facilities and Services. Visitor facilities would continue to be maintained as staff and The impact of continued administrative stock funding were available; when facilities could no use would be negligible and beneficial over the longer be cost-effectively maintained, they long term. would be replaced by more sustainable facilities. However, many visitor facilities in historic Administrative Snowmobile Use. Snow­ structures that have been adaptively reused are mobiles are used by park staff to conduct expensive to maintain. Maintenance could research, snow surveys, and winter search and continue to be inadequate or burdensome in rescue. Continued use would result in negligible, some areas or due to unforeseen circumstances. beneficial, long-term impacts on operations.

The impact on park operations of maintaining visitor facilities and services would continue to Impacts of Other Entities on Park Operations be minor, adverse, and short term due to the aging buildings and peak-season demands. Sequoia Natural History Association. The cooperating association would continue to staff

318 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative bookstores and to run visitor trips and activities have worked with the park staff to develop such as cave tours to support the parks’ purpose maintenance standards for cabins / sites in the and mission. The focus of the visitor trips could Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District change over time with public interest. Support and to establish and maintain a water system in from the association would continue to have West Mineral King that provides water to the moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on park ranger station. Currently the impact of this operations. partnership on park operations at Mineral King is moderate and beneficial; because the cabins Volunteers. Over 1,000 people volunteer and are slated to be removed, the impact would support the parks in numerous ways; these continue over the short term. Once the permit efforts are critical to park operations because of cabins were removed, the impact on park insufficient full-time staffing. Stock user groups operations would be minor and adverse over the would continue to participate in backcountry long term, since the park would have to take trail building, resulting in moderate to major, over running the water system. beneficial impacts on park operations. Inade­ quate housing would continue as a minor, ad­ verse, long-term impact on volunteers. Generally Impacts on Staffing the impact on park operations of a continued large volunteer program would be major and Staffing priorities would not change under the beneficial over the long term. no-action alternative, but staffing would expand slightly over time. Some park operations could Concessioners. Concessioners who provide be impacted over time. A special or intensive lodging, food service, and other visitor support maintenance project, such as responding to a services would continue to do so. In the case of tree across a road or heavy snowfall on the Grant Grove and Wuksachi, lodging facilities Generals Highway, could affect visitor experi­ would be expanded to the extent contractually ences. Without staff increases, the education allowed. Concessioners running stables and pack staff at the Lodgepole visitor center would be trips for visitors would continue to supply their insufficient to also staff the Giant Forest own facilities, which they would need to replace museum, affecting visitor experiences. Staff as necessary. Inadequate housing would remain housing would remain inadequate in some areas a problem in some areas, as would staffing, and could result in the inability to find and retain resulting in minor to moderate, adverse, long- seasonal and permanent staff. For example, term impacts on concession operations. Impacts affordable housing in the gateway community of of concessioners on park operations would be Three Rivers may not be available, resulting in moderate and beneficial over the long term. long commutes.

Commercial Permit Holders. Business permits Altogether, impacts of insufficient park staffing would be continued in order to provide special would be minor, adverse, and short and long services to a relatively small number of visitors. term. The number and type of permits vary, depending largely on recreational trends. Because the permits address the needs of a small number of Cumulative Impacts visitors and are renewed annually, their services would continue to have a minor, beneficial, U.S. Forest Service. NPS staff would continue short-term impact on park operations and the to provide maintenance, fire, emergency and provision of visitor services. sequoia management consultation for Giant Sequoia National Monument. Continued park Partners. There would be some impacts to participation would have a negligible, beneficial, partners. Currently representatives from the short-term impact on the monument. Mineral King Special Use Permit community

319 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Gate receipts would continue to be shared with As described above, the no-action alternative Sequoia National Forest, with no additional would contribute negligible to moderate, adverse impacts in the short or long term. impacts over the short and long term related to inadequate staffing and housing. At the same Habitat shared between the national parks and time it would contribute negligible to major, Sierra National Forest would continue to be beneficial, long-term impacts because of more managed jointly in accordance with the recom­ sustainable facilities and infrastructure, as well mendations of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem as the continued use of park volunteers. On a Project. There would be no additional impacts. cumulative basis, continuing programs and work with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management purposes of the two agencies could Management, and the California Department of continue to diverge, with the NPS mission Transportation, in conjunction with the no- geared more toward preservation and the USFS action alternative, would generally result in mission toward providing for multiple uses, minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. including some not allowed in the parks, such as logging, hunting, and snowmobiling. Some visitors could be unaware of these different Conclusion missions; however, there would be negligible, beneficial impacts on park operations over the The gradual replacement of facilities with more long term as a result of increased interaction sustainable and efficient ones would result in related to the management of Giant Sequoia moderate, beneficial impacts on all aspects of National Monument. park operations over the long term. There would be negligible, beneficial impacts from the con­ Bureau of Land Management. NPS staff tinued use of stock, helicopters, and snow­ would continue to fulfill a cooperative agree­ mobiles for park operations. Impacts of insuf­ ment for maintenance and oversight, resulting in ficient park staffing would be minor and adverse a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on over the short and long term, and inadequate BLM operations. housing would continue to be a problem. Gener­ ally the impacts of the no-action alternative on California Department of Transportation. park operations would be minor to moderate and The California Department of Transportation adverse over the long term, primarily due to an (Caltrans) plans and manages several roads in aging infrastructure, inadequate housing, and and around the parks, including opening and insufficient staffing. Impacts on park operations closing the Kings Canyon Highway (California from the assistance of other groups — the na­ 180) from Grant Grove to Cedar Grove. This tural history association, volunteers, concession­ affects the operating season at Cedar Grove and ers, commercial permit holders, and partners — necessitates coordination, generally resulting in would be minor to major and beneficial. moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on park operations. The state rebuilt about 9 miles of On a cumulative basis, continuing programs and road following a flood several years ago. There work with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of are also plans for improvements to California Land Management, and the California Depart­ 180 west of the parks that would establish six- ment of Transportation, in conjunction with and four-lane expressway segments, providing continued park programs under the no-action easier access to the parks. There could be mod­ alternative, would generally result in minor, erate to major, adverse, short-term impacts on beneficial, long-term impacts. park operations as a result of natural events that could affect the opening or closing of Kings Canyon Highway.

320 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED As described under the no-action alternative, water supply would continue to be inadequate in LTERNATIVE A some drought years at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, Ash Mountain, and Mineral King, resulting in Most park operational facilities would be located the need to implement drought plans. Limited in the park development zone, with some facili­ development in these areas would incorporate ties in high- and low-use frontcountry. Develop­ advanced technology to reduce water use. For ment would occupy around 1,887 acres or 0.21% example, water demand could be further reduced of the parks. About 55% of the developed area by installing very low-flow fixtures, such as would be used for administration / operations waterless urinals, to replace present low-flow and 15% for residential purposes. Under the fixtures. In the Grant Grove area limited water preferred alternative, administrative and main­ supply could be mitigated by providing for more tenance functions would no longer be inter­ day use than overnight use (42–64 gallons per spersed among residential areas or camp­ day [gpd] per overnight visitor compared to 10 grounds. Administrative offices would be relo­ gpd per day visitor). cated outside the parks. Existing operational and educational facilities would be improved. A Wastewater systems at Ash Mountain were limited number of park operational facilities designed to work at specific levels, but would could be found in the backcountry, primarily in continue to operate inefficiently due to reduced the major trails zone. Residential uses would be volume. It is possible that other wastewater expanded from current levels only in the systems could experience similar inefficiencies. Wuksachi / Lodgepole area. Residential areas These inefficiencies result in added staff time would be limited to Cedar Grove, Grant Grove, and funds to keep the systems functioning. Ash Mountain, and Mineral King. Any unmet needs could be provided privately outside the In Wilsonia private properties would be acquired parks. from willing sellers at the rate of approximately one property every 12 years. Nonhistoric prop­ erties owned by the National Park Service would Analysis be removed, and the areas would be returned to more natural conditions. Over time there would Impacts of Operational Needs be fewer private utility systems, except utility systems could be retained at historic structures. Utilities. Utilities would be replaced as needed, and more stringent water and wastewater With the acquisition of Mineral King permit standards would need to be met. Studies would cabins for public use, individual utility systems be undertaken to determine when infrastructure would be assessed and sustainable utility replacements were needed. Expanding develop­ systems developed for the level and location of ment within the capacity of present utility self-supporting public use. The system would be systems would be the most cost-effective and managed by a partnership group, resulting in sustainable approach, involving both reduced moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts to park water demand and sufficient wastewater output operations. to maintain efficient functions. The studies would determine whether the function was Over time, some comfort stations would be needed, whether it could be combined or con­ replaced by vault toilets, necessitating long-term solidated with other functions, and whether use of a pumping service, a permanent expense government-built and maintained utilities would in the maintenance budget. be the best way to meet needs. Also, the impact of new facilities on resource conditions would Removing RV dump stations that do not meet be assessed, and the best location for facilities state standards would reduce the burden on park would be identified (possibly outside the parks).

321 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES wastewater systems, thus improving the capacity stock use would continue to be critical to sup­ of wastewater systems. porting backcountry park operations. Reducing administrative grazing in the Ash Mountain / The impact of this alternative on the utility infra­ foothills area would require additional feed to be structure and park operations would generally be brought in, resulting in a minor, adverse, long- moderate and adverse as a result of the aging term impact on park operations and budgets. infrastructure. Long-term impacts would be Because stock use primarily supports trail and moderate and beneficial because systems would resource improvement programs, and it facili­ be replaced and a partnership would run systems tates public access and supply delivery, the in the Mineral King area, reducing park staff impact of continued administrative stock use on responsibilities. operations would be minor and beneficial over the long term. Visitor Facilities and Services. Visitor facilities would be redesigned to facilitate access and Administrative Snowmobile Use. Snow­ circulation and to better meet the needs of mobiles would continue to be used for essential changing user groups. Services would be as­ research, snow surveys, and winter search and sessed to determine whether they were still rescue, resulting in negligible, beneficial impacts needed and whether government-provided on operations. services would be the most efficient. Providing some new visitor facilities, replacing facilities as they reached the end of their useful lives with Impacts of Other Entities on Park Operations more efficient facilities, and designing new facilities to be efficient and sustainable would Sequoia Natural History Association. The result in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts cooperating association would continue to staff to operations. Maintenance in congested or bookstores and to run visitor trips and activities seasonal high-use areas would need to expand. such as cave tours to support the parks’ purpose Overall, the impact on visitor services would be and mission. Under the preferred alternative moderate, beneficial, and long term. there would be moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on park operations as additional and Winter Operations. Expanded winter use different types of programs were developed and would make demands on park operations and provided by the association. snow removal, resulting in a negligible, adverse, long-term impact since the park is already keep­ Volunteers. Under the preferred alternative ing the highway open year-round and avoiding volunteers with a diverse focus would continue winter closures would continue to be a goal. to support park operations, including educa­ tional, scientific, operational, and maintenance Administrative Helicopter Use. Administrative programs. Stock user groups would continue to helicopter use would continue to provide a vital participate in trail maintenance, resulting in a service for both search-and-rescue operations as moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on well as maintenance operations and backcountry backcountry trails. Additional volunteer housing deliveries, similar to the no-action alternative. It facilities such as camps and dormitories would would be considered a minimum tool for accom­ be provided. Overall, the impact of volunteers plishing backcountry work in a timely fashion on park operations would be major and bene­ and speeding up backcountry seasonal openings. ficial over the long term. The impact of continued helicopter use on park operations would be negligible and beneficial Concessioners. Concessioners under the pre­ over the long term. ferred alternative would provide more services and facilities, with full buildout according to Administrative Stock Use. About half of the their contracts, resulting in more employees. stock use in the park is by staff; administrative Concessioners running stables and pack trips

322 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative would continue to supply services in all loca­ Additional volunteer camps and work camps tions except Wolverton, and their facilities could help meet short-term housing need, would need to be maintained. Concessioners resulting in moderate, beneficial impacts. would supply services to more diverse visitors and groups, and staffing would have to be able Taken together, the impact of this alternative on to relate to these users. Housing for concession existing staff levels and organization would employees might not be able to be met in the likely be moderate, beneficial, and long term as parks, resulting in minor to moderate, adverse a result of increased staffing and some related impacts over the long term. The overall impact housing. on park operations would be moderate, bene­ ficial, and long term. Cumulative Impacts Commercial Permit Holders. Business permits would be continued in order to provide special U.S. Forest Service. As described for the no- services to a relatively small number of visitors. action alternative, the following factors are Under the preferred alternative permit holders considered in the cumulative impact analysis for would be more likely to identify changing park operations: markets and adapt to their needs. Because these • NPS staff would continue to provide permit holders address the needs of a small maintenance, fire, emergency and sequoia number of visitors and permits are renewed management consultation for Giant annually, their services would continue to have a Sequoia National Monument. Continued minor, beneficial, short-term impact on park park participation would have a negli­ operations and the provision of visitor services. gible, beneficial, short-term impact on the monument. Partners. Partnerships would be pursued to provide education and other operations, includ­ • Gate receipts would continue to be shared ing the management and operation of the with Sequoia National Forest, with no Mineral King permit cabin area, which would be additional impacts in the short or long acquired for public use. This would result in a term. moderate, beneficial impact on park operations • Habitat shared between the national parks over the long term. and Sierra National Forest would continue to be managed jointly in accordance with Impacts on Staffing the recommendations of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. There would Increased park and concession staffing would be be no additional impacts. required for additional educational programs, • Management purposes of the two agen­ resource protection efforts, park transit opera­ cies could continue to diverge, with the tions, and lodging, resulting in moderate, bene­ NPS mission geared more toward preser­ ficial, long-term impacts since staffing would be vation and the USFS mission toward more closely aligned with operational needs. Se­ providing for multiple uses, including lecting staff who would be responsive to chang­ some not allowed in the parks, such as ing user groups, with foreign language skills as logging, hunting, and snowmobiling. well as good communication skills, would result Some visitors could be unaware of these in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. different missions.

Additional housing would be required in the There would be negligible, beneficial impacts on Wuksachi / Lodgepole area to meet staff needs, park operations over the long term as a result of but other employees would need to find their increased interaction with the U.S. Forest own housing in surrounding communities. Service related to the management of Giant Sequoia National Monument.

323 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Bureau of Land Management. NPS staff continued use of stock, helicopters, and snow­ would continue to fulfill a cooperative agree­ mobiles for park operations. Assistance from ment for maintenance and oversight, resulting in other groups (the natural history association, a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on volunteers, concessioners, commercial permit BLM operations. holders, and partners) would have minor to major, beneficial impacts. Adverse impacts of California Department of Transportation. As additional park and concession staffing on described for the no-action alternative, the housing demand would be moderate and adverse California Department of Transportation plans over the long term. and manages several roads in and around the parks, including On a cumulative basis, continuing programs and work with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of • opening and closing the Kings Canyon Land Management, and the California Depart­ Highway (California 180) from Grant ment of Transportation, in conjunction with Grove to Cedar Grove, which affects the actions under the preferred alternative, would operating season at Cedar Grove and generally result in minor to moderate, beneficial necessitates coordination, generally impacts over the long term. There would be resulting in moderate, beneficial, long- more beneficial impacts on park operations term impacts on park operations under the preferred alternative than the no-action • planning to improve California 180 west alternative. of the parks to create six- and four-lane expressway segments that would provide easier access to the parks IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A There could be moderate to major, adverse, short-term impacts on park operations as a result Under this alternative the park development of natural events that could affect the opening or zone would consist of about 1,310 acres (about closing of Kings Canyon Highway. 0.15% of the park). About 60% of the developed area would be used for administration / opera­ The preferred alternative would generally con­ tions and 10% for residential purposes. Most tribute moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts park operational facilities would be located in in terms of improved infrastructure, more developed areas, with some facilities in high- sustainable facilities, increased staffing, and and low-use frontcountry. Within the develop­ continued use of volunteers. On a cumulative ment zone, administrative and maintenance basis, continuing programs and work with the functions would no longer be interspersed U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Man- among residential areas or campgrounds. Some agement, and the California Department of administrative functions could occur in park Transportation, in conjunction with the preferred villages or in museums or visitor centers in the alternative, would generally contribute more high-use frontcountry zone. Very limited park beneficial impacts on park operations than the operational facilities could be found in the no-action alternative, resulting in minor to backcountry, primarily in the major trails zone. moderate, long-term impacts. Residential uses would be reduced from current levels, as would operations and villages.

Conclusion Analysis The preferred alternative would generally have moderate, beneficial impacts on park operations Impacts of Operational Needs because of improved infrastructure and more sustainable facilities over the long term. There Utilities. Infrastructure would be reduced in size would be negligible, beneficial impacts from the and facilities relocated outside the parks where

324 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of Alternative A possible. Existing utilities would be replaced as they would be removed. Each facility would be needed, and more stringent water and waste­ assessed as to its function, its impact on natural water standards would need to be met. Similar to ecosystems, the value added to the park, and the other alternatives, value analysis studies whether it could be combined or consolidated would be undertaken to assess infrastructure with other facilities or moved. The impact of when replacement was needed. These studies more efficient visitor facilities on park would assess the impact of infrastructure on operations would be moderate, long term, and resource conditions and would also determine beneficial since maintenance in frontcountry whether the function was needed, whether it areas could be done more efficiently. must be located inside the park, and whether government-built infrastructure would be the Winter Operations. Keeping roads open during best way to supply it. Reduced demands on winter would not be a priority, resulting in re­ water systems would be important for areas duced winter operations, but spring operations to where water supplies are limited, especially reopen the roads would increase the work load during droughts (Grant Grove, Lodgepole, Ash during an already busy time. The overall result Mountain, and Mineral King). would be moderate, adverse, short- and long- term impacts on park operations. Private lands inside the parks would be acquired, and special use cabins would be removed when Administrative Helicopter Use. Administrative permits expire, resulting in a reduction of indi­ helicopter use would continue only for search- vidual water and wastewater systems inside the and-rescue operations. Helicopters would not be parks. seen as minimum tools, and they would not support backcountry maintenance, deliveries, or Wastewater systems at Ash Mountain were waste collection from Mount Whitney. This designed to work at specific levels, but they could reduce the ability of park staff to would continue to operate inefficiently due to efficiently perform backcountry maintenance, reduced volume, and it is possible that other potentially delaying seasonal openings. The wastewater systems could experience similar impacts of alternative A on park operations inefficiencies. These inefficiencies result in would be major, adverse, and long term. added staff time and funds to keep the systems functioning. RV dump stations not meeting state Administrative Stock Use. No longer allowing standards would be removed, reducing the administrative stock use for any front- or back­ burden on park wastewater systems. country operations would adversely affect the ability of park staff to perform backcountry Over time some comfort stations would be maintenance, slowing down and reducing the replaced by vault toilets, necessitating long-term amount of work that could be accomplished and use of a pumping service, which would be a delay seasonal openings. The impact on park permanent expense for the maintenance budget. operations would be major, adverse, and long term. Like the no-action alternative, the impact of this alternative on the utility infrastructure and park Administrative Snowmobile Use. Allowing operations would generally be moderate, administrative snowmobile use only for winter adverse, and short term as a result of aging search and rescue would affect staff ability to infrastructure. Over the long term impacts would conduct snow surveys and research, would make be moderate and beneficial as systems were operations less efficient, and would reduce the replaced. amount of work that could be accomplished. The impact on park operations would be major, Visitor Facilities and Services. Fewer visitor adverse, and long term. facilities would be provided, and as some facilities reached the ends of their useful lives,

325 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts of Other Entities on Park Operations Partners. Current partnerships with private landowners and special use permit holders Sequoia Natural History Association. Under would likely dissolve with the acquisition of alternative A fewer visitors to bookstores, their properties or the expiration of permits, but Crystal Cave, and educational programs would the impact on essential park operations would be result in moderate, adverse, long-term impacts minor and adverse over the long term. Any new on the cooperating association, which would still partnership groups would likely focus on im­ require people to staff bookstores and run trips proving the condition of natural resources, and activities. Impacts on park operations from possibly resulting in negligible to minor benefits assistance provided by the association would over the long term. Taken as a whole, the impact continue to be moderate and beneficial over the on park operations would be minor, adverse, and long term. long term.

Volunteers. Under alternative A the focus of volunteer activities would shift from education Impacts on Staffing and maintenance to science, and an unknown number of volunteers would continue. Stock Staffing. Staffing priorities would change under user groups could no longer participate in trail alternative A, with a greater focus on science building, resulting in a major, adverse, long-term and research and could result in more summer impact on backcountry trails. Inadequate vol­ season staffing. Keeping the entire length of the unteer housing would continue. Overall, the Generals Highway open in winter would no impact on volunteers could be major and adverse longer be a goal, and winter closures would be over the long term. Impacts on park operations more common, which could result in additional would be moderate and adverse because the work to reopen the highway in spring. Mainte­ level of assistance provided by volunteer groups, nance staff would support resource management such as stock user groups, could decline. as well as visitor services. Eliminating stock use in the parks would adversely affect backcountry Concessioners. Reduced visitation would not access and park operations since additional staff necessarily result in reduced staffing levels for would be required to accomplish work done with concessioners, adversely affecting cost-effective the help of stock animals. Additionally, less operations. housing would be available in the parks to meet staff needs. Taken together, the impact of this Prohibiting stock use would mean that alternative on existing staff levels and organiza­ concessioners would no longer be operating tion would likely be major, adverse, and long stables and pack trips, and their facilities would term. need to be removed.

While the overall impact on concession opera­ Cumulative Impacts tions would be major and adverse over the long term, the impact of concession operations on U.S. Forest Service. As described for the no- park operations would continue to be minor to action alternative, the following factors are moderate and beneficial over the long term. considered in the cumulative impact analysis for park operations: Commercial Permit Holders. Any stock- related commercial permits would cease, and • NPS staff would continue to provide since they constitute many commercial permits, maintenance, fire, emergency and sequoia the impact of reduced commercial operations in management consultation for Giant the parks would be a moderate, adverse, and Sequoia National Monument. Continued long term since some help maintain backcountry park participation would have a negligi­ areas. ble, beneficial, short-term impact on the monument.

326 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of Alternative C

• Gate receipts would continue to be shared There could be moderate to major, adverse, with Sequoia National Forest, with no short-term impacts on park operations as a result additional impacts in the short or long of natural events that could affect the opening or term. closing of Kings Canyon Highway. • Habitat shared between the national parks Alternative A would contribute minor to major, and Sierra National Forest would continue adverse impacts over the short and long term, to be managed jointly in accordance with primarily because of lack of winter maintenance the recommendations of the Sierra on the Generals Highway. On a cumulative Nevada Ecosystem Project. There would basis, continuing programs and work with the be no additional impacts. U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land • Management purposes of the two agen­ Management, and the California Department of cies could continue to diverge, with the Transportation, in conjunction with alternative NPS mission geared more toward preser­ A, would generally contribute less beneficial and vation and the USFS mission toward more adverse impacts on park operations than providing for multiple uses, including would the no-action alternative or the preferred some not allowed in the parks, such as alternative. logging, hunting, and snowmobiling. Some visitors could be unaware of these different missions. Conclusion There would be negligible, beneficial impacts on Alternative A would have major, adverse, long- park operations over the long term as a result of term impacts on park operations as a result of increased interaction with the U.S. Forest reduced staff and eliminating the use of stock, Service related to the management of Giant helicopters, and snowmobiles for administrative Sequoia National Monument. purposes. Impacts on park operations from the Bureau of Land Management. NPS staff assistance of other groups — the natural history would continue to fulfill a cooperative agree­ association, volunteers, concessioners, commer­ ment for maintenance and oversight, resulting in cial permit holders, and partners — would be a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on minor to major and beneficial. Generally there BLM operations. would be moderate to major, adverse, long-term impacts on other entities from either reduced use California Department of Transportation. As or the acquisition and removal of privately described for the no-action alternative, the owned land or structures. California Department of Transportation plans and manages several roads in and around the On a cumulative basis, continuing programs and parks, including work with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the California Depart­ • opening and closing the Kings Canyon ment of Transportation, in conjunction with Highway (California 180) from Grant alternative A, would generally contribute less Grove to Cedar Grove, which affects the beneficial and more adverse impacts on park operating season at Cedar Grove and operations than would the no-action alternative necessitates coordination, generally or the preferred alternative. resulting in moderate, beneficial, long- term impacts on park operations • planning to improve California 180 west IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C of the parks to create six- and four-lane expressway segments that would provide Under alternative C most park operational facili­ easier access to the parks ties would be located in the park development zone, with some facilities in the high- and low­

327 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES use frontcountry zones. The development zone These inefficiencies result in added staff time would include about 1,986 acres (0.23% of the and funds to keep the systems functioning. park). About 55% of the developed area would be used for administration / operations and 15% In Wilsonia private properties would be acquired for residential purposes. Within the development from willing sellers at the rate of approximately zone, administrative and maintenance functions one property every 12 years. Nonhistoric prop­ would not be interspersed in residential areas or erties owned by the National Park Service would campgrounds. Some administrative functions be removed, and the areas would be returned to could occur in park villages or in museums or more natural conditions. Over time there would visitor centers. Very limited park operational be fewer private utility systems; however, utility facilities would be found in the backcountry, systems could be retained at historic structures. primarily in the major trails zone. Residential uses would be expanded from current levels, as With acquisition of Mineral King permit cabins would operations and villages. for public use, individual utility systems would be assessed, and sustainable utility systems would be developed for the level and location of Analysis self-supporting public use. The system would be managed by a partnership group, and this would Impacts of Park Operational Needs result in moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts to park operations because they would not have Utilities. Existing utilities would be replaced as to maintain the system. needed, and more stringent water and waste­ water standards would need to be met. Similar to Over time, some comfort stations would be the other alternatives, value analysis studies replaced by vault toilets, necessitating long-term would be undertaken to assess infrastructure use of a pumping service, the cost of which when replacement was needed. Each utility would have to be included in the maintenance system would be assessed to determine which budget. approach would best meet needs, legal requirements, and improved technology. Ex­ Removing RV dump stations that do not meet panding utilities within their design capacity state standards would reduce the burden on park would be the most cost-effective for meeting wastewater systems, thus improving the capacity additional demand, along with sustainable of wastewater systems. technologies to reduce both water demand and wastewater treatment needs. Like the preferred, the impact of this alternative on the utility infrastructure and park operations Water supply could continue to be inadequate in would generally be moderate, adverse, and short some years at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, Ash term as a result of aging infrastructure. Long- Mountain and Mineral King, and drought plans term impacts would be moderate and beneficial may need to be implemented, including mea­ as systems were replaced with more sustainable sures such as replacing low-flow fixtures with ones, and a partnership group would run systems even lower-flow fixtures (such as waterless in Mineral King. urinals). In the Grant Grove area, this situation could be further exacerbated by more year-round Visitor Facilities and Services. Replacing use in Wilsonia. visitor facilities as they reached the end of their useful lives would result in moderate, beneficial, Wastewater systems at Ash Mountain were long-term impacts in terms of park operations. designed to work at specific levels, but would Providing additional facilities would result in continue to operate inefficiently due to reduced adverse impacts. volume. It is possible that other wastewater systems could experience similar inefficiencies. Maintaining existing services and expanding maintenance in congested or seasonal high-use

328 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of Alternative C areas would result in additional operational Volunteers. Volunteers with a diverse focus needs, although backcountry stock use would would continue to support park operations, include smaller party sizes, potentially reducing including educational, scientific, operational, routine maintenance along backcountry trails. and maintenance programs. Stock user groups Overall, the impact of increased visitor services would continue to participate in trail building, on park operations would be moderate, long resulting in a moderate to major, beneficial term, and beneficial as a result of gradually impact on backcountry operations. Volunteer improved facilities. housing would be built, resulting in a major, beneficial impact on volunteers. Overall, the Winter Operations. Continuing present winter impact of volunteers on park operations would snow removal policies would have a negligible be major, long term, and beneficial. additional impact on park operations compared to the no-action alternative. Concessioners. Concessioners under alternative C would provide more services and facilities in Administrative Helicopter Use. Continuing accordance with the full buildout scenarios in administrative helicopter use for search-and- their contracts, resulting in additional services rescue operations, as well as for maintenance and employees. Concessioners running stables and backcountry deliveries would continue to and pack trips would continue to supply services provide a negligible, beneficial, long-term in all locations except Wolverton, and their impact on park operations. Helicopter use would facilities would need to be maintained. The be considered a minimum tool in order to overall impact of concession services on park accomplish backcountry work in a timely operations would be moderate, beneficial, and fashion and to speed up backcountry seasonal long term, but costs and added work to provide opening. housing for additional employees, if supplied in the parks, could result in minor to moderate, Administrative Stock Use. Continuing admin­ adverse impacts over the long term. istrative stock use to support backcountry park operations (primarily improvement of resource Commercial Permit Holders. Commercial conditions, facilitating public access, and permit holders would retain their permits, but delivering supplies) would continue to provide a smaller stock party sizes could affect back­ negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on country trips. Some commercial groups would operations. continue to provide backcountry maintenance. Because most permits are annual and relatively Administrative Snowmobile Use. Snow­ few people are involved, the impact on park mobiles would continue to be used for research, operations would be minor, beneficial, and short snow surveys, and winter search and rescue, term. resulting in negligible, beneficial, long-term impacts on operations. Partners. Partnerships would be pursued to provide educational and other operations, including management of the Mineral King area, Impacts of Other Entities on Park Operations resulting in a moderate, beneficial, long-term, impact on park operations. Sequoia Natural History Association. Under alternative C there would be no change in impacts on the cooperating association com­ Impacts on Staffing pared to the no-action alternative. The associ­ ation would still require people to staff book­ Increased staffing would be needed for more stores and run trips and activities, so the impact seasonal interpretive programs, transit opera­ on park operations would be moderate, bene­ tions, and other visitor services, resulting in a ficial, and long term. moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on park

329 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES operations. Maintaining buildings and utilities in There would be negligible, beneficial impacts on aging recreational communities would remain park operations over the long term as a result of challenging. At the same time housing needs increased interaction with the U.S. Forest Ser­ that could not be met in the parks would need to vice related to the management of Giant Sequoia be found individually outside the parks. Since National Monument. more housing would be provided, the impact of housing availability on park operations would Bureau of Land Management. NPS staff generally be minor to moderate, adverse, and would continue to fulfill a cooperative agree­ long term. ment for maintenance and oversight, resulting in a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on Taken together, the impacts of this alternative BLM operations. with increased park staffing would likely be moderate, long term, and beneficial despite California Department of Transportation. As increased operational and housing needs. described for the no-action alternative, the California Department of Transportation plans and manages several roads in and around the Cumulative Impacts parks, including • opening and closing the Kings Canyon U.S. Forest Service. As described for the no- Highway (California 180) from Grant action alternative, the following factors are Grove to Cedar Grove, which affects the considered in the cumulative impact analysis for operating season at Cedar Grove and park operations: necessitates coordination, generally • NPS staff would continue to provide resulting in moderate, beneficial, long- maintenance, fire, emergency, and term impacts on park operations sequoia management consultation for • planning to improve California 180 west Giant Sequoia National Monument. of the parks to create six- and four-lane Continued park participation would have expressway segments that would provide a negligible, beneficial, short-term impact easier access to the parks on the monument. There could be moderate to major, adverse, • Gate receipts would continue to be shared short-term impacts on park operations as a result with Sequoia National Forest, with no of natural events that could affect the opening or additional impacts in the short or long closing of Kings Canyon Highway. term. • Habitat shared between the national parks Alternative C would contribute negligible to and Sierra National Forest would continue major, beneficial, long-term impacts as the result to be managed jointly in accordance with of more sustainable facilities and infrastructure, the recommendations of the Sierra as well as continued use of park volunteers. Nevada Ecosystem Project. There would However, impacts related to inadequate staffing be no additional impacts. and housing would contribute negligible to moderate, adverse impacts over the short and • Management purposes of the two agen­ long term. On a cumulative basis, continuing cies could continue to diverge, with the programs and work with U.S. Forest Service, the NPS mission geared more toward preser­ Bureau of Land Management, and the California vation and the USFS mission toward Department of Transportation, in conjunction providing for multiple uses, including with actions under alternative C, would gener­ some not allowed in the parks, such as ally result in minor, beneficial, long-term logging, hunting, and snowmobiling. impacts. Some visitors could be unaware of these different missions.

330 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of Alternative D

Conclusion water standards would need to be met. As described for the other action alternatives, value Overall, alternative C would generally have analysis studies would be undertaken to assess moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts on park infrastructure when replacement was needed. operations as a result of expanded staffing and With year-round use in areas like Cedar Grove, improved facilities. There would be negligible, utilities might need to be expanded or upgraded. beneficial impacts from the continued use of Expanding development only to the design stock, helicopters, and snowmobiles for park capacity of existing utility systems would be the operations. Impacts on park operations from the most cost-effective method to meet needs. Value assistance of other groups — the natural history analysis studies would also assess the best association, volunteers, concessioners, commer­ locations for new facilities, resource impacts, cial permit holders, and partners — would be whether the function should be located inside or minor to major and beneficial. outside the park, and whether government-built and maintained infrastructure would be the best On a cumulative basis, continuing programs and way to meet needs. work with U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the California Depart­ As described for the no-action alternative, water ment of Transportation, in conjunction with supply would continue to be inadequate in some actions under alternative C, would generally years at Grant Grove, Lodgepole, Ash Mountain, result in minor, beneficial, long-term impacts. and Mineral King, and drought plans would need to be implemented periodically. Water demand could be further reduced by replacing IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D fixtures with very low-flow fixtures, such as waterless urinals. In the Grant Grove area, Like the other action alternatives, most park inadequate water supplies could be further operational facilities would be located in the exacerbated by more year-round use or commer­ park development zone, with some facilities in cial use in Wilsonia. Since Wilsonia is on pri­ the high- and low-use frontcountry zones. vate utility systems, the impact of acquiring Development would consist of about 2,133 acres inholdings in Wilsonia to provide additional (0.25% of the park). About 50% of the devel­ public uses is unknown, but could be beneficial. oped area would be for administration and operations, and 10% for residential purposes. In Wastewater systems at Ash Mountain are likely developed areas administrative and maintenance to operate inefficiently due to reduced volume functions would not be interspersed with resi­ from facilities moved outside the parks. It is pos­ dential needs or campgrounds. Some administra­ sible that other wastewater systems could expe­ tive functions could occur in park villages or in rience similar inefficiencies. Removing RV museums or visitor centers in the high-use front- dump stations that do not meet state standards country. A limited number of park operational would increase the capacity of wastewater facilities could be found in backcountry, systems. primarily in the major trails zone. Residential In Wilsonia private properties would be acquired uses would be expanded from current levels, as from willing sellers at the rate of approximately would operations and villages. one property every 12 years. Nonhistoric prop­ erties owned by the National Park Service would Analysis be removed, and the areas would be returned to more natural conditions. Over time there would be fewer private utility systems, except utility Impacts of Park Operational Needs systems could be retained at historic structures. Utilities. Existing utilities would be replaced as needed, and more stringent water and waste­

331 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

With the acquisition of Mineral King permit ment-provided services were the most efficient. cabins for public use, individual utility systems Additional educational and outdoor skills train­ would be assessed, and sustainable utility ing would be provided. Overall, the impact of systems would be developed for the level and visitor services on park operations would be location of self-supporting public use. The moderate, beneficial, and long term. system would be managed by a partnership group, and this would result in moderate, bene­ Winter Operations. Expanded winter use ficial, long-term impacts on park operations would make more demands on park operations because staff would not have to maintain the and snow removal. The impact would be minor system. and adverse over the long term.

Over time, some comfort stations would be Administrative Helicopter Use. Administrative replaced by vault toilets, necessitating long-term helicopter use would be continued for search and use of a pumping service, the cost of which rescue, as well as maintenance and backcountry would have to be included in the maintenance deliveries. It would be considered a minimum budget. tool in order to accomplish backcountry work in a timely fashion and speed up backcountry Removing RV dump stations that do not meet seasonal openings. The impact on park state standards would reduce the burden on park operations would be negligible, beneficial, and wastewater systems, thus improving the capacity long term. of wastewater systems. Administrative Stock Use. Administrative Like the preferred alternative, the impact of stock use would continue to support backcountry alternative D on the utility infrastructure and park operations, with negligible, beneficial, park operations would be moderate and bene­ long-term impacts on resource conditions, facili­ ficial over the long term as systems were tating public access and delivering supplies. replaced, and a partnership group would run the Continuing administrative stock use in the parks system in Mineral King. Impacts would would be cost-effective for backcountry generally be moderate, adverse, and short term maintenance operations. as a result of aging infrastructure. Relocating corrals and grazing areas in the Visitor Facilities and Services. More visitor foothills area outside the parks would require facilities would be provided, and facilities at the additional feed to be brought in, a minor, end of their useful lives would be replaced with adverse, long-term impact on park operations more sustainable facilities. Before approval, and budgets. each facility would be assessed as to its function, its impact on park resources, what value it adds Administrative Snowmobile Use. Continuing to the park, and whether it could be combined or administrative snowmobile use for research, consolidated with other functions. New facilities snow surveys, and winter search and rescue would be designed to be efficient and improve would result in negligible, beneficial, long-term park operations. The impact of expanding visitor impacts on operations. facilities on park operations would be major and largely beneficial over the long term because increased staffing would be available and Impacts of Other Entities on Park Operations facilities would be more sustainable. Sequoia Natural History Association. Under Visitor services would be expanded to adapt to alternative D there would be moderate, the needs to changing user groups. Services beneficial, long-term impacts on park operations would be assessed to determine whether the from assistance provided by the cooperating service was still needed and whether govern- association as additional and different types of programs were developed and offered to the

332 Park Management, Operations, and Facilities: Impacts of Alternative D public. The natural history association would be Impacts on Staffing involved with more activities under this alternative than the other alternatives, with a Park staffing needs would increase the most as a greater impact on operations. result of transit operations, expanded interpre­ tive programs, and year-round use of the parks. Volunteers. The focus of other volunteer Staff members would need to be responsive to activities would be diverse, ranging from changing user groups, and foreign language education to science to maintenance. Stock user skills, as well as good communication skills, groups would participate in trail maintenance, could be important. Keeping the entire length of resulting in a moderate to major, beneficial, the Generals Highway open in winter and long-term impacts on backcountry trails. avoiding all winter closures would be a goal that Volunteer housing would be constructed, would require more staff. Additional housing resulting in major, beneficial impacts on would be required in the park to meet staff needs volunteers. Overall, the impact of volunteer or it would need to be individually acquired assistance on park operations would be major outside the parks. Affordable housing would and beneficial over the long term. continue to be a problem exacerbated by increased staffing. Concessioners. Like the preferred alternative, concessioners would provide more services and Taken together, the impact of this alternative on facilities in accordance with the full buildout park staff would likely be moderate, beneficial, scenarios in their contracts, resulting in addi­ and long term, despite affordable housing tional employees. Concessioners running stables problems. and pack trips would continue to supply services in all locations except Wolverton, and their facilities would need to be maintained. Conces­ Cumulative Impacts sioners would be supplying services to more diverse visitors and groups. The overall impact U.S. Forest Service. As described for the no- of concession services on park operations would action alternative, the following factors are be moderate, beneficial, and long term, but costs considered in the cumulative impact analysis for and added work to provide housing for addi­ park operations: tional employees, if supplied in the parks, could • NPS staff would continue to provide be minor to moderate and adverse over the long maintenance, fire, emergency and sequoia term. management consultation for Giant Sequoia National Monument. Continued Commercial Permit Holders. There would be park participation would have a negligi­ negligible, adverse, short-term impacts on ble, beneficial, short-term impact on the commercial permit holder as they adapted to the monument. needs of changing user groups. • Gate receipts would continue to be shared Partners. Partnerships would be pursued to pro­ with Sequoia National Forest, with no vide educational and other operations, including additional impacts in the short or long management of the Mineral King area, resulting term. in a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on • Habitat shared between the national parks park operations. and Sierra National Forest would continue Native American partnerships would be sought to be managed jointly in accordance with to support park interpretation and services, the recommendations of the Sierra resulting in moderate, beneficial, long-term Nevada Ecosystem Project. There would impacts for these groups. be no additional impacts.

333 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• Management purposes of the two agen­ Alternative D would generally contribute cies could continue to diverge, with the moderate, beneficial impacts over the long term NPS mission geared more toward preser­ because of improved infrastructure, more vation and the USFS mission toward sustainable facilities, increased staffing, and providing for multiple uses, including continued use of volunteers. Like the preferred some not allowed in the parks, such as alternative, on a cumulative basis, continuing logging, hunting, and snowmobiling. programs and work with the U.S. Forest Service, Some visitors could be unaware of these the Bureau of Land Management, and the different missions. California Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the actions of alternative D, There would be negligible, beneficial impacts on would generally result in minor to moderate, park operations over the long term as a result of beneficial, long-term impacts. Impacts on park increased interaction with the U.S. Forest Ser­ operations would be more beneficial than under vice related to the management of Giant Sequoia the no-action alternative. National Monument.

Bureau of Land Management. NPS staff would continue to fulfill a cooperative agree­ Conclusion ment for maintenance and oversight, resulting in a negligible, beneficial, long-term impact on Alternative D would generally have moderate to BLM operations. major, beneficial impacts on park operations over the long term as a result of improved California Department of Transportation. As facilities and increased park staffing. There described for the no-action alternative, the would be negligible, beneficial impacts from the California Department of Transportation plans continued use of stock, helicopters, and snow­ and manages several roads in and around the mobiles for park operations. Impacts on park parks, including operations from the assistance of other groups — the natural history association, volunteers, • opening and closing the Kings Canyon concessioners, commercial permit holders, and Highway (California 180) from Grant partners — would be minor to major and Grove to Cedar Grove, which affects the beneficial. Impacts as a result of housing operating season at Cedar Grove and shortages would be moderate, adverse, and long necessitates coordination, generally term. resulting in moderate, beneficial, long- term impacts on park operations Like the preferred alternative, on a cumulative • planning to improve California 180 west basis, continuing programs and work with the of the parks to create six- and four-lane U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land expressway segments that would provide Management, and the California Department of easier access to the parks Transportation, in conjunction with the actions of alternative D, would generally result in minor There could be moderate to major, adverse, to moderate, beneficial, long-term impacts. short-term impacts on park operations as a result Impacts on park operations would be more of natural events that could affect the opening or beneficial than under the no-action alternative. closing of Kings Canyon Highway.

334 Socioeconomic Environment

METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING expected to benefit the local construction industry. The cost estimates developed for IMPACTS the alternatives include many projects common to every alternative, some of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are which have already been funded. Projects an important part of the local socioeconomic could be funded in a variety of ways. environment of Tulare and Fresno Counties, as About $107 million in projects have al­ well as Inyo County. However, there is no road ready been funded or committed through access within the parks from the east, and Inyo the NPS line-item construction program County stands as a separate social and economic ($23 million), the Federal Lands Highway unit because it is isolated from Fresno and Program (over $26.6 million), and the fee Tulare Counties by the Sierra Nevada. Visitor demonstration program ($0.7 million), access through Inyo County is limited to wilder­ plus there are nearly $57 million in proj­ ness visitors. Therefore, Inyo County is not ects reflecting concessioner commitments. included in the analysis because none of the action alternatives would make any changes in • Private Land and Special Use Permits on the management and visitor use of the parks that Park Land — Final disposition and man­ would have any significant socioeconomic agement changes in the Mineral King area impacts on Inyo County. would affect the public and some private special use permit holders. Impacts could Socioeconomic impacts for Tulare and Fresno include effects on the park’s budget, Counties were determined on the basis of operations, and staffing. Tulare County’s applied logic and professional expertise and real estate tax base could also be affected. judgment. Economic data, historic visitor use Some inholdings could be acquired by the data, expected future visitor use, and future National Park Service on a willing-seller / developments within the park were all consid­ willing-buyer basis. If the park acquired ered in identifying and discussing potential an inholding, then some private land impacts. A qualitative analysis is sufficient to would no longer be subject to local taxes. compare the effects of alternatives for decision- This action could affect the counties’ making purposes. property tax receipts. Covered under another special use permit are hydro­ Impacts on socioeconomic conditions are electric generating facilities maintained expected to fall into four categories: by Southern California Edison in Sequoia National Park. This special use permit • Local and Regional Economies — expires in 2006. Continuing these facili­ Changes in the two-county regional econ­ ties or removing them would affect both omy, including local gateway communi­ the park and Southern California Edison. ties, would include impacts on the re­ gional and local socioeconomic base due • Park Concessioners — New concessioner to changes in park operations and other contracts could call for changes in the management or development actions. The availability of goods and services pro­ socioeconomic base includes such factors vided by concessioners, which could as population, income, employment, and affect the visiting public and the regional earnings. More staff seeking housing economy. outside the parks could be expected to • Park Staffing and Budget — Each benefit the local tax base. Park develop­ alternative would have different staffing ment and removal projects during the life and budget needs, which could affect of the general management plan could be adjacent communities.

335 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Context, intensity, and duration of impacts were Socioeconomic Impact Thresholds used to compare the action alternatives to the no-action alternative. Context refers to the Negligible — No effects would occur, or the relative area within which impacts would occur; effects on socioeconomic conditions would be for the most part impacts would affect a regional below or at the level of detection. area (Fresno and Tulare Counties) or a local area Minor — The effects on socioeconomic condi­ (e.g., the Three Rivers gateway community). tions would be small but detectable, and only a small number of firms and/or a small portion of Impact intensity is the degree to which a topic is the population would be affected. The impact beneficially or adversely affected (see would be slight and would not be detectable accompanying text box). For this analysis, outside the affected area. impacts on recreational visitation were Moderate — The effects on socioeconomic qualitatively evaluated and described. conditions would be readily apparent. Any effects would result in changes to socioeco­ Short-term impact would last less than three nomic conditions on a local scale (e.g., in a years, and long-term impacts longer than three gateway community) within the affected area. years (and could be considered a permanent Major — The effects on socioeconomic condi­ change in conditions). tions would be readily apparent. Measurable changes in social or economic conditions at the county or two-county regional level would IMPACTS OF THE NO-ACTION occur. The impact would be severely adverse or ALTERNATIVE exceptionally beneficial within the affected area.

Analysis more than $17 billion in earnings and over Facilities and services within the parks would 591,000 jobs in 2000. remain essentially the same as now. Without a long-term, comprehensive management plan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks park managers would accommodate changing would continue to be important contributors to visitor use patterns, uses, and volumes, along the local economy as a result of jobs provided, with changes in resource conditions, as they and wages and operational expenditures by the occurred or in response to pressure from various National Park Service. In addition, the parks interest groups. While visitation could fluctuate, serve as primary attractions for the local and an overall growth of 23% for 1997–2010 is regional tourism industry. The visiting public assumed. would continue to generate tourist-related spending within the local economy, which benefits local businesses by generating income Local and Regional Economies and providing employment opportunities.

Additional funds for specific projects that have Present trends in park use would continue to already been identified would amount to $125 provide the impetus for increased development million in direct expenditures. Because these in adjacent communities, especially along projects would be phased over a number of corridors leading to the parks. However, the years, impacts on individual firms and employ­ two-county region would not be affected due to ees in terms of increased income and more jobs the size and diversity of the regional economy. could be moderate to major, beneficial, and short term. Impacts on the regional economy in terms of economic indicators such as a major decrease in income levels, unemployment, or poverty would be negligible because the economy had

336 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Private Land and Special Use Permits in 2006, Southern California Edison would have on Park Land to stop hydroelectric power generation, remove the facilities, and return the sites to natural The special use permit cabins in the Mineral conditions, in accordance with restoration plans King area would be removed as these permits approved by the National Park Service and in expire, in accordance with the 1978 legislation. consultation with the California historic Over the long term approximately 60 permit preservation officer. Stopping the operation of holders and their families would no longer have hydroelectric facilities would result in a minor, exclusive use of these sites within the Mineral adverse, long-term impact on the electricity King area, resulting in a loss of about $47,000 in generating capacity of Southern California lease income per year to Sequoia National Park Edison. In addition, the company would also (about one-half of which goes to the U.S. incur the costs of removing the facilities and Treasury and the other half is used to cover park reestablishing natural conditions. The park administrative costs associated with these would lose annual special use permit fees and a cabins). Over the long term the loss of lease discount on electricity purchased from Southern income would represent about 0.25% of the California Edison. These would be minor, park’s annual budget in 2000. Any loss of prop­ adverse impacts for the park over the long term. erty tax revenue from the removal of cabins would also be relatively small considering the total property tax base and tax revenue in Tulare Park Concessioners County ($155.7 million in 2000). This impact would be negligible because the permit holders Concession facilities and services would own only the cabins, while the National Park continue as they are now, except that limited Service already owns the land. expansion of lodging facilities at Grant Grove and Wuksachi would be allowed in accordance Inholdings at Wilsonia in Kings Canyon with the concession contracts. National Park and at Oriole Lakes in the Mineral King area of Sequoia National Park would be acquired on a willing-seller basis. There are Park Staffing and Budget approximately 275 private property landowners within the two parks. Inholders who sold to the Implementing this alternative would require staff federal government would benefit from selling levels of 275.2 permanent employees (full-time their property rights for fair market value, and equivalents or FTEs)* and 305.3 seasonal em­ the public would benefit from having additional ployees, plus unpaid volunteers. In 2001 there property and resources protected within the were 261.8 permanent and 290.4 seasonal em­ parks. Because title for the affected properties ployees. The parks’ base budget was $11.4 would be transferred from private individuals to million in 2000. the federal government, these parcels would be removed from the local real estate tax bases. The amount of property tax revenue subsequently Cumulative Impacts lost to the two counties would be relatively small compared to the total tax revenues col­ Improvements in road and transportation access lected by Fresno and Tulare Counties. In FY outside the parks include Caltrans improvements 2000 real estate property taxes in Tulare County of California 180 and 65 and the potential amounted to $155.7 million (for 228,984 development of a high-speed rail system parcels), and in Fresno County, $373.7 million connecting central California with southern (241,200 parcels). * A full time equivalent is equal to one person working full When the special use permit for hydroelectric time for one year. So, four people working full time for operations within Sequoia National Park expires three months each would equal one FTE.

337 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

California and the San Francisco Bay area. The acquisition of private lands within the parks Transportation and circulation improvements on a willing-seller / willing-buyer basis would within the parks include improvements to benefit the general public because additional Generals Highway and a transit system for Giant resources within the parks would be protected Forest. Together these actions could generate and available for public access. increased visitation to the two parks, resulting in additional tourist-related spending within the Stopping hydroelectric power generation using region and gateway towns, thereby increasing facilities in Sequoia National Park when the business opportunities, income, and permit expires in 2006 would result in minor, employment. adverse effects on the electricity-generating capacity of Southern California Edison over the In conjunction with other past, present, and long term. The utility company would also incur reasonably foreseeable actions, the no-action short-term costs to remove facilities and return alternative would continue to have a moderate to areas to natural conditions. Impacts on the park major, beneficial impact on the socioeconomic would include the annual loss of special use climate of the area over the short term, primarily permit fees and no discount on electricity because of ongoing construction projects. purchased from Southern California Edison, a Improvements in transportation and access both minor, adverse, long-term impact. outside and within the parks could generate additional visitation and tourist-related expendi­ Current impacts relating to concessioners would tures, benefiting the two-county regional and continue, with negligible changes in short- or gateway economies. Over the long term these long-term effects on their business operations. impacts would be moderate for gateway communities but negligible at the regional level. The parks’ staff levels and base budget would not change under the no-action alternative other than as a result of adjustments for inflation and Conclusion rising labor and materials costs.

Approved projects that would be funded under Cumulative improvements in transportation and the no-action alternative would amount to about access both outside and within the parks would $125 million. These projects would be phased generate additional visitation and tourist-related over a number of years, so impacts on individual expenditures in the two-county regional and firms and employees could be moderate to major gateway economies. Over the long term these and beneficial over the short term, but impacts effects would be moderate and beneficial for on the regional economy would be negligible. gateway communities but negligible for the The current range and level of impacts on regional economy. adjacent communities due to tourist spending would continue to be beneficial, providing income, employment, and business opportunities IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED to the affected area’s economy. ALTERNATIVE Over the long term the expiration of special use permits in the Mineral King area would have a Analysis long-term, negligible, adverse impact on the Developing additional facilities (e.g., redesign­ parks’ budget from the loss of permit revenue. ing and refurbishing campgrounds, enhancing Fresno and Tulare Counties would both experi­ educational facilities, and providing new work ence negligible decreases in their respective centers) at various locations throughout the property tax bases and revenue over the long parks would increase visitor access and accom­ term. modate sustainable growth in visitor use of 30%.

338 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

Local and Regional Economies with the 1978 legislation, would affect approxi­ mately 60 permit holders and their families. An estimated $144 million in direct expenditures Over the long term the loss of approximately would be spent over the life of the plan for $47,000 in annual lease income (about only half various projects, or $19 million more than under of which remains in the parks) would have a the no-action alternative. These projects would negligible, adverse effect on the parks’ budget be accomplished in phases over the life of the (less than 0.25% of the FY 2000 budget). Any plan. The resulting impacts to individual firms loss of property tax revenue from the removal of and workers due to increased income and more cabins would also be negligible considering the jobs would be moderate to major and beneficial total property tax base and tax revenue in Tulare over the short term. Impacts to the regional County, as noted for the no-action alternative. economy in terms of a substantial decrease in unemployment or poverty would be negligible Under the preferred alternative some cabins because of the relative size of the regional would be made available for public use or park economy (approximately $17 billion in earnings administrative purposes. Permit holders would and over 591,000 jobs in 2000). be given the opportunity to donate structures in lieu of required removal, providing a major, Providing additional facilities and improved beneficial, short-term impact for these indi­ access would encourage more visitor use at the viduals because they would be relieved of the parks. The amount of additional use is indeter­ legal requirement to remove their structures and minate at this time. However, this increased use rehabilitate the sites, and they would not have to could result in some additional spending within pay for the cost of removal or rehabilitation. the gateway communities, which would benefit some retail establishments, restaurants, or motels Private land at Oriole Lake and in the Mineral in the nearby travel corridors. King Valley (e.g., the Disney properties) would be acquired on a willing-seller / willing-buyer Moving administrative functions and park em­ basis. Private land at Silver City and Kaweah ployee housing to areas outside the parks would Han in the Mineral King area of Sequoia result in the purchase or long-term lease of land National Park, and at Wilsonia in Kings Canyon and the construction of buildings in gateway National Park would remain. Inholders who areas. New facility construction would result in chose to sell to the federal government would a beneficial, short-term impact on the local benefit from receiving fair market value for their economy, mostly affecting the construction properties, and the public would receive long- sector of the economy. The purchase of land (on term benefits because additional property and a willing-buyer / willing-seller basis) by the resources would be protected within the parks. federal government would result in some long- Properties acquired by the federal government term loss of local real-estate tax revenue. would be removed from the Fresno or Tulare However, the amount of property tax revenue Counties’ real estate tax base; however, the lost to the two counties would be negligible amount of property tax revenue lost to the two compared to the total tax revenues collected by counties would be negligible compared to their Fresno County ($373.7 million in FY 2000) and total tax revenues. Tulare County ($155.7 million in FY 2000). When the special use permit for hydroelectric operations within Sequoia National Park expires Private Land and Special Use Permits in 2006, Southern California Edison would have on Park Land to stop hydroelectric power generation, remove the facilities, and restore the sites to natural As discussed under the no-action alternative, the conditions, in accordance with plans approved eventual expiration of special use permits for by the National Park Service and in consultation cabins in the Mineral King area, in accordance with the California historic preservation officer.

339 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Stopping the operation of hydroelectric facilities negligible because of the size of the two-county in the park would result in a minor, adverse, economy. long-term impact on the electricity generating capacity of Southern California Edison. In addition, the company would incur the costs of Cumulative Impacts removing the facilities and reestablishing natural conditions. The park would lose annual special As discussed for the no-action alternative, im­ use permit fees and a discount on electricity provements in road and transportation access purchased from Southern California Edison. outside the parks include Caltrans improvements These would be minor, adverse impacts for the of California 180 and 65 and the potential devel­ park over the long term. opment of a high-speed rail system connecting central California with southern California and the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation and Park Concessioners circulation improvements within the parks include improvements to Generals Highway and Under the preferred alternative some conces- a transit system for Giant Forest. Together these sioner-provided facilities and services would be actions could generate increased visitation to the expanded, as well as incidental business permits two parks. and or other commercial permits. Like the no- action alternative, lodging at Wuksachi and More visitors could result in additional tourist- Grant Grove village would be expanded in related spending within the region and gateway accordance with the present concession contract. towns, increasing business opportunities, This expansion of concession services and income, and employment. Improving facilities facilities would provide additional business and within the parks would further generate eco­ employment opportunities for a few firms and a nomic benefits to the growing regional economy small number of additional workers. in the form of direct spending. The need for additional park staff housing, combined with the increasing desirability of living in the gateway Park Staffing and Budget communities, would add to the demand for local housing and other locally provided goods. Implementing the preferred alternative would Hiring additional staff could result in a small require a park staff of 312.8 permanent em­ increase in the local population, which contri­ ployees (an increase of 37.6 FTEs compared to butes to the overall growth in the gateway the no-action alternative) and 347 seasonal communities. employees (an increase of 41.7). The parks’ base budget would need to be increased substantially. The preferred alternative, in conjunction with The parks would make additional expenditures other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable for labor and materials to support the staffing actions, would have negligible to moderate, increases. The resulting impacts on the local beneficial impacts over the long term on the economy (e.g., Three Rivers), compared to the socioeconomic climate of the local gateway no-action alternative, would be minor to moder­ communities. However, impacts at the regional ate because of the relatively small increase level would be negligible. population. Additional park employees could increase the demand for additional housing outside the parks and would probably spend Conclusion money for goods and services in the gateway communities. While the impacts would be Approximately $144 million would be spent moderate at the gateway community level, the over the life of the plan on various projects, an impact on the regional economy would be increase of only $19 million compared to the no- action alternative. These expenditures could

340 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of Alternative A result in moderate to major, short-term, bene­ parks due to the expansion of facilities and ficial impacts on individual firms and employees increased visitor use. because of increased business and profits, more employment opportunities, and higher income. An increase in park staffing levels by 37.6 full- Overall impacts on the regional economy, time employees and 41.7 seasonal employees, however, in terms of economic indicators along with a substantial budget increase, would (income, unemployment, poverty) would be have a moderate impact on the local gateway negligible because of the economy’s size and the communities’ economies because staff would fact that projects would be phased over the next likely purchase many goods and services locally. 15 to 20 years. These projects would encourage The impact on the regional economy, however, more visitation to the parks, with beneficial would be negligible. effects on adjacent communities in terms of increased visitor expenditures for locally pro­ Cumulative improvements in transportation and vided goods and services. Moving administra­ access both outside and within the parks and tive functions and park employee housing improved park facilities would generate addi­ outside the parks would result in the purchase or tional visitation and tourist-related expenditures long-term lease of land and the construction of in the gateway communities and the two-county buildings in local gateway areas, with short- region. Additional staff would result in a small term, beneficial impacts on the local economy, increase in the local population, contributing to mostly affecting the construction sector. the overall economic growth of the gateway communities. These would be moderate, The expiration of approximately 60 special use beneficial impacts over the long term. permits in the Mineral King area would result in a long-term but negligible decrease in the parks’ budget from the loss of permit revenue. IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

The acquisition of private land within the parks Analysis on a willing-selling / willing-buyer basis, as well as the expiration of special use permits, would Some facilities throughout the developed areas have negligible, long-term impacts on the of the park (e.g., the Atwell Mill campground, property tax bases and revenue of both Fresno the Lodgepole campground, and Cedar Grove) and Tulare Counties. would be removed or redesigned to provide fewer sites, and sites would be restored to more Stopping hydroelectric power generation using natural conditions. Visitor use would be re­ facilities in Sequoia National Park would result stricted to protect resources and ease congestion, in minor, adverse effects on the electricity- and visitation could decrease by up to 10%. generating capacity of Southern California Edison over the long term. The utility company would also incur short-term costs to remove Local and Regional Economies facilities and return areas to natural conditions. Impacts on the park would include the annual An estimated $126.6 million in direct expendi­ loss of special use permit fees and no discount tures would be spent over the life of the plan on on electricity purchased from Southern Cali­ various projects, an increase of only $1.6 million fornia Edison, a minor, adverse, long-term compared to the no-action alternative. This work impact. would provide short-term business and employ­ ment opportunities for some firms and indi­ There would be some additional moderate, viduals, primarily in the construction and land­ beneficial impacts over the long term for scaping industries. Benefits for the affected concessioners and other businesses within the firms and workers in terms of increased income and more jobs could be moderate to major, but

341 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES there would be negligible impacts on regional Impacts of stopping hydroelectric operations by economic indicators such as unemployment, Southern California Edison in Sequoia National income, or poverty because work would be Park would be the same as for the no-action phased over the next 15 to 20 years and the alternative. The impacts on the utility company spending increase compared to the no-action of reduced electricity generating capacity would alternative would be negligible. be minor and adverse over the long term. The company would be responsible for the costs of Park operations and the visiting public would removing facilities and returning areas to natural continue to generate spending within the local conditions. The impacts on the park from losing economy, a beneficial impact. However, fewer annual special use permit fees and a discount on visitor facilities and restrictions on visitor uses, electricity purchased from the utility would be such as no stock use and reduced parking at minor and adverse over the long term. various sites, would likely lead to reductions in visitor use. Fewer people visiting the parks during the peak summer season could reduce Concessioners park-related economic activity in the gateway communities. Some retail establishments, restau­ Concessioners, incidental business permit rants, or motels in the nearby travel corridors holders, or other commercial permit holders could experience a minor to moderate decline in would be affected by actions such as eliminating business (e.g., lower sales, decline in income, lodging at Cedar Grove, reducing lodging at fewer jobs). However, a reduction in some Grant Grove, and eliminating stock use within facilities and services in the parks (such as the parks. Two concessioner contracts would smaller campgrounds and administrative have to be terminated or renegotiated to allow facilities located outside the parks) could for a reduction in services, with the National increase business opportunities in gateway Park Service compensating the concessioners, as communities. Thus, it is not possible at this time specified in the contracts. to determine if alternative A would have a net beneficial or adverse effect on the economies of Eliminating stock use in the parks would affect gateway communities. approximately 22 firms that provide horse or llama pack services. Permits for these services could be terminated upon their normal Private Land and Special Use Permits expiration dates. on Park Land These long-term actions would reduce the pres­ As described for the no-action alternative, with ence of concessioners and other commercial the expiration of Mineral King special use activity within the park. Some firms and em­ permits, private cabins would be removed and ployees would be adversely affected as a result the sites returned to natural conditions. Inhold­ of less income and fewer employment oppor­ ings at Wilsonia in Kings Canyon National Park, tunities. Such reductions could be moderate to and at Oriole Lakes and Silver City in the major for individual firms and employees. Over Mineral King area of Sequoia National Park, the long term the affected firms and individuals would be acquired on a willing-seller / willing- would adjust and find new opportunities within buyer basis. The impacts would be similar to the the region. The long-term impact on the regional no-action alternative except inholdings at Silver economy would be negligible. City would also be acquired. Some real estate property tax revenue would be lost to Tulare and Fresno Counties, with negligible impacts when Park Staffing and Budget compared to total tax revenues. Alternative A would require a park staff of 280.9 permanent employees, an increase of 5.7 FTEs compared to the no-action alternative, and 311.6

342 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of Alternative A seasonal employees, an increase of 6.3 FTEs. relaxed and more likely to spend more per The parks’ base budget would increase slightly. person. The exact effects cannot be accurately The subsequent impact on the local and regional predicted. economies would be negligible and beneficial over the long term because of the small increase On a cumulative basis, restricting visitation and in jobs. removing or reducing lodging and camping facilities within the parks would reduce visitation to the parks, which could increase Cumulative Effects visitation to Giant Sequoia National Monument and Sequoia National Forest to the extent that As discussed for the no-action alternative, im­ comparable facilities were offered. This could provements in road and transportation access produce either a negligible to minor, beneficial outside the parks include Caltrans improvements or negative impact over the long term. of California 180 and 65 and the potential development of a high-speed rail system connecting central California with southern Conclusion California and the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation and circulation improvements Based on expenditures of $126.6 million for within the parks include improvements to restoration and other projects (an increase of Generals Highway and a transit system for the only $1.6 million over the no-action alternative), Giant Forest. Together these actions could impacts on individual firms and individuals generate increased visitation to the two parks, would be moderate to major, beneficial, and contrary to the limited visitation goal of short term. The projects would be accomplished alternative A. in phases over the next 15 to 20 years. Impacts on the economies of gateway communities Restricting visitor use and removing or reducing would most likely be minor to moderate and lodging and camping facilities within the parks beneficial over the long term, but benefits to the would reduce visitation to the parks, and some regional economy would be negligible. Whether potential visitors would go to other nearby these effects were beneficial or adverse would recreation areas. This displacement effect could depend on whether the public’s demand for increase visitation to Giant Sequoia National facilities and services removed from the parks Monument and Sequoia National Forest to the were supplied by the private sector in adjacent extent that comparable or acceptable substitute areas. facilities and recreational experiences were available, or if comparable facilities and The impacts of special use permits in the experiences were not offered, the number of Mineral King area expiring, and of private land regional recreational visitors passing through the within the parks being acquired on a willing- gateway communities (e.g., Three Rivers) could seller / willing-buyer basis, would be the same be reduced. Decreases in facilities within the as the no-action alternative except that more parks could encourage the private sector to properties and owners could be affected. Both develop more lodging and camping facilities counties would experience negligible, long-term outside the parks, as long as there was sufficient decreases in their respective property tax bases demand. However, if visitation to the parks was and revenue. substantially reduced, the gateway economies could suffer from reduced patronage, leading to Stopping hydroelectric generation using decreased incomes, decreased profits, less facilities in Sequoia National Park when the business, and fewer employment opportunities. permit expires in 2006 would result in minor, It is possible that the opposite effects could adverse, long-term effects on the electricity- occur — changes in expenditure patterns could generating capacity of Southern California happen because fewer visitors might be more Edison, the same as the no-action alternative.

343 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The utility company would also incur short-term ing park housing and maintenance areas at Cedar costs to remove facilities and return areas to Grove, and improving roads and parking at natural conditions. Impacts on the parks would Lodgepole) would be undertaken. Visitor use is be minor, adverse, and long term because of an estimated to increase by 30% over the life of the annual loss of special use permit fees and no plan, the same as the preferred alternative. discounted electricity purchases.

Some concessioners and their employees, and Local and Regional Economies commercial stock users and their employees would experience long-term, moderate to major, Projects under alternative C would provide busi­ adverse impacts with the loss of business and ness and employment opportunities for some jobs. Over the long term, these firms and indi­ firms and individuals, primarily in the construc­ viduals would find other commercial and em­ tion industry. An estimated $159.5 million ployment opportunities within the regional would be spent over the life of the plan for economy, resulting in negligible impacts. The various projects, an increase of $34.5 million public could look to the private sector within the compared to the no-action alternative. These gateway communities to provide services no projects would not be accomplished all at the longer offered in the parks. same time but rather would occur in phases over the next 15 to 20 years. Over the short term Park staffing increases of 5.7 permanent em­ impacts on individual firms and workers could ployees and 6.3 seasonal employees, and a small be moderate to major and beneficial; however, increase in the parks’ budget, would have long- impacts on the regional economy would be term, negligible, beneficial impacts on the local negligible because projects would be undertaken and regional economies because of the small over several years and the total value would be increase in jobs. about 0.9% of the region’s $17 billion in earn­ ings in 2000. The number of jobs created would On a cumulative basis, restricting visitation and be only a small fraction of the 591,000 jobs that removing or reducing lodging and camping existed in 2000. facilities within the parks would reduce visitation to the parks, which could increase Providing additional facilities and improved visitation to Giant Sequoia National Monument access would encourage more visitor use at the and Sequoia National Forest to the extent that parks. The amount of additional use is projected comparable facilities were offered. Decreases in at 30% over the life of the plan, the same as the park facilities could encourage private sector preferred alternative. This increased use could development of more lodging and camping result in some additional spending within the facilities outside the parks to meet demand. gateway communities, which would benefit Decreased visitor spending is expected; retail establishments, restaurants, or motels in however, the opposite could occur because of the nearby travel corridors. changes in visitor expenditure patterns. Either way, the effects are expected to be long term and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks of minor intensity at the local and regional would continue to be important contributors to levels. the local economy as a result of wages and operational expenditures, as well as visitor expenditures. Any improvement in visitor IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C facilities in the parks could enhance visitation and subsequent expenditures in the local area. Analysis

Various projects relating to park facility expan­ sion and service improvements (such as expand­

344 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of Alternative C

Private Land and Special Use Permits However, this beneficial impact could be offset on Park Land by costs to maintain 100-year-old facilities. Benefits to the parks include being able to use The continuation of special use permits for some water from the impoundments to fight cabins in the Mineral King area, in accordance local wildland fires. Also, Southern California with new congressional legislation, would affect Edison pays a $5,000 annual permit fee to the approximately 60 permit holders and their parks and discounts park purchases of elec­ families. Permit holders would continue to pay tricity, which may fluctuate over time. Overall an annual fee to the park, with a negligible, economic impacts on the parks would be minor, beneficial impact on the park budget. beneficial, and long term.

As under the preferred alternative, some cabins would be made available for public use or park Park Concessioners administrative purposes. Permit holders would be given the opportunity to donate structures in Concession facilities and services would con­ lieu of required removal, providing a major, tinue to provide goods and services within the beneficial, short-term impact for these parks to the extent allowed by existing contracts. individuals. Some expansion of concession activities (for example, at Cedar Grove and Wuksachi) would Inholdings at Oriole Lake and in the Mineral provide additional business and employment King Valley (e.g., the Disney properties) would opportunities for a few firms and a small number be acquired on a willing-seller / willing-buyer of additional workers. basis. Inholdings at Silver City and Kaweah Han in the Mineral King area of Sequoia National Park, and inholdings at Wilsonia in Kings Park Staffing and Budget Canyon would remain. Inholders who chose to sell to the federal government at fair market Implementing alternative C would require a park value would benefit from receiving fair market staff of 312.8 permanent employees (an increase value for their properties, and the public would of 37.6 FTEs) and 347 seasonal employees (an receive long-term benefits because additional increase of 41.7 FTEs), requiring a substantial property and resources would be protected increase in the parks’ base budget. Long-term within the parks. Properties acquired by the impacts on the local economy would be minor federal government would be removed from the and beneficial, and on the regional economy, Fresno or Tulare Counties’ real estate tax base; negligible and beneficial because of the modest however, the amount of property tax revenue increase in park jobs. lost to the two counties would be negligible compared to their total tax revenues. However, there would be no loss of property tax revenues Cumulative Effects for inholdings that remain in the parks (i.e., Wilsonia, Oriole Lakes, and Silver City). As discussed for the no-action alternative, improvements in road and transportation access The operation of hydroelectric generating outside the parks include Caltrans improvements facilities in Sequoia National Park by Southern of California 180 and 65 and the potential California Edison would continue as it has in the development of a high-speed rail system past, assuming that Congress authorizes the connecting central California with southern National Park Service to issue a new permit. California and the San Francisco Bay area. These hydroelectric facilities provide a limited Transportation and circulation improvements amount of electricity seasonally to the local within the parks include improvements to power grid, resulting in a minor, beneficial, Generals Highway and a transit system for Giant long-term impact on the utility company.

345 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Forest. Together these actions could generate Continuing operation of hydroelectric facilities increased visitation to the two parks. in Sequoia National Park, subject to new authorization by Congress, would contribute In conjunction with other past, present, and limited power to the seasonal generating reasonably foreseeable actions, alternative C capacity of Southern California Edison, a minor, would result in additional tourist-related beneficial, long-term impact. This could be spending within the region and gateway towns, offset by higher maintenance costs for 100-year- increasing business opportunities, income, and old facilities. Economic impacts on the parks employment. For the local economy these would would be minor and beneficial over the long be long-term effects of moderate intensity, but term because of permit fees ($5,000 annually) for the regional economy they would be negli­ and continued discounts on electricity purchases. gible. Improving facilities within the parks would contribute beneficial economic impacts to Park concessioners would benefit over the long the regional economy in the form of direct term as a result of a growth in visitor services. spending. The need for housing for additional Effects would be negligible. park staff, combined with the increasing desira­ bility of living in the gateway communities, An increase in park staffing levels by 37.6 per­ would add to the demand for local housing and manent employees and 41.7 seasonal employees, other locally provided goods. Hiring additional along with a substantial rise in the parks’ budget, staff would result in a small increase in the local would have a minor, beneficial, long-term population, which contributes to the overall impact on the local economy but a negligible growth in the gateway communities. impact on the regional economy.

Cumulative improvements in transportation and Conclusion access both outside and within the parks and improved park facilities would generate addi­ An estimated $159.5 million would be spent tional visitation and tourist-related expenditures over the life of the plan to construct various in the gateway communities and the two-county projects, an increase of $34.5 million compared region. The long-term results would be bene­ to the no-action alternative. Benefits for indi­ ficial and moderate. Additional staff would vidual firms and employees in the construction result in a small increase in the local population, industry would be moderate to major, short term, which contributes to the overall economic and beneficial. Impacts on the regional economy growth of the gateway communities. Over the would be negligible because of the size of the long term these would be moderate, beneficial projects, which would be phased over the next impacts locally, but negligible impacts 15 to 20 years. regionally.

The expiration of approximately 60 special use permits in the Mineral King area would result in IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D a long-term but negligible decrease in the parks’ budget from the loss of permit revenue. Analysis

The acquisition of private lands within the parks Developing additional facilities (e.g., a 1,700-car on a willing-selling / willing-buyer basis, as well parking lot at Wolverton, and a new visitor as the expiration of special use permits, would center at Cedar Grove) throughout the parks have negligible, long-term impacts on the would accommodate additional visitors and property tax bases and revenue of both Fresno increase public access. Increases in visitor use of and Tulare Counties. up to 48% are expected by 2010.

346 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of Alternative D

Local and Regional Economies income would have a negligible, adverse impact on the parks’ budget (less than 0.25% of the FY An estimated $250.6 million would be spent 2000 budget). Any loss of property tax revenue over the life of the plan, an increase of $125.6 from the removal of cabins would also be million compared to the no-action alternative. negligible considering the total property tax base These projects would be accomplished in phases and tax revenue in Tulare County, as noted for over the next 15 to 20 years. Benefits (e.g., the no-action alternative. increased income, more jobs) for individual firms and workers would be moderate to major As under the preferred alternative, some cabins and short term. There would be minor impacts would be made available for public use or park on economic indictors (e.g., unemployment and administrative purposes. Permit holders would poverty) because of the size of the projects and be given the opportunity to donate structures in their phasing. Total project-related expenditures lieu of required removal, providing a major, would amount to less than 1% of the counties’ short-term, beneficial impact for these indi­ $17 billion in earnings in 2000, and the number viduals. Upon donation the permit holders would of jobs created would be only a small fraction of be relieved of the legal requirement to remove the 591,000 jobs that existed in 2000. their structures and restore the sites, and they would not have to pay for the cost of removal Providing additional facilities and improved and rehabilitation. access would encourage more visitor use at the parks. The amount of additional use is indeter­ Private lands at Wilsonia in Kings Canyon minate at this time. However, this increased use National Park, and at Oriole Lakes and Silver could result in some additional spending within City in the Mineral King area of Sequoia the gateway communities, which would benefit National Park, would be acquired on a willing- some retail establishments, restaurants, or motels seller / will-buyer basis. The impacts would be in the nearby travel corridors. Such long-term the same as under the no-action alternative positive impacts would be noticeable at the local except that private lands at Silver City would level. also be acquired. The amount of property tax revenue lost to the two counties would be Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks negligible compared to total tax revenues. would continue to be important contributors to the local economy as a result of wages and As described for the no-action alternative, when operational expenditures, as well as visitor the special use permit for hydroelectric opera­ expenditures. Any improvement in visitor tions within Sequoia National Park expires in facilities in the parks could enhance visitation 2006, Southern California Edison would have to and subsequent expenditures in the local area. stop hydroelectric power generation, remove the facilities, and return the sites to natural condi­ tions. Stopping the operation of hydroelectric Private Land and Special Use Permits facilities in the park would result in a minor, on Park Land adverse, long-term impact on the electricity generating capacity of Southern California As discussed under the no-action alternative, the Edison. In addition, the company would also eventual expiration of special use permits for incur the costs of removing the facilities and cabins in the Mineral King area, in accordance reestablishing natural conditions. The park with the 1978 legislation, would affect approxi­ would lose annual special use permit fees and a mately 60 permit holders and their families. discount on electricity purchased from Southern Most of the cabins would be removed as the California Edison. These would be minor, permits expire, and the sites would be returned adverse impacts for the park over the long term. to natural conditions. Over the long term the loss of approximately $47,000 in annual lease

347 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Park Concessioners additional tourist-related spending within the region and gateway towns, resulting in increased Concession facilities and services would con­ business opportunities, income, and employ­ tinue to provide goods and services that would ment. Improved facilities within the parks would otherwise be unavailable within the parks. further contribute economic benefits to the Alternative D calls for some expansion of growing regional economy in the form of direct facilities and services that would be provided or spending. Housing needs for additional park managed by concessioners or holders of staff, combined with the increasing desirability incidental business permits or other commercial of living in the gateway communities, would add permits. Expanding concession services and to the demand for local housing and other facilities would provide additional business and locally provided goods. Hiring additional staff employment opportunities for a few firms and a would result in a small increase in the local small number of additional workers. population, which contributes to the overall growth in the gateway communities.

Park Staffing and Budget Conclusion Under alternative D park staffing would increase to 340.8 permanent employees (an increase of Approximately $250.6 million would be spent 65.6 FTEs compared to the no-action alterna­ over the life of the plan on various projects, an tive) and 378.1 seasonal employees (an addi­ increase of $125.6 million compared to the no- tional 72.8 FTEs), the largest increase of any action alternative. While impacts on individual alternative. The parks’ base budget would have firms and employees in the construction industry to increase substantially, resulting in moderate, could be moderate to major, beneficial, and short beneficial impacts on the local economy because term, impacts on the regional economy would be of a modest increase in jobs, but only a negli­ negligible and beneficial because of the size gible, beneficial impact on the much larger projects, which would be phased over the next regional economy. 15 to 20 years. These projects would encourage greater visitation to the parks, with beneficial effects on adjacent communities, particularly for Cumulative Effects firms along the access corridors; impacts would be minor to moderate and beneficial over the As discussed for the no-action alternative, im­ long term. provements in road and transportation access outside the parks include Caltrans improvements The expiration of special use permits in the of California 180 and 65 and the potential Mineral King area would have a long-term but development of a high-speed rail system negligible impact on the parks’ budget from the connecting central California with southern loss of special use permit revenue. California and the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation and circulation improvements Local property taxes from special use permits within the parks include improvements to and the acquisition of private lands within the Generals Highway and a transit system for Giant parks on a willing-seller / willing-buyer basis Forest. Together these actions could generate would result in negligible, adverse, long-term increased visitation to the two parks. impacts on property tax bases of both Fresno and Tulare Counties. In conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, alternative D would provide Stopping hydroelectric power generation using moderate, long-term benefits at the local level facilities in Sequoia National Park would result (gateway community) and minor impacts at the in minor, adverse effects on the electricity- regional level. More visitors could result in generating capacity of Southern California

348 Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of Alternative D

Edison over the long term. The utility company parks’ budget would have to increase the most would also incur short-term costs to remove of any alternative, but with minor, beneficial facilities and return areas to natural conditions. impacts on the local economy and negligible, Impacts on the park would include the annual beneficial impacts on the regional economy. loss of special use permit fees and no discount on electricity purchased from Southern Cali­ Cumulative improvements in transportation and fornia Edison, a minor, adverse, long-term access both outside and within the parks, along impact. with improved park facilities, would generate additional visitation and tourist-related expendi­ Impacts on park concessioners and other tures in the gateway economies and the two- businesses would be beneficial over the long county regional. Additional staff would result in term as a result of providing additional visitor a small increase in the local population, which services. contributes to the overall economic growth of the gateway communities. For the local econ­ Park staffing levels would increase by 65.6 omy these would be moderate, beneficial permanent employees and 72.8 seasonal impacts over the long term, but for the regional employees, the most of any alternative. The economy they would be negligible impacts.

349 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

This section summarizes the adverse impacts contributing elements to the Mineral King Road that could not be avoided once an alternative Cultural Landscape District. was implemented. These are the impacts that would remain after mitigation was implemented. Removing hydroelectric facilities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to historic facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE power generation system.

Natural Resources Visitor Experience There would be continued unavoidable impacts on vegetation and soils, primarily in existing The loss of some public recreational use in areas of concentrated use and development. The conjunction with the restoration of hydroelectric maximum size of the development zone would facilities would be unavoidable and adverse. be 1,745 acres, but not all of this area would be subject to development. Special Use Permits There would also be unavoidable, adverse impacts on meadows, riparian, and wetland In the Mineral King area there would be communities in developed areas, around popular unavoidable adverse impacts on special use lakes and streams, at stream crossings, and permittees as permits were phased out. below water withdrawal diversions.

Removing hydroelectric facilities would result in THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE unavoidable adverse impacts to riparian areas over the short term. Natural Resources

There would be continued unavoidable impacts Wild and Scenic Rivers on vegetation and soils, primarily in existing areas of concentrated use and development. The Removing the small-scale hydroelectric facilities maximum size of the development zone would would result in unavoidable, adverse impacts be 1,887 acres, but not all of this area would be during demolition and restoration activities. subject to development.

Removing hydroelectric facilities would result in Cultural Resources unavoidable adverse impacts to riparian areas over the short term. The inevitable loss of cultural landscape values in the Big Stump Basin, which would be man aged as a recovering sequoia grove, would be an Wild and Scenic Rivers unavoidable loss. Removing the small-scale hydroelectric facilities In the Mineral King area there would be would result in unavoidable, adverse impacts unavoidable adverse impacts on the cultural during demolition and restoration activities. landscape district as a result of phasing out and removing special use permit cabins in accor dance with PL 95-625; some of these cabins are

350 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Cultural Resources impacts during demolition and restoration activities. The inevitable loss of cultural landscape values in part of the Big Stump Basin managed as a recovering sequoia grove would be unavoidable. Cultural Resources

Removing historic structures at Wolverton that The inevitable loss of cultural landscape values could not be adaptively used, and providing in the Big Stump Basin, which would be man­ infill housing at Lodgepole would have aged as a recovering sequoia grove, would be an unavoidable adverse effects on the historic unavoidable adverse impact. structures, as well as the potential historic district. The loss of structures that could not be adap­ tively reused at the Redwood Mountain resident, Removing many hydroelectric facilities would the potential General Grant National Park result in unavoidable adverse impacts to historic historic district, the Wilsonia Historic District, facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 the Cabin Creek ranger resident and dormitory, hydroelectric power generation system. the upper Ash Mountain housing area, the Sycamore CCC camp the CCC recreation hall at Ash Mountain would be unavoidable adverse Special Use Permits impacts. In the Mineral King area there would be unavoidable adverse impacts on the cultural In the Mineral King area there would be landscape district as a result of phasing out and unavoidable adverse impacts on special use removing special use permit cabins in permittees as permits were phased out. This accordance with PL 95-625; some of these impact would be somewhat mitigated by cabins are contributing elements to the Mineral acquiring cabins for public purposes, including King Road Cultural Landscape District. use by former permittees. Removing backcountry structures that could not be adaptively used or allowing them to molder would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. ALTERNATIVE A Removing many hydroelectric facilities would Natural Resources result in an unavoidable adverse impacts to historic facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric power generation system. There would be continued unavoidable impacts on vegetation and soils, primarily in existing areas of concentrated use and development. The maximum size of the development zone would Visitor Experience be 1,310 acres (the least of any alternative), but No longer providing public lodging in the Silver not all of this area would be subject to City area would be an unavoidable adverse development. effect on visitor experiences. Removing hydroelectric facilities would result in Removing the hydroelectric facilities would unavoidable adverse impacts to riparian areas. result in the unavoidable loss of recreational opportunities associated with the dams and trails Wild and Scenic Rivers along the flumes. This alternative would result in unavoidable Removing many of the small-scale hydroelectric adverse impacts on most visitors as the result of facilities would result in unavoidable, adverse reducing facilities, such as Potwisha campground,

351 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wolverton winter use facilities, and Cedar Grove Cultural Resources lodging. Prohibiting horses and other stock throughout the parks would result in adverse Removing historic structures at Wolverton that impacts to those visitors seeking to use stock. could not be adaptively used would have unavoidable adverse impacts on the potential historic district. Special Use Permits Removing backcountry structures that could not In the Mineral King area there would be be adaptively used or allowing them to molder unavoidable adverse impacts on special use would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. permittees as permits were phased out.

Removing the Boy Scout camp would result in ALTERNATIVE D an unavoidable adverse impact on regional Boy Scouts and others who use the facility annually. Natural Resources

There would be continued unavoidable impacts ALTERNATIVE C on vegetation and soils, primarily in existing areas of concentrated use and development. The Natural Resources maximum size of the development zone would be 2,133 acres, but not all of this area would be There would be continued unavoidable impacts subject to development. on vegetation and soils, primarily in existing areas of concentrated use and development. The Constructing a Grant Grove bypass road would maximum size of the development zone would have unavoidable adverse impacts on soils, be 1,986 acres, but not all of this area would be vegetation, and wildlife. The extent of impacts subject to development. would depend on site-specific conditions and project design. Maintaining the hydroelectric generation system would continue to restrict free-flowing Maintaining the hydroelectric generation system conditions on the Middle, Marble, and East would continue to restrict free-flowing Forks of the Kaweah River, an unavoidable, conditions on the Middle, Marble, and East adverse effect. Forks of the Kaweah River, an unavoidable, adverse effect. Cultural Resources Wilderness The inevitable loss of cultural landscape values in part of the Big Stump Basin managed as a More concentrated use by larger groups in the recovering sequoia grove would be unavoidable. park’s backcountry would result in unavoidable adverse impacts on wilderness values.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Continuing road access and providing picnic facilities at Oriole Lake would change the Maintaining the hydroelectric generation system wilderness status of this area and could would continue to restrict free-flowing adversely affect wilderness values. conditions on the Middle, Marble, and East Forks of the Kaweah River, an unavoidable, adverse effect.

352 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Wild and Scenic Rivers Visitor Experience

Removing the small-scale hydroelectric facilities Converting the Potwisha campground to a day would result in unavoidable, adverse impacts use area or a new visitor center would unavoid­ during demolition and restoration activities. ably change camping in the foothills since this is the major foothills campground.

Cultural Resources Special Use Permits The inevitable loss of cultural landscape values in part of the Big Stump Basin managed as a Removing the Boy Scout camp would unavoid­ recovering sequoia grove would be unavoidable. ably affect the regional Boy Scouts and others who use the facility annually. Removing structures from Wolverton that could not be adaptively used would adversely affect In the Mineral King area there would be this potential historic district. unavoidable adverse impacts on special use permittees as permits were phased out and many Removing many hydroelectric facilities would cabins removed. result in unavoidable adverse impacts to historic facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric power generation system.

353 Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

This section discusses the effects of short-term ALTERNATIVE A use of resources resulting under any of the alternatives on the long-term productivity of The development zone would decrease by ap­ vegetation and wildlife. proximately 435 acres or 25% compared to the no-action alternative. Reduced water with­ Human uses throughout the parks could have drawals in alternative A could benefit sequoia negligible to minor impacts on wildlife grove productivity. Even with reduced productivity. Visitor impacts would be confined development, the developed areas are so small and controlled to reduce impacts on vegetative compared to the size of the parks that there productivity in the high-use frontcountry and would be no overall effect on long-term development zones. Backcountry access to some productivity. areas would be limited periodically to protect wildlife habitat, particularly for special status species. The potential effects of water with­ LTERNATIVE drawals on short- and long-term productivity of A C sequoia groves would be monitored and studied under all alternatives. The development zone could increase by approximately 241 acres or 14% compared to the no-action alternative. Under alternative C dispersed backcountry use could affect wildlife THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE productivity throughout a broader area. Peak- season water withdrawals would be limited, and Approximately 1,745 acres or 2% of the parks additional conservation measures would be would be included in the development zone. taken, thus reducing any potential effects on Vegetation and habitat productivity would productivity in sequoia groves. While developed continue to be affected by these areas. Since the areas would increase slightly, when compared to developed areas are so small compared to the the size of the parks there would be no overall size of the parks, there would be no overall effect on long-term productivity. effect on long-term productivity.

ALTERNATIVE D THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The development zone could increase by The development zone could increase by approximately 388 acres or 22% compared to approximately 142 acres or 8% under the the no-action alternative. If feasible, an addi­ preferred alternative. If feasible, an additional tional high Sierra camp could have a minor high Sierra camp could have a minor impact on impact on approximately 40 acres of vegetation approximately 40 acres of vegetation and local and local wildlife, similar to the preferred alter­ wildlife. Peak-season water withdrawals would native. Peak-season water withdrawals would be be limited, and additional conservation measures limited, and additional conservation measures would be taken, thus reducing any potential would be taken, thus reducing any potential effects on productivity in sequoia groves. Even effects on productivity in sequoia groves. Even with increased development, the developed areas with a 20% or more increase in development, all are so small compared to the size of the parks developed areas would be so small compared to that there would be no overall effect on long- the size of the parks that there would be no term productivity. overall effect on long-term productivity.

354 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

An irreversible commitment of resources cannot THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE be changed once it occurs except possibly in the extreme long term; an irretrievable commitment The loss of soils and wildlife habitat would means the resource is lost for a period of time continue, primarily in areas of concentrated use and is unlikely to be recovered or reused. Under and development. Limited amounts of non­ all alternatives, management actions would renewable resources from local previously contribute to resource protection and preserva­ impacted areas, such as rock, would be reused in tion and would be expected to minimize the park operations and construction projects. occurrence of irreversible or irretrievable impacts. As described for the no-action alternative, cultural resources that were removed or allowed to molder would be irreversible and irretriev­ THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE able. Decisions related to the method of removal or treatment would be determined in consulta­ The loss of soils and wildlife habitat would tion with the state historic preservation officer, continue, primarily in areas of concentrated use and all resources would be fully documented as and development. Limited amounts of non­ a mitigation strategy. renewable resources, such as rock, from local, previously impacted areas would be reused in The removal of some hydroelectric facilities park operations and construction projects. would result in the irreversible and irretrievable loss of historic facilities associated with the Cultural resources that were removed or allowed Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric power generation to molder would be irreversible and irretriev­ system. able. Decisions related to the method of removal or treatment would be determined in consultation with the state historic preservation ALTERNATIVE A officer, and all resources would be fully documented as a mitigation strategy. The loss of soils and wildlife habitat would continue, primarily in areas of concentrated use Permit cabins at Mineral King would be and development. Limited amounts of non­ removed in accordance with PL 95-625, section renewable resources from local, previously 314. About two thirds of the 60+ cabins impacted areas, such as rock, are reused in park contribute to the Mineral King Road Cultural operations and construction projects. Landscape District. Removal would result in the irreversible and irretrievable loss of cultural As described for the no-action alternative, resources in terms of the cultural landscape cultural resources that were removed or allowed district. to molder would be irreversible and irretriev­ able. Decisions related to the method of removal The removal of hydroelectric facilities would or treatment would be determined in consulta­ result in the irreversible and irretrievable loss of tion with the state historic preservation officer, historic facilities associated with the Kaweah no. and all resources would be fully documented as 3 hydroelectric power generation system. a mitigation strategy.

As described for the no-action alternative, about 60 permit cabins at Mineral King would be removed in accordance with PL 95-625, section 314. About two thirds of the cabins contribute to

355 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape impacted areas, such as rock and downed timber District. Removal would result in the irreversible would be reused in park operations and and irretrievable loss of cultural resources in construction projects. terms of the cultural landscape district. As described for the no-action alternative, Removal of hydroelectric facilities would result cultural resources that were removed or allowed in irreversible and irretrievable losses of historic to molder would be irreversible and irretriev­ facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 able. Decisions related to the method of removal hydroelectric power generation system. or treatment would be determined in consulta­ tion with the state historic preservation officer, and all resources would be fully documented as ALTERNATIVES C AND D a mitigation strategy.

The loss of soils and wildlife habitat would Under alternative D the removal of some continue, primarily in areas of concentrated use hydroelectric facilities would result in the and development. Limited amounts of non­ irreversible and irretrievable loss of historic renewable resources from local previously facilities associated with the Kaweah no. 3 hydroelectric power generation system.

356 Consultation and Coordination

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT HISTORY Public Information Newsletters 2 and 3 Public Scoping Following the scoping phase, public scoping Scoping for the general management plan began comments were summarized in newsletter 2, in July 1997 with newsletter 1, which briefed the which was sent out in summer 1998. This public on the planning process, issues, and gen­ newsletter also presented visions for the park, eral information. The newsletter had a response issues, types of decisions that would have to be form for people to comment about what issues made, and background information about the they felt the plan needed to address, and it Mineral King area. The newsletter further announced a series of open house type meetings updated recipients about changes and plans that at the parks. At the open houses, which were were underway, and it told the public how to get supplemented by evening campfire programs, in touch with the planning team. visitors were encouraged to share views and to identify the most critical issues they felt were Newsletter 3, published in March 1999, de­ facing the parks. Additionally, the planning team scribed a transportation study conducted in talked with park visitors along trails and waiting 1997–98 and a 1998 visitor satisfaction survey. in traffic queues to encourage their involvement. It also summarized the finding of a 1998 study to determine the eligibility of Mineral King During the summer of 1997 meetings were held Road corridor for the National Register of specifically to reach park visitors. They were Historic Places as a cultural landscape. This held July 31 at Giant Forest / Dorst; August 1 at newsletter announced public planning work­ Ash Mountain / Potwisha; August 2 at Mineral shops that would be held in April 1999 through­ King (which had an additional meeting at the out California to help generate a range of man­ Mineral King District Association picnic); agement alternatives for the general manage­ August 3 at Grant Grove; August 4 at Cedar ment plan. Grove; and August 5 at Lodgepole.

Newsletter 1 was reprinted in a winter version Planning Workbook / Newsletter 4 and announced informal public scoping meetings in Three Rivers, Visalia, and Clovis To prepare the public for the public workshops, from February 25, 1998, to February 27, 1998. a large format, 24-page workbook was distri­ buted. This workbook described the planning Newsletter 1 was posted on the NPS planning process; introduced management zoning; Web page and was made available at visitor reiterated the mission, purpose, and significance centers throughout the parks. of the parks; touched on other factors affecting management (such as laws, policies, and special As a result of the scoping process, a mailing list designations); and presented a brief timeline for with around 3,700 names was developed. All the parks. The main part of the workbook newsletters and plans are posted on either the consisted of discussions of the issues and trade- parks’ Website or the NPS Planning Website. offs, along with GIS maps illustrating condi­ tions. The workbook contained a response form, and 745 responses were received and were put into a database, along with transcripts of written comments.

357 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Workshops to Generate a Range of well as a discussion about designated wilder­ Alternatives ness. The newsletter announced that summary newsletters would be sent to everyone on the During 1999 public workshops were held in San mailing list, but that the draft environmental Francisco and Sacramento on April 17; in impact statement would be sent only to those Bishop on April 18; in Los Angeles on April 19, who requested it. The draft statement would be in Three Rivers on April 20; in Visalia on April available on the Internet, at local libraries and 21, and in Fresno / Clovis on April 22. Attend­ organizations, at the park library and visitor ees worked in groups to develop a parkwide centers. Also, copies would be sent to organiza­ vision, and then a vision for a developed area of tions and agencies. their choice. Over 300 people attended the meetings. While each meeting had its own character, several workshops had sufficient time Newsletter 7 — Status for groups to present their ideas and every workshop displayed what all groups or indi­ In spring 2002 a status newsletter was sent out viduals had produced. All ideas from maps and with information about the new superintendent sheets were recorded. and an explanation of the delay in the draft general management plan. The newsletter described additional work on management Newsletter 5 — The Range of zones, the development of a preferred alter­ Alternatives native, and mapping for the plan. The newsletter also asked recipients to let the planning team know if they wanted a paper copy of the In the winter of 2000 an informational news­ document rather than a CD ROM version, letter was sent out to describe the range of four alternatives that would be assessed in the draft environmental impact statement. The alterna­ tives were based on the range of ideas proposed NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATIONS by the public at the alternatives workshops. The newsletter did not include a preferred alterna­ During July 1999 Native American consultations tive, which was to be developed during the were held on both sides of the Sierra Nevada course of the environmental analysis. (see appendix D for a report). Government-to- government communication has continued The newsletter also presented parkwide zoning throughout the plan’s progress, and detailed prescriptions that told what could happen in each records have been kept of all consultations with type of zone. Visions for both parks and for Native American groups. specific areas were described, followed by related actions that would take place. An Discussion topics have included: accompanying foldout with alternative zoning • Why the park needs to have a new general maps allowed the reader to compare the maps management plan in light of the outdated with text. status of the plan that is now in place. Newsletter 5 was also sent to people on mailing • The way the planning process works of lists for the backcountry / wilderness manage­ the National Park Service. ment plan and those with commercial permits. • The need and desire to share information, such as where traditional plant-gathering areas might be in the parks as ethno­ Newsletter 6 — Status graphic resources, and what NPS research on resources might be relevant to In late fall 2000 a status newsletter was sent out American Indian perspectives. that included a number of announcements as

358 Ongoing Informational Briefings

• How to provide convenient access for vation office and the advisory council on May tribal members to enter the parks without 18, 1999. Beginning in 1998, the park staff paying the visitor-use fee, when coming worked with the state office on the determina­ in for traditional cultural purposes. tion of eligibility and nomination for the National Register for the Mineral King Road • The need for effective procedures to keep Cultural Landscape District. communicating on a government-to- government basis at various stages in the In December 1999 the planning team initiated planning process, and to ensure tribal informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and representation in the process, including Wildlife Service with a request for a list of on-site park visits of tribal officials and threatened and endangered species that may elders. occur in the parks. A response dated February Park staff recognize the need for the tribes and 2000 was received, and this information was the park to share background information about used in conducting the environmental analysis. each other’s cultural perspectives. It is recog­ nized that traditional plant-gathering areas are important for such purposes as basket-making. ONGOING INFORMATIONAL With sharing in mind, follow-up telephone calls BRIEFINGS have regularly been made to invite the tribes to comment and share concerns at pertinent stages During the scoping and development of the in the planning process, such as upon the range general management plan, the team or park staff of draft management alternatives. Tribal rela­ briefed or met with representatives of the tionships with traditional lands within the parks following stakeholders and interested parties. will continue to be the subject of regular government-to-government communication Regular Briefings: between the parks and interested tribes. Sequoia Natural History Association Park Concessioners AGENCIES CONSULTED Delaware North Park Services Park staff consulted with the Bureau of Land Kings Canyon Park Services Management. Consultations with the staff from the U. S. Forest Service and Giant Sequoia Cedar Grove Pack Station National Monument have included meeting with King Pack Station the planning team and participating as advisors for the monument plan. Special Use Permittees: Under the 1995 “Programmatic Agreement Southern California Edison Among the National Park Service, the Advisory Mineral King District Association — August Council on Historic Preservation, and the 1, 1997 National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers,” park superintendents Boy Scouts of America have been delegated responsibility to consult directly with the state historic preservation Private Landowners: office and the advisory council regarding compliance with section 106 of the National Wilsonia District Association — August 3, Historic Preservation Act. Official letters of 1997 notification about the start of the general Silver City landowners management planning process were sent by the superintendent to both the state historic preser­ Oriole Lake landowners

359 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Other stakeholders briefed on the general Department of the Interior management plan included the following: Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Backcountry Horsemen of California United States Fish and Wildlife Service, High Sierra Hikers Sacramento Friends of the River United States Geological Survey National Parks Conservation Association Regional Office, Seattle Sierra Club Office of the Regional Solicitor The National Park Foundation Pacific West Regional Office Three Rivers community planner Office of the Solicitor Clean Air groups Washington, DC Mineral King Advocates — August 1, 1997 Bureau of Land Management Mineral King Preservation Society — Bakersfield District Office August 1, 1997 California State Office Tulare Country Historical Society National Park Service California Department of Transportation Pacific West Regional Office Tulare County Washington Office Fresno County Channel Islands National Park Save the Redwoods League Death Valley National Park Local or regional business groups Devils Postpile National Monument Educational institutions Joshua Tree National Park Sequoia federal managers group Manzanar National Historic Site Mojave National Preserve Pinnacles National Park LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT Santa Monica Mountains National ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Recreation Area STATEMENT Yosemite National Park Department of Transportation California Congressional Delegation Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific Region Senator Barbara Boxer Western Region Senator Dianne Feinstein Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Kaweah Representative Devin Nunes Lemoore Naval Air Station Representative George Radanovich Edwards Air Force Base Representative William Thomas China Lake Naval Weapons Center Representative Calvin Dooley Environmental Protection Agency Representative Buck McKeon Region IX Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Agencies Indian Tribal Government

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation California Native American Heritage Department of Agriculture Commission Forest Service Big Pine Paiute Tribe of Owens Valley Region 5 Office Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians Inyo National Forest Bishop Indian Tribal Council Sequoia National Forest and Giant Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians Sequoia National Monument Dunlap Band of Mono Indians Sierra National Forest Fort Independence Indian Reservation

360 List of Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Fort Independence Paiute Indians Fresno, Mayor of Kern Valley Indian Community Visalia, Mayor of North Fork Mono Rancheria Fresno County Library North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians Inyo County Library Paiute-Shoshone of Lone Pine Kern County Library Sierra Foothill Wuksachi Tribe Tulare County Free Library Santa Rosa Rancheria Table Mountain Rancheria Organizations and Businesses Tule River Indian Reservation Wukchumni Tribal Council Backcountry Horsemen of California Bishop Chamber of Commerce State of California California Native Plant Society California Nature Conservancy Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Fresno Chamber of Commerce Fresno County Audubon Society State Senator Roy Ashburn Friends of the River State Senator Charles Poochigian Friends of the South Fork Kings Hume Lake Christian Camp State Assemblyman Bill Maze Mineral King District Association State Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes Mineral King Preservation Society State Assemblyman Steve Samuelian Montecito-Sequoia Resort National Parks Conservation Association Air Resources Board National Trust for Historic Preservation California Environmental Protection Agency Natural Resources Defense Council Department of Transportation Save-the-Redwoods League District 6 Sequoia Forest Alliance Office of Historic Preservation Sequoia Regional Visitors Council Resources Agency Sequoia Riverlands Trust Department of Fish and Game Sierra Club Department of Parks and Recreation Sierra Los Tulares Land Trust Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Three Rivers Lemon Cove Business Association Department of Water Resources Tulare County Audubon Society State Water Resources Control Board Visalia Chamber of Commerce Wilderness Society Regional, County, and Local Wilderness Watch Governments Wilsonia Historic District Trust Wilsonia Village Incorporated San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Within-Parks Partners and Businesses Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Boy Scouts of America, Western Los Angeles County Council, Inc. Fresno County Board of Supervisors Cedar Grove Pack Station Inyo County Board of Supervisors Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts Kern County Board of Supervisors Kings Canyon Park Services Kings County Board of Supervisors Mineral King Pack Station Tulare County Board of Supervisors Pacific Gas and Electric Company SBC Incorporated Bakersfield, Mayor of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Bishop, Mayor of Foundation

361 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Sequoia Natural History Association Fresno Bee Silver City Resort Inyo Register Southern California Edison Company, Limited Kaweah Commonwealth Verizon California, Incorporated Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee Media San Francisco Chronicle Visalia Times—Delta Associated Press — Fresno Bakersfield Californian

362 Appendixes, Glossary, Bibliography, Preparers, Index

363 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

364 Appendix A: Laws and Executive Orders

September 25, 1890 — Sequoia National Park estab ­ Forest (72 Stat. 616). About 210 acres of Sequoia lished, including only the drainage of the South National Forest lands at Big Stump added to Fork of the Kaweah River — and Kings Canyon National Park (PL 85-666, 72 Stat. Hockett Meadow (26 Stat. 478, 16 USC 41). 617). October 1, 1890 — General Grant National Park June 21, 1963 — Secretary of the interior is author­ established. Sequoia boundary modified to in ­ ized to permit continued operation of Kaweah no. clude Giant Forest and its surroundings (26 Stat. 3 (PL 88-47). 650). August 6, 1965 — Tehipite Valley (2,659 acres) and 1907 — Permit granted to construct Kaweah no. 3 floor of the Kings Canyon (2,879 acres) hydroelectric plant. transferred to Kings Canyon National Park from Sierra National Forest and Sequoia National May 1913 — 50-year permit granted by secretary of Forest, respectively (PL 89-111, 79 Stat. 446). the interior for operation of Kaweah no. 3. 1976 — Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park July 3, 1926 — Sequoia National Park expanded to designated an international biosphere reserve. Sierra Nevada crest, adding Kern Canyon and Mount Whitney areas. Mineral King Valley is November 10, 1978 — Mineral King Valley excluded and declared Sequoia National Game (Sequoia National Game Refuge) added to Refuge (44 Stat. 818). Sequoia National Park (PL 95-625). March 4, 1940 — Kings Canyon National Park es­ September 28, 1984 — California Wilderness Act of tablished by Congress and boundary is expanded 1984 establishes Sequoia/Kings Canyon Wilder ­ to approximate present condition (54 Stat. 41, ness; transfers Jennie Lakes addition to Kings 16 USC 80a). Canyon National Park (PL 98-425, 98 Stat. 1619). June 21, 1940 — Presidential proclamation adds land June 19, 1986 — Secretary of the interior is author­ in Redwood Canyon (~10,000 acres) to Kings ized to permit Kaweah no. 3 to operate for 10 Canyon National Park (54 Stat. 2710). years (PL 99-338). December 21, 1943 — Act to authorize acquisition November 3, 1987 — The Wild and Scenic Rivers and addition of land now used for the Buckeye Act (16 USC 1274(a)) is amended to add the housing area to Sequoia National Park, including Middle Fork and the South Fork of the Kings land exchanges with Southern California Edison River, including all park segments (PL 100-150, Company (57 Stat. 606). 101 Stat. 881). July 21, 1949 — Sequoia National Park boundary November 24, 1987 — The Wild and Scenic Rivers changed pursuant to 1943 statute. Act is amended to add the North Fork of the Kern River, including all park portions (PL 100-174). October 19, 1951 — Sequoia National Park boundary changed pursuant to 1943 statute. December 28, 2000 — Secretary of the interior is instructed to acquire Dillonwood, with an auto ­ August 14, 1958 — About 10 acres of Sequoia matic boundary change (PL 106-574, 16 USC National Park (Cabin Cove) transferred to the 45(g)). Sequoia National Game Refuge, within Sequoia National Forest (72 Stat. 604, 16 USC 45a-3). December 5, 2001 — National Park Service takes Summit Meadow transferred to Sequoia National possession of Dillonwood.

365 Appendix B: Mission Goals for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Mission Goals: Resource Management processes that shape them, and the quality of experience distinctive to them. Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected, restored, maintained Aquatic and Water Ecosystems in good condition, and managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context. Aquatic and water ecosystems are restored and/or maintained so that physical, chemical, and Natural Resources biotic processes function uninfluenced by human activities. Vegetation Aquatic environments are inventoried and Native plants are preserved as part of natural classified by physical and chemical char­ functioning ecosystems. acteristics and by biotic communities present. Native plant species and threatened/endangered A long-term monitoring program is developed to and sensitive plant species are inventoried, record ambient conditions and to document monitored, protected, and restored/maintained changes and trends in physical and chemical over time. characteristics and biotic communities. Native plant species extirpated from the parks are Changes within the aquatic environments that are restored, where feasible. caused by facilities, management activities, or Exotic plant species and exotic plant diseases are visitor use patterns are located and controlled/contained, where feasible. documented, and unnatural changes are mitigated. The giant sequoia groves — particularly Giant Forest — and the ecosystems they occupy are Park waters meet applicable state and federal restored, maintained, and protected. water quality standards. Plant communities that have been altered by fire Impacts of acid deposition and contaminants from suppression are restored/ maintained through external influences are detected, evaluated, restoration of the natural fire regime to the and mitigated. maximum extent possible. Lakes and streams with exotic trout are returned Plant communities that have been altered by to natural conditions. domestic grazing are restored to as natural a Extant native species or genetically unique groups condition as feasible. are restored to their former range to the extent Areas disturbed by administrative / visitor use, feasible. past developments and construction, where Waters incapable of sustaining fish populations feasible, are returned to natural conditions. through natural reproduction will be allowed Vegetation in the parks’ development zone is to become barren. restored and/or maintained as a healthy, vigorous vegetative community that Wildlife approximates the “natural” state, given the constraints of past and present human Natural populations of wildlife, in which animal intervention, while providing as safe an behavior and ecological processes are environment as possible for human use and essentially unaltered by human activities, are enjoyment. perpetuated. Recreational pack and saddle stock will be Native animal species and threatened/ endangered allowed within guidelines that protect the and sensitive animal species are inventoried, parks’ natural resources and values, the monitored, protected, and restored/maintained over time.

366 Appendix B: Mission Goals for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Native animal species extirpated from the parks Scientific studies and research concerning caves are restored, where feasible. and karst resources and systems are conducted to increase the parks’ scientific knowledge Exotic animal species are controlled/ contained, and broaden the understanding of its cave where feasible. resources. Interactions between wildlife and people are Cave natural and cultural resources, and karstic mitigated, where feasible. processes are preserved, restored, protected, The natural distribution, ecology, and behavior of and maintained. black bears and other native species are Opportunities for the scientific study of cave maintained/restored and free of human resources and systems are provided and influences. promoted to better understand and document park cave resources and caves in general. Air Resources Educational and recreational opportunities to Air quality is returned to natural conditions. explore park caves are provided for the parks’ visitors. Facilities and management activities are in compliance with the Clean Air Act and state Known paleontological resources are in excellent and local air quality policies. condition. Impacts and levels of park air pollution are Abandoned mined lands are closed and/or monitored. mitigated as appropriate. Park staff, visitors, the public, and regulatory agencies are educated about park air quality. Cultural Resources The parks participate in federal, state, and local Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Sites regulatory actions that affect the parks. Archeological sites are inventoried and evaluated Effects of anthropogenic climatic change on following current standards. ecosystems are minimized. Significant sites are nominated for listing on the The natural ambient appearance of the night sky National Register of Historic Places. is maintained in all areas of the parks’ natural Archeological sites are inspected and monitored, zone. No native plant or animal populations with priority given to sites listed on or eligible are adversely affected by artificial lights for the national register. within the parks. Actions are taken to protect threatened or nega­ The natural ambient soundscape (the absence of tively affected significant sites from threats or human-caused sounds) is maintained ongoing impacts. throughout the parks’ natural zone. Within developed areas or areas of primary park features, human-caused noise is limited to Historic Structures daytime hours and is of a level, frequency, and Historic structures are inventoried and evaluated duration that does not adversely impact national park values. No native plant or following current standards. animal populations are adversely affected by Significant structures are nominated for listing on human-caused sound within the parks. the National Register of Historic Places. Historic structures are inspected and monitored, Geological, Soil, and Paleontological Resources with a priority given to structures listed on or eligible for the national register. Geological resources, including cave natural and cultural resources and karstic processes, which Actions are taken to protect threatened or are of scientific, scenic and recreational value, negatively affected significant historic are restored, protected, and maintained. structures from threats or ongoing impacts Geological processes and soils are not substan­ Eligible structures are added to the List of tially impacted by human change. Classified Structures.

367 APPENDIXES

Objects, Archival, Manuscript Collections Cultural resources within wilderness areas are managed so as to not adversely affect their Museum objects are added to the National known or potential status for listing on the Catalog of Museum Objects within the national register, while preserving wilderness parameters of the parks’ “Scope of character. Collections.” Archival and manuscript collections are increased Mission Goal Ic: The parks contribute to knowledge within the parameters of the parks’ “Scope of about natural and cultural resources; management Collections.” decisions about resources and visitors are based on the Material weaknesses are addressed in a timely best available scholarly and scientific information. fashion. Natural Resources Consultations required by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act have A thorough knowledge of the state of the parks’ been completed. natural resources is acquired over time. Scientific research that promotes an under­ Cultural Landscapes standing of the parks’ resources and the impacts that affect those resources is A cultural landscape inventory is undertaken for encouraged. all developed areas within the parks. The general ecosystem elements and processes of All cultural landscapes are evaluated for the parks, the natural forces controlling them, eligibility for listing on the National Register and the potential for human activities to affect of Historic Places. them are understood, using the best available Cultural landscapes eligible for the national knowledge. register are nominated and listed. A long-term ecological monitoring program, Cultural landscapes are inspected and monitored. including vital signs and a complete inventory of the parks’ natural resources, is Actions are taken to protect threatened or implemented. negatively affected significant cultural landscapes from threats or ongoing impacts. Giant sequoia ecology and the impacts of human activities on the trees and the ecosystem they inhabit are known, based on the best available Ethnographic Resources knowledge. An ethnographic overview is prepared. Current and potential effects on the parks’ natural Ethnographic sites are recorded in the cultural resources from external stressors, including sites inventory once the component is exotic organism invasions, air pollution, established. anthropogenic global change, and boundary/island effects are understood, using Ethnographic sites are inspected and monitored. the best available knowledge. Actions are taken to protect threatened or An information storage and analysis system that negatively affected significant ethnographic effectively and efficiently provides the parks resources from threats or ongoing impacts. with accurate and comprehensive parks’ natural resources information is developed. Mission Goal Ib: Legally designated and protected Significant natural resource information is made wilderness is managed to meet the standards and ideals available to visitors, the public, and the park of the Wilderness Act and as a component of a larger staff. regional wilderness area.

Natural resources within wilderness areas are Cultural Resources restored where feasible to natural conditions. A thorough knowledge of the state of the parks’ Natural resources within wilderness areas are cultural resources is acquired over time. managed to preserve wilderness character.

368 Appendix B: Mission Goals for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Scientific research that promotes a better the parks and their resources for this and future understanding of the parks’ cultural resources generations. and museum collections is encouraged. Visitors understand and appreciate park values A long-term monitoring plan for the parks’ and resources and have the information cultural resources, including recognition of necessary to adapt to the park environments. vital signs, is developed. Visitors have opportunities to enjoy the park in ways that leave park resources unimpaired Current and potential impacts that adversely for future generations. affect, or have the potential to adversely affect, the parks’ cultural resources or Park use and development are designed or museum collections are known and managed to conserve park resources in an understood, using the best available unimpaired state and to ensure that visitors knowledge. continue to have the opportunity for high- quality experiences. Databases involving the parks’ cultural resources and museum collections are maintained and Mission Goal IVa. Sequoia and Kings Canyon updated. National Parks use current management practices, systems, and technologies to better preserve park All research affecting the parks’ cultural resources and to better provide for public enjoyment. resources or museum collections is published or made available to the public through other Facilities in all zones comply with the local appropriate media. expression of the parks’ architectural guidelines; facilities in the backcountry reflect a primitive character. MISSION GOALS: VISITOR EXPERIENCE Park staff work with appropriate experts to make Mission Goal IIa: Visitors safely enjoy and are the parks’ facilities and programs sustainable. satisfied with the availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of park facilities, services, and New and remodeled buildings and facilities appropriate recreational opportunities. reflect the NPS commitment to energy and resource conservation, as well as durability. Visitor and employee safety and health are protected. Park staff support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to follow Park recreational uses are promoted and sustainable practices. regulated. Basic visitor needs are met, in keeping with the parks’ purposes. Utilities are limited to those determined to be necessary and appropriate for each site. New and remodeled buildings, outdoor developed Services are provided in the most efficient and areas, and features are accessible to all sustainable way possible, and utilities are visitors, including those with disabilities, in located in such a manner that conserves park compliance with federal standards. However, resources in an unimpaired state and that is it may not be possible to make all sites or inconspicuous. Related aboveground elements historic buildings accessible because the and access points are screened from visitors required changes would affect the integrity of wherever possible. the feature or the historic structure. In these cases interpretive brochures or programs Facilities and park development meet minimum could help convey an experience to visitors. Leadership in Energy / Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Mission Goal IIb. Park visitors and the general public understand and appreciate the preservation of

369 Appendix C: Cultural Resources in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Archeological and Ethnographic Garage 296 Garage for Residence 92 & 100 Resources Garage for Residence 93 & 94 Parkwide surveys and consultations for archeological Garage for Residence 96 and ethnographic resources, respectively, have not Gas Station occurred. In the backcountry 26 archeological sites Residence 5 and Garage have been recorded that show obsidian fragments. Residence 7 The presence of obsidian tools, which were highly Residence 9 and Garage prized for their sharpness, suggests trade since Residence 12 and Garage mineral analysis of the obsidian shows that some of it Residence 14 came from distant sources (Roper Wickstrom 1992). Residence 15 and Garage Sites in east-west passes like Taboose Pass in Kings Residence 16 Canyon National Park suggest trade routes as well as Residence 17A the presence of women with children accompanying Residence 29 the men hunters because grinding stones indicate Residence 64 and Garage (also for Residence 63) food preparation associated with stone structures Residence 77 and Garage (also for Residence 78) thought to have served as hunting blinds as well as Residence 88 and Garage (also for Residence 87) temporary shelters. At least one site suggests Residence 91 and Garage (also for Residence 90) evidence of use over many years because of the range Residence 95 and Garage of artifacts, from prehistoric stone tools to 19th Residence 97 and Garage century trade beads, with dates ranging from 1200 Residential Area Rock Work B.C. to A.D. 1850. Sycamore Village Store House Sycamore Village Store House The Groenfeldt archeological site was added to the Sycamore Village Recreational Hall National Register of Historic Places on March 30, Sycamore Village Tack and Hay Storage 1978, and Hospital Rock on August 29, 1977. The Backcountry latter has ethnographic as well as archeological sig­ Barton-Lackey Cabin nificance and merits a nomination amendment for Cabin Creek Ranger Residence eligibility evaluation as a possible traditional cultural Cabin Creek Dormitory and Garage property. Cloud Canyon Shorty Lovelace Cabin Gardiner Creek Shorty Lovelace Cabin The Native American consultations report (see Granite Pass Shorty Lovelace Cabin appendix D) discusses the mutual idea of identifying Hockett Meadow Ranger Station certain plant gathering areas in the parks important to Hockett Meadow Tack-Storage Room neighboring American Indian tribes. Other types of Kern Canyon Ranger Station possible ethnographic resources, including sacred Kern River Trail Bridge sites and places for the indigenous use of fire as an Lewis Camp Irrigation Canal environmental management tool, were not brought up Muir Hut as points of discussion and importance by the tribes Quinn Ranger Station consulted. Such topics are appropriate for continued Pear Lake Ski Hut Native American consultations, as well as whether Redwood Meadow Ranger Station certain ethnographic resources might be eligible for Redwood Meadow Tack-Storage Cabin traditional cultural property status on the National Redwood Mountain Ranger Station Register of Historic Places. Redwood Mountain Equipment Storage Sawmill Site Ditches Smithsonian Institution Shelter List of Classified Structures Tyndall Creek Shepherd’s Cabin Woods Creek Shorty Lovelace Cabin Ash Mountain Vidette Meadow Shorty Lovelace Cabin Entrance Sign

370 Appendix C: Cultural Resources in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks

Cedar Grove Cultural Landscape Inventory Ranger Station The Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) is an Storage Shed evaluated inventory of all cultural landscapes in Crystal Cave which the National Park Service has or plans to Barrier Gate acquire any legal interest (“evaluated” means that the Comfort Station & Generator inventory focuses on National Register eligible Trail landscapes). The purpose of the CLI is to identify, Generals Highway document, analyze, and evaluate cultural landscape Clover Creek Bridge (Lodgepole) resources in a concise manner, with sufficient Generals Highway information for a National Register determination of Hospital Rock Automobile Watering Stations eligibility. The CLI does not make treatment Hospital Rock Stone Steps recommendations, and it can address a landscape Hospital Rock Stone Water Fountain (e.g., an entire park) or a component landscape (e.g., Marble Fork Bridge (Lodgepole) a section of a park). CLI levels serve various Silliman Creek Culvert purposes, as described below: Tunnel Rock Giant Forest Level 0 — Includes preliminary identification of Cattle Cabin landscapes and component landscapes Colony Mill Road within a park, identification of immedi ­ Giant Forest District Ranger’s Residence ate threats to cultural landscape re­ Giant Forest Market sources, and a determination of cultural Moro Rock Comfort Station landscape inventory priorities. Moro Rock Stairway Level 1 — Includes a reconnaissance survey of a Squatter’s Cabin specific landscape or component land­ Tharp’s Log scape, basic overview of cultural land­ Village Comfort Station scape resources, and preliminary assess­ Grant Grove ment of significance sufficient to Chief Ranger’s Horse Barn determine if a level 2 evaluation is Chief Ranger’s Residence needed. Level 1 involves a brief site visit Gamlin Cabin and use of existing documentation. Old Superintendent’s House Warehouse and Maintenance Shop Level 2 — Includes identification and analysis of Mineral King significant landscape characteristics and Alles Cabin preparation of statement of significance, Atwell Mill Ranger Station condition assessment, and integrity Atwell Mill Ranger Station Garage evaluation. Level 2 also includes an Lodgepole analysis of the history of landscape Carpenter’s Shop treatment and provides information for Comfort Station National Register of Historic Places Comfort Station and Showers determination of eligibility. Level 2 Residence 81 involves historical research and Residence 82 fieldwork. Residence 85 Level 3 — Includes description, analysis, and Lost Grove Comfort Station evaluation of a specific landscape Wolverton feature. Residence 89

TABLE C-1: CULTURAL LANDSCAPE INVENTORY, SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS

Inventory Unit Level 0 Level 1 Ash Mountain x x Atwell Mill campground x Barton Lackey complex x Bear Paw Meadow x Buckeye Flat campground x x Buckeye housing area x x

371 APPENDIXES

Inventory Unit Level 0 Level 1 Cedar Grove ranger station x Colony Mill Road x Crystal Cave developments x x Dillonwood x Early trail system x High Sierra Trail x Muir Trail x General Sherman Tree area x Generals Highway x x Giant Forest x x Grant Grove x x Hospital Rock x x Kern ranger station x Lodgepole x x Middle Fork Canyon hydroelectric x developments Mineral King Historic District x Potwisha campground x x Sycamore CCC Camp x x

372 Appendix D: Native American Consultations

By

Lawrence F. Van Horn, Ph.D. Cultural Resource Specialist Planning and Design Services Denver Service Center, Colorado National Park Service

and

Thomas L. Burge, M.A. Cultural Resource Specialist Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California National Park Service

April 2001

SUMMARY NOMENCLATURE

Various American Indian tribes have occupied over The term American Indian is employed in this report time or are contemporary neighbors of the lands that if a particular people’s tribal name is not mentioned, now comprise Sequoia and Kings Canyon National such as the Sierra Foothills Wuksachi. Taken from Parks, California. As part of its ongoing planning, the federal law and executive orders, the broader term National Park Service (NPS) conducted consultations Native American is used when referring to the with affiliated tribes (Steward 1935; Herron 1980; process of conducting consultations. Native American Elsasser 1988) on both sides of the Sierra Nevada consultations nationwide include American Indians during the week of July 11, 1999. The results of these and other Native Americans such as Alaska Natives meetings are outlined in the present report. and Native Hawaiians.

During these consultations, American Indians spoke of two major ideas for NPS consideration. The first is PURPOSE OF TRIP for interested tribes and the NPS to share information for their mutual benefit about areas in the parks The purpose of Native American consultations in this where certain plants that continue to be used tradi- instance was to seek information for park planning tionally grow, including interest in sharing fire and to build better relationships among the neighbor- expertise and receiving advice on instituting a tribal ing tribes and the two parks. Input specifically was prescribed fire program. sought for the ongoing general management plan underway for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National The second is to pursue the construction of a Parks and the environmental impact statement that traditional Indian village in the parks for visitor will accompany it (GMP/EIS). education. Visitors would interact at this “village” to learn about American Indian beliefs as well as certain During the July 1999 trip, the National Park Service aspects of the traditional material culture such as tool conducted Native American consultations on the east production and the use of particular items of and west sides of the Sierra Nevada at the request of everyday life. These key ideas are delineated below Michael J. Tollefson, then superintendent of Sequoia along with other concerns heard during the and Kings Canyon National Parks. The National Park consultation trip. Service recognizes that indigenous peoples may have traditional interests and rights in lands now under NPS management, as well as concerns and contributions to make for future park management

373 APPENDIXES plans. In general, Native American consultations are interview lasted the afternoon of Friday, July 16, required by various federal laws, executive orders, 1999. regulations, and policies. They are needed, for example, to comply with Section 106 of the National Burge and Van Horn met and talked with a total of 33 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as people. For the parks’ record and the possibility of amended, most recently in 1992. Implementing follow-up communication, their names, titles or regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality positions, and mailing addresses with telephone for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 numbers and electronic mail addresses, if available, (NEPA) also call for Native American consultations. are listed later in this report.

Information was sought on this trip about past and In addition to the tribes affiliated with the parks as present American Indian links to the two parks. suggested by the work of anthropologists Julian Queries were made about possible ethnographic Steward (1935), John Herron (1980), and Albert resources within the parks. Ethnographic resources Elsasser (1988) as noted earlier, Burge and Van Horn consist of features of the landscape that are linked by were guided in the selection of tribes and groups to members of a contemporary community to their contact by the California Native American Heritage traditional ways of life. Such linkage would include Commission (McNulty 1999). The 33 persons visited social practices, cultural values, and intellectual and those additionally recommended to be contacted beliefs of a group or a people that are pertinent to by the California Native American Heritage their history, heritage, and identity. Not only may Commission have been put on the GMP mailing list historic places and structures be included, but also for updated information about the plan’s progress. natural places and materials associated with The 33 persons visited and those recommended culturally defined uses. This is especially true of individuals not yet contacted are listed later in this places where American Indians gather certain plants report with their names and other communication for personal medicinal purposes or for the weaving of information. baskets, as this report mentions for the Wuksachi. Natural areas may be associated with any number of On Thursday, July 15, 1999, Ralph Moore, then the parks’ wilderness coordinator, joined Burge and Van traditional everyday cultural activities or with practices of special cultural significance (Nabokov et Horn. This was to the offices of the Big Sandy and al. 1994:iii; NPS 1997d:168; NPS 1998:1, 9; North Fork Rancherias. Mr. Moore talked about parallel, ongoing efforts in planning for the back­ Schoepfle et al. 1998:2). country and wilderness areas of the parks, and he in­ The parks’ then Superintendent Michael Tollefson vited future communication about these areas of the designated Thomas L. Burge, the parks’ Native parks. American coordinator and cultural resource specialist, as his representative for the consultation Related to tribal sovereignty, the meetings were mainly intended to represent government-to-govern- meetings. During the trip Lawrence F. Van Horn assisted Mr. Burge. Dr. Van Horn is a cultural ment communications, which are conducted with resource specialist in Planning and Design Services at federally recognized tribes. In practice, all but one of the meetings represented in this report were con ­ the Denver Service Center of the National Park Service. On the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, ducted with federally recognized tribes. The Sierra Burge and Van Horn consulted in the Owens Valley, Foothills Wuksachi Tribe of the Western Mono or Monache people on the western slope of the Sierra California. On the western slope, consultations took place in the northern and southern foothills relating to Nevada was the one tribe consulted that is not the parks’ geography. currently federally recognized. The latter consultation was conducted as a matter of courtesy and policy Burge and Van Horn conducted small-group meet­ (NPS 2001c). In past years, the tribe has lent its name ings or interviews among the eight tribes visited. to the Wuksachi village development and participated Discussion was encouraged in each instance. Two in the 1999 Memorial Day opening ceremonies of interviews with former tribal chairpersons were this new lodging and dining hotel complex for conducted — with Terald Goodwin of Lone Pine and visitors in Sequoia National Park. The Sierra with Vernon Miller of Fort Independence — men ­ Foothills Wuksachi Tribe is in the process of seeking tioned below. The same arrangement was true for the federal recognition from the Bureau of Indian Wuksachi meeting. It was an extended interview with Affairs. Marie Dominguez Riley, tribal chairperson; this

374 Appendix D: Native American Consultations

The list below indicates whether officers and tribal Western Mono and Eastern Mono peoples are council members or staffers of the tribal government members of the Uto-Aztecan family of American were present plus tribal community members. In Indian languages. Tubatulabal and Western Shoshone addition, two former tribal chairpersons were met (also known as Newe) are too (Crum 1994:11). In with individually and interviewed as elders of their contrast, the “westside” Yokuts of Table Mountain respective tribes. These were Vernon Miller, former and Tule River are Yokutsan speakers of the Penutian tribal chairperson of the Fort Independence Indian language family (Shipley 1978:83). Community of Paiute Indians, and Terald Goodwin, former tribal chairperson of the Paiute-Shoshone Eight tribal governments were visited. An asterisk (*) Indians of the Lone Pine Community. By way of beside a tribe’s name in the list below signifies two example of a meeting, Neddeen Naylor, another things: (1) that the tribe is federally recognized and former tribal chairperson of the Paiute-Shoshone thus eligible to receive services from the Bureau of Indians of the Lone Pine Community attended the Indian Affairs (BIA) of the United States Department main meeting held with the Lone Pine Community, of the Interior, and (2) that the meeting with this tribe which was hosted by Irene Button, treasurer of the had government-to-government status consistent with Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine recognized levels of tribal sovereignty. The federally Community. recognized tribal names shown in this report are given as officially listed in the Federal Register 65, no. 49 (Mar. 13, 2000): 13298–303). TRIBES VISITED

Thirteen tribal governments or groups and one Indian Eastern Slope of the Sierra Nevada group associated with a museum in Bishop, California, were scheduled for consultation on the *Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone trip. The museum is known as the Owens Valley Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California Paiute-Shoshone Indian Cultural Center, which (population 403). Present: Janet Gutierrez, tribal vice promotes interest in Indian heritage in the Owens chairperson; Alan Bacock, environmental planner of Valley and the surrounding mountains including the the tribal staff; and community members Jeanette Sierra Nevada to the west. The tribal peoples Negrete, Dorothy Stewart, and Richard Stewart. affiliated with the parks were identified initially Matthew Morales, a graduate student in social through reviewing the works of anthropologists science from Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Julian Steward (1935), John Herron (1980), and Arizona, also attended. He lived in the Big Pine Albert Elsasser (1988), as follows: the Owens community the summer of 1999. Valley Paiute (including the Shoshone who migrated from the Great Basin and joined the Paiute in the *Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Owens Valley), the Yokuts, the Tubatulabal, and the Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, Western Mono (also known as the Monache people). California (population 58). Present: Wendy Stine, The Wuksachi Tribe is a band or division of the tribal chairperson; Michael Swift, tribal vice Western . Different bands or divisions chairperson; and Pearl Symmes Budke, community of these peoples constitute various tribal governments member. Vernon Miller, former tribal chairperson, or organizations today, as can be seen in the two lists was interviewed separately at the Eastern California that follow of the tribes visited on this trip and those Museum, an opportunity arranged by Bill Michael, not yet visited. director.

It is believed that Mono people at some point about *Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine 500 years ago crossed the Sierra Nevada from the Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California east and settled on the western slope (Elsasser (population 235). Present: Irene Button, treasurer; 1988:26). They are known today generally as the Neddeen Naylor, former tribal chairperson; Western Mono or Monache people. The Paiute and community members Ann Marie Astills, Leslie Shoshone remained on the eastern slope with the Button, Eugene Button, Bruce Cotton, and Frank result that the Owens Valley Paiutes speak Eastern Diaz. Terald Goodwin, former tribal chairperson, was Mono. The Eastern Mono and Western Mono interviewed separately at his home. languages today remain mutually intelligible to some extent (Shipley 1978:88; Elsasser 1988:26). This was confirmed on the trip by Paiute elder Neddeen Naylor at Lone Pine.

375 APPENDIXES

Western Slope of the Sierra Nevada Western Slope of the Sierra Nevada

*Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Dunlap Band of Mono Indians (population unknown) (includes members of the Western Mono or Monache people, population 108). Present: Tribal staffers *Table Mountain Rancheria of California (of the Wiley Carpenter and Kathlien Childers, manager and Yokuts Tribe, population 81) environmental specialist, respectively, Environmental Programs Office of the tribe; and Michelle LeBeau, Wukchumni Tribe (of Mono Indians, population community member and attorney at law. unknown)

*Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (a division of the Western Mono or AMERICAN INDIAN CONCERNS Monache people, population 163). Present: Tribal American Indian concerns as encountered during the staffers Lonnie Bill and Virgil Lewis, environmental consultation meetings fall into two categories: (1) coordinator and environmental assistant, respectively. topics relevant to the general management plan *North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (GMP) and (2) topics that can be addressed (a division of Western Mono or Monache people, independently of the GMP through administrative population 75). Present: Delores Roberts, tribal means. Actions that may be proposed regarding ways chairperson; and tribal council members Barbara the parks could be managed over the next fifteen to Coleman, Connie DeSilva, Alvin McDonald, Ron twenty years come under the general purview of the Roberts, and Juanita Williams. GMP, a planning effort currently underway for the parks. Such proposals must go through a public input Sierra Foothills Wuksachi Tribe (a division of the and review process before agency approval and Western Mono or Monache people, population 100). implementation. Some topics, however, can be Present: Marie Dominguez Riley, tribal chairperson. addressed more immediately under administrative procedures; such procedures are in support of NPS *Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Management Policies (NPS 2001b). Reservation, California (includes members of the Yokuts people, population 803). Present: Alec Reconstructing an American Indian village in the Garfield, tribal council member; and Ken Cauwet, parks for visitor education may be identified as a development manager of the tribal staff. GMP issue. This idea was advanced primarily by Marie Dominguez Riley as chairperson of the Sierra Foothills Wuksachi Tribe, a western slope tribal FURTHER CONSULTATION group. Interestingly, the overall concerns with active involvement in visitor education, conducting daily Appointments with six of the fourteen tribal entities arts and crafts demonstrations, and designating a identified prior to the trip could not be scheduled. meeting place or constructing a specific structure for These six are listed below. Federal recognition is American Indian use were also voiced by members of indicated by an asterisk (*) beside a tribe’s name. the Cold Springs Mono Rancheria and the North Fork Further communication is called for in conjunction Mono Rancheria. with the need for ongoing Native American consultations. Additionally, the ongoing preparation of the parks’ fire management plan was discussed with each group or individual during the course of the consultation Eastern Slope of the Sierra Nevada meetings. The planning process, legal sideboards, and a fire fact sheet were discussed briefly. Direct Kern Valley Indian Community (also known as the comments on any aspect of the parks’ fire Tubatulabal Tribe, population 400) management program were solicited. Marie Dominguez Riley expressed clear interest for the Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indian Cultural Sierra Foothills Wuksachi. She related that tribal Center (population not applicable) members were most familiar with area United States Forest Service lands but would want to work closely *Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony (population 1,437) with Sequoia-Kings Canyon planners to help identify park areas for possible access, use, and gathering activities relative to the role of fire, or even planning

376 Appendix D: Native American Consultations for fire suppression activities. She noted that her During the July 1999 consultations, American group’s interest could include such things as pro­ Indians expressed their wish that the NPS not charge tecting or encouraging the growth of sedges or affiliated Indians, in pursuit of traditional purposes, acorns. the admission fee required of visitors to enter the parks. Several tribes raised this topic, including the A member of the Big Pine Paiute community Sierra Foothills Wuksachi, the Tule River Tribe, and (Richard Stewart) supported the use of prescribed the Cold Springs Mono Tribe. Such expedited entry fires and noted that they can be an avenue for into the parks without fee for traditional purposes assistance, employment, or interpretation could be decided administratively and is outlined in opportunities for tribal members. Several members of Chapter 8 of the Management Policies 2001 (NPS the Tule River Indian Tribe voiced interest in 2001b). pursuing opportunities for training partnerships with the NPS in a variety of areas including fire Questions were asked about ordinary camping and management and fire suppression. It was suggested about packing horses. A Paiute woman, Wendy Stine, that the Intergovernmental Transfer Act may be a the current tribal chairperson at Fort Independence, mechanism to share expertise and advance training wanted to know about fees and the locations of opportunities. North Fork Mono Rancheria attendees campgrounds in the parks to camp overnight with her similarly expressed interest in sharing expertise and family. A Shoshone man, Terald Goodwin, a former receiving advice on instituting a tribal, prescribed fire tribal chairperson at Lone Pine, has packed horses program. commercially in the past for backcountry visitors. He would enter the Sierra Nevada from the eastern side The desire to share with the NPS American Indian through United States Forest Service (USFS) land in knowledge about continuing traditional uses of the southern part of the Owens Valley and end up in various plants and their locations in the parks, and in Sequoia National Park. He maintains a few horses turn for the NPS to share resource management today in Lone Pine where he runs a recycling strategies and research information (including fire business. He entertains the idea of packing horses management planning efforts) with interested tribes again after retiring from recycling. He wanted to be concerning such locations, are appropriate GMP reassured that he could go back to packing horses. He topics. Such areas might be zoned in the GMP as would need to familiarize himself with the packing suitable for certain activities and not others, or for and backcountry regulations and permit requirements certain levels of activities, including gathering and of the two different agencies, the USFS and the NPS. prescribed burning. This was another idea articulated The fact that a person, who happens to be the by Marie Dominguez Riley. In practice, the parks’ chairperson of a tribal council on the eastern slope of continuing Native American consultations would the Sierra Nevada (Fort Independence), asked a serve to gather specific information about the places general-information question about family camping in the parks where particular plants grow, about the spots, and their rules and fees, suggests that such ongoing traditional uses of such plants, and about any information about the parks could be more widely special ways the plants might be harvested or picked distributed. But there are no GMP or administrative to ensure their conservation and propagation. Access issues here concerning these two inquiries. to and use of park resources is discussed in Chapters 5, 6, and 8 of the NPS Management Policies (NPS The Paiute Tribe at Big Pine and the Wuksachi Tribe 2001b). at Sanger expressed a desire for more active participation in park interpretation programs. The American Indian desires to sell authentic, local and expressions were made by Dorothy Stewart and her regional Indian arts and crafts, such as bead work, son Richard Stewart for the Paiute and by Marie pottery, and basketry, were expressed on both sides Dominguez Riley for the Wuksachi. Pertinent of the Sierra Nevada. Mention was made by Marie questions were raised along with several examples of Dominguez Riley for the Sierra Foothills. The same how to better include the historic and contemporary interest was also brought up in discussion earlier in roles of Indian peoples into the parks’ interpretive the trip on the eastern slope for the Big Pine Paiute efforts. The questions dealt with interpreting “Whose people, by Dorothy and Richard Stewart, mother and history?” and “Whose culture?” son artists. This idea could be considered and encouraged administratively as it is not a GMP issue. An example of how the scope of interpretation could Guidance can be found in Chapter 10 of the NPS be broadened was offered by Marie Dominguez Riley Management Policies (NPS 2001b). in noting that her grandfather was very active in logging activities in the Converse Basin area adjacent

377 APPENDIXES to the Grant Grove area of Kings Canyon National implemented at Wuksachi village (a commercial, Park. Marie suggested that this story, and similar concession-run facility) in Sequoia National Park, as stories about the Indian presence in historic logging outlined by Marie Dominguez Riley, as the area is operations, could be added to existing interpretive part of the Wuksachi traditional territory. Further, it work. She noted, too, that ceremonial activities still was felt that the concession facility could lend itself occur in the nearby federal forest and park areas, to American Indian-led talks and craft demonstra­ such as the recent efforts to bring closure to the tions. Chapter 7 of the Management Policies outlines Ghost Dance of 1870 in the Eshom Valley, a historic appropriate mechanisms for such consultation and ceremony that had been disrupted by non-Indians in demonstration work (NPS 2001b). the late 1800s (Gayton 1930). The Eshom Valley of Eshom Creek is east of the village of Badger on the As an example of material for interpreting Indian use western side of the Sierra Nevada and west of the of trails through the high Sierra Nevada, Dorothy and boundary between Kings Canyon National Park and Richard Stewart told of one of their Paiute ancestors Sequoia National Park that is in the Redwood three generations ago who hiked through the moun­ Canyon area of Redwood Creek. tains as a young man as the most direct route between the two sides. He took a job in a more populous area In moving towards the idea of involving American on the west side and then returned home to the east Indians more directly in interpretive efforts, it was side the same way in the same manner some time noted that “higher ups” (those who make and affect later. This brief family story is indicative of the types decisions) should be involved in future meetings. It of oral history information still available and which was noted further that the NPS should make real could more fully inform interpretation efforts geared, efforts to find support monies to facilitate American especially, to the park visitor. Indian involvement, such as travel expenses and stipends for elders. Several members of the Big Pine Seeking and incorporating more American Indian Paiute Tribe voiced similar concerns with not only material and affording American Indians participa­ increasing the involvement of American Indians in tion in interpretation could be handled now through the parks’ interpretation efforts, but also they park administrative decisions. More active participa­ underscored that the parks’ efforts often miss the tion could entail (1) increased Indian input into the “living,” contemporary aspect of local cultures. An content of park interpretation programs through extension of the idea of more direct interpretive further Native American consultations and (2) the involvement was a desire to see a substantial effort to possibility of American Indians serving as interpre­ involve Indian youth in park educational programs. A tive guides. The parks could investigate various strong desire for “partnerships,” or opportunities to sources of funding to see if the latter were financially cooperate with the National Park Service, emerged, feasible. See Management Policies, chapter 7 (NPS especially from the Big Pine Paiute community. 2001b). Attendees from the Tule River Indian Tribe also noted an interest in tribal involvement in interpretation. RECOMMENDATIONS

The idea that many members of the general public are In the interest of maintaining and improving long- often surprised that American Indian groups are “still term relations it would clearly be beneficial to all here” and fully active in the modern world surfaced, concerned that the Native American consultations too. This occurred in the conversations at the North initiated by the parks continue. Contacts from the Fork Mono Rancheria and the Cold Springs Mono July 1999 trip are listed below for further commun ­ Rancheria. They are survivors on lands not too far ication. Several information-sharing meetings could from those they occupied at European contact. It was be scheduled by park staff throughout a given year noted at several of the meetings that the parks’ and held on both sides of the Sierra Nevada. interpretive program could be one way to raise the It is recommended that precise locations and species visibility of contemporary area Indian groups, types of traditional plant gathering areas in the parks perhaps by way of the parks’ maps and brochures. of the Wuksachi Tribe be investigated through further New opportunities need to be created, it was said, for Native American consultations with the tribe and American Indians to contribute to interpretive content Marie Dominguez, tribal chairperson. Such on Indian history and culture in the area and, if knowledge could contribute to possible alternative possible, to interact with visitors as paid interpretive zoning considerations in the ongoing GMP and guides. The latter could appropriately be should be reported to the GMP team. Over the long

378 Appendix D: Native American Consultations term, it is recommended that the parks continue to including the possibility of paid interpretive guides consult with the Wuksachi to learn more about through alternative ways of funding. Guidance in traditional plant areas and their uses. The Wuksachi these efforts can be found in the recently updated would like to share indigenous knowledge to improve Management Policies (NPS 2001b). park practices for plant sustainability. And the Wuksachi would like to receive the findings of any park research affecting the plant sustainability of NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION such areas. MEETINGS

It is recommended that precise locations, species The following persons were met and talked with in types, and the indigenous knowledge of traditional small groups or individually the week of July 11, plant gathering areas in the parks with, minimally, 1999. (Listed alphabetically by last name.) the Sierra Foothills Wuksachi Tribe be investigated through further consultations. Such knowledge could 1. Ann Marie Astills, Community Member, Paiute- contribute to possible alternative zoning considera­ Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community tions and management prescriptions in the ongoing of the Lone Pine Reservation, California GMP and should be reported to the GMP team. Additionally, the Sierra Foothills Wuksachi Tribe, in 2. Alan Bacock, Environmental Planner, Big Pine particular, would like to receive the findings of any Band of Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indians park research affecting the plant sustainability of of the Big Pine Reservation, California such areas. 3. Lonnie Bill, Environmental Coordinator, Cold Also with regard to the Sierra Foothills Wuksachi Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Tribe, it is recommended that the feasibility be considered of pursuing the re-construction of a 4. Pearl Symmes Budke, Community Member, Fort traditional Wuksachi village in Sequoia National Independence Indian Community of Paiute Park under one or more of the GMP alternatives. Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, Further Native American consultations with the California Sierra Foothills Wuksachi and other interested tribal groups would be appropriate to explore. 5. Irene Button, Treasurer, Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine It is recommended administratively that the NPS help Reservation, California interested American Indian tribes and groups arrange for and promote the sale of genuine Indian art and 6. Leslie Button, Community Member, Paiute- crafts, such as pottery, beadwork, basketry, Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community cradleboards, dreamcatchers, and the like in the parks of the Lone Pine Reservation, California that are made locally and regionally. Dorothy and Richard Stewart (Paiutes) and Marie Dominguez 7. Eugene Button, Community Member, Paiute- Riley (Wuksachi) are people to talk with on this Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community subject. of the Lone Pine Reservation, California

When pursuing traditional purposes, it is recom­ 8. Wiley Carpenter, Programs Manager, Environ­ mended administratively that the idea be adopted and mental Programs Office, Big Sandy Rancheria of promoted actively of not charging affiliated Indians Mono Indians of California the admission fee required of visitors to enter the parks. Expedited entry into the parks without fee for 9. Ken Cauwet, Development Manager (Non­ these neighboring affiliated Indians would be the goal Indian), Tule River Tribal Council, Tule River and would articulate well with current agency policy Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, (NPS 2001b). California By working with American Indian groups administra ­ 10. Kathlien Childers, Environmental Specialist tively, park interpretation and education programs (Non-Indian), Environmental Programs Office, could incorporate more information about the history Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of and culture of the parks’ Indian neighbors. It is California recommended that the parks explore ways to increase American Indian participation in interpretation,

379 APPENDIXES

11. Barbara Coleman, Tribal Council Member, 23. Vernon J. Miller, Community Member (Former North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of Tribal Chairperson), Fort Independence Indian California Community of Paiute Indians, Fort Independence Indian Reservation 12. Bruce Cotton, Community Member, Paiute- Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community 24. Matthew Morales, Graduate Student Intern of the Lone Pine Reservation, California (Non-Indian), Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley, Big Pine Indian Reservation 13. Connie DeSilva, Tribal Council Member, North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California 25. Neddeen Naylor, Community Member (Former Tribal Chairperson), Paiute-Shoshone Indians of 14. Frank J. Diaz, Co-Chair and Community the Lone Pine Community Member, respectively, Koso Native Graves Protection Association and Paiute-Shoshone 26. Jeanette Negrete, Community Member, Big Pine Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Band of Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indians Pine Reservation, California of the Big Pine Reservation, California

15. Marie Dominguez Riley, Chairperson, Sierra 27. Delores Roberts, Chairperson, North Fork Foothills Wuksachi Tribe Rancheria of the Mono Indians of California

16. Alec Garfield, Tribal Council Member, Tule 28. Ron Roberts, Tribal Council Member, North River Tribal Council, Tule River Indian Tribe of Fork Rancheria of the Mono Indians of the Tule River Reservation, California California

17. Terald Goodwin, Community Member (Former 29. Dorothy Stewart, Artist and Community Tribal Chairperson), Paiute-Shoshone Indians of Member, Big Pine Band of Owens Valley the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California Reservation, California

18. Janet Gutierrez, Vice Chairperson, Big Pine 30. Richard Stewart, Artist and Community Band of Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indians Member, Big Pine Band of Owens Valley of the Big Pine Reservation, California Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California 19. Michelle LeBeau, Esq., Attorney at Law and Community Member, Big Sandy Rancheria of 31. Wendy L. Stine, Chairperson, Fort Independence Mono Indians of California Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California 20. Virgil D. Lewis, Tribal Environmental Assistant, Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of 32. Michael D. Swift, Vice Chairperson, Fort California Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, 21. Alvin McDonald, Tribal Council Member, North California Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California 33. Juanita Williams, Tribal Council Member, North 22. Bill Michael, Director (Non-Indian), Eastern Fork Rancheria of the Mono Indians of California Museum of Inyo County California

380 Appendix E: Water and Wastewater Use

TABLE E-1: SUMMARY OF WATER USE AND ISSUES

Owner- Water Source / Annual Water Use in Facilities and Park Area ship Location Size Water Capacity 2000 (gallons) Distribution System Comment Kings Canyon National Park Cedar Grove Area Sheep Creek Public Sheep Creek Large 86,400 gpd 43,698 165,000 gal tank, No backup generator. During 84,000 gal backup power outages must be hand tank chlorinated. 27,000 ft distribution Main is good; galvanized steel pipe pipe laterals should be replaced with plastic. Need use meter between tank and distributi on vau lt. Valve boxes not secure (need concrete and vandal-resi stant lids). Need new manufactured intake screen. Line from intake to tank is CCC era spiral wound steel (need replacement soon). Sand filter backwash discharge needs holding tank and leachfield. Lewis Creek Private Connected to Small 11,250 2,000 gal concrete Same as above. Sheep Creek tank Copper Private Copper Creek Small 2,880 gpd 33,100 50 gal. tank Rebury PE line from waterhead Creek 300 lin. ft. of distri- (only 12″ deep) to prevent bution pipe damage from wildlife, sun, heat, and vandalism. Packer Dorm Private Kings River Small 14,000 gpd 127,400 Tank 2,300 gal All buried pipe is old and corroded. 2,500 distribution pipe Laterals between source and tank – so chlorine retention times at those faucets and sprinklers are too low, and Cl resi duals are too high. Electric controls for pump are at generator rather than pumphouse. Current system pulls surface water; a well is preferred. Grant Grove Area Grant Grove Public Round Meadow Large Total combined 8,608,000 1,200,000 gal. storage Drought plan developed that relies artesian well water capacity reservoir near Rona heavily on storage reservoirs that near Panoramic from four sources and Merritt springs; must also retain a 200,000- Point road is 22.1 to 65 another storage gallon fire reserve. The storage Rona Springs gpm. Normal reservoir capacity cou ld be depleted in 55 Merritt Springs production is 15,000 lin. ft. asbestos days. Conservation measures 400′ well 108,000 gpd; cement lines and have been taken; active measures drought pro­ thousands of feet of could include closure of public duction 31,824 steel and cast iron showers and laundry facilities to gpd. Demand piping. add 33 days. projected to be 400′ well likely to have water drop 53,650 gpd. by as much as 70% to 9.6 gpm Round Meadow Aggressive nature of water dissolves well capacity 7.5– copper from pipes into water. 25 gpm. Groundwater contamination from Rona and Merritt Wilsonia septic systems. springs combined Remaining 15,000’ lin. ft. of capacity 5–8 asbestos-cement lined water gpm. mains need to be repl aced; 5,000 Well capacity 32 lin. ft. just replaced. gpm during wet Lines located i n sensitive areas weather. Root intrusions into water lines increase line failures. Wilsonia Private 11+ wells 8+ water storage tanks No information about Masonic tract Sequoia National Park Dorst to Giant Forest Area Lost Grove Public Spring fed 2,200 gal tank Nonpotable. 1,200 lin. ft. of pipeline

381 APPENDIXES

Owner- Water Source / Annual Water Use in Facilities and Park Area ship Location Size Water Capacity 2000 (gallons) Distribution System Comment Cabin Creek Public Cabin Creek 1,000 gal tank New waterline needed to filter 1,500 lin. ft. of pipeline building. New filtration needed. Dorst Public Turkey Creek Medium 13 gpm 647,275 50,000 gal tank 15% of distribution line needs to be 10,625 lin. ft. of replaced pipeline Wuksachi / Water tank Supplied by Wolverton Red Fir Lodgepole Public Surface water Large 28,951,040 Storage reservoir Drought plan able to keep up with Silliman Creek (combined Lodgepole Chlorination facilities demands in recent drought years. and Wolverton use) Multi-media filtration Waterhead intake damaged; system sandbox leaks. 26,000′ distribution Distribution lines 40 years old and lines damaged by roots and rock movement. Being replaced in campground area the past 3 years. Current work in tent area only. Wolverton Public Wolverton Creek Large Capable of (see above) Four major storage System serves Wolverton, producing reservoirs (see Wuksachi, Giant Forest / 129,000 gpd Pinewood, Wuksachi), Pinewood. Chlorination facilities Low flows to waterhead at drought Slow sand filtration times. Careful monitoring needed plant to meet demand. 140,000 lin. ft. of Distribution lines in Giant Forest pipelines are 60+ years old, some in sensitive natural areas that could cause major damage if need to be repaired. Pinewood Two 50,000 gal. tanks Supplied by Wolverton. Tanks need to be relined. Bearpaw Spring Small 81,810 5,000 gal tank Nonpotable. (Backcountry) 2,680 lin. ft. of pipe Deteriorating walls in waterhead collection basin, which needs to be enlarged. Pipe to ranger station needs to be rehabbed, and PVC waterline to campground needs to be replaced and buried. Crescent Public Creek Medium 382,778 5,000 gal tank Needs new filtration system, new Meadow 13,200 lin. ft. pipe storage reservoir for adequate chlorine contact time. Waterhead dam area needs the dam raised to allow for better supply of water. Pipeline has multiple areas with repairs from failures. Section to Moro Rock comfort station needs to be replaced. Crystal Public Creek fed Medium 230,048 10,000 gal tank Needs new filtration system to Parking lot 2,200 lin. ft. of pipeline replace outdated 3M bag filters. Low flows to waterhead in drought times Careful monitoring to meet demand and keep turbidities in compliance. Water system off line at Cave. Foothills Area Buckeye Public New well Medium 60 gpm 238,833 5,000 gal tank 2,532 lin. ft. of pipeline Hospital Rock Public New well Medium 12 gpm 313,170 10,000 gal tank stor­ replaced spring age reservoir, chlorinator 1,000 lin. ft. of pipelines Potwisha Public Well Medium 679,995 20,000 gal tank. New distribution lines constructed Storage reservoir, in 2001. chlorinator 1,800 lin. ft. of pipelines Ash Mountain Public Spring / surface Large New multi-media 10,213 Storage reservoir, Drought plan developed water filtration system (presumably total for chlorination facilities Waterhead requires extensive improved water all areas) 25,500 lin. ft. of maintenance because dam quality pipelines removed 100,000 gal. storage tank leaks

382 Appendix E: Water and Wastewater Use

Owner Water Source / Annual Water Use in Facilities and Park Area ship Location Size Water Capacity 2000 (gallons) Distribution System Comment and has areas of weakness For distribution system, additional 2,500 lin. ft. need to be replaced Mineral King Area Atwell Mill Public Creek Small 7,200 gpd 18,590 1,000 gal tank Cold Spring Private Spring Small 26,000 gpd 46,614 5,000 gal tank Permit Cabins Private Various: Spring at Mineral Creek (5), King unnamed creek (1) Deadwood Creek (1), West Mineral King water system (29), Monarch Creek (6), CC creek (1), private springs (4) Crystal spring (1), pipe in creek of East Mineral King water system (1) Silver City Private Creek Small 5,700 gpd 18,590 3,000 gal tank

TABLE E-2: SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER AND SEWER FACILITIES

Design Capacity (gallons per day) and Facilities usage Comment Kings Canyon National Park Cedar Grove Area (3,268,980 gallons of effluent in 2000); no other information provided. Sheep Creek Wastewater treatment plant 55,000 gpd Compliance varies Lewis Creek Septic system 750 gpd Copper Creek Vault toilet NA Packer Dorm Septic system 750 gpd Grant Grove Area (5,664,618 gallons of effluent in 2000) Grant Grove Collection system. 85,000 gpd with 213 lbs/day biological Performing as desi gned to satisfaction of Regional 3 lift stations (Sunset, Pine Camp, Swale oxygen demand (BOD) Water Quality Control Board. work center) Summer demand is 53,650 with 134 6-8″ cast-i ron pipe system around 50 years old. Tertiary wastewater treatment plant. lbs/day of BOD. Sliplined in 1990s. 30 manholes repaired and Winter capacity is 42,000 gpd. 1999 flows grouted. Root intrusion into manholes plagues winter were 11,892, wi th proposed increases of operations. 12, 250 gpd for a total winter demand of Pine camp lift station expansion needed. 24,442 gpd. Future compliance with water quality objectives in 1995 Tulare Lake Basi n Waste D i scharge Requirements for Grant Grove will be adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Current design is unlikely to meet standards; significant modifications will need to be budgeted and completed. It is controversial for the Visalia wastewater treatment plant to accept NPS biosolids / sl udge. An alternate disposal arrangement should be researched. Wilsonia Approximately 235 septic systems Undocumented Serious water quality concerns Sequoia National Park Lodgepole District (Dorst to Giant Forest) (8,833,227 gallons of effluent in 2000) Lost Grove Septic tank 3,000 gal Cabin Creek Septic tank 3,000 gal Dorst Septic tanks 14 3,000 gal tanks; four leachfields Dump station rehabbed in 1999. 2000 gal tank; leachfield rehabbed in Pumped annually by outside contractor with park 1999. funds. Halstead Meadow Vault toilet Cleaned and pumped every two years. Sewage goes to Cover Creek pl ant. Red Fir Sprayfields for Clover Creek plant New sprayfield, many areas with defective valves and lateral line due to inferi or construction. Repairs made in 2001. 8 of 17 leachfield control valves must be replaced. Old sprayfields, repai rs to ma i n line, risers, and sprinkler heads being replaced. Wuksachi Village Collection system 20,000 lin. ft. of line connects to Cl over Creek plant. Clover Creek Activated sludge extended aeration plant. 180,000 gpd capacity Summer sludge dryi ng beds. W i nter s l udge Treatment Plant at Actual demand is 70,000 gpd in summer accumulated in digesters. Wuksachi and 20,000 gpd in winter. Clear effl uent to leachfields or sprayfields

383 APPENDIXES

Design Capacity (gallons per day) and Facilities usage Comment Dried sludge sent to City of Visalia WWTP. Winter flows have increased with addition of new concession facilities. Overhaul of headworks needed to improve operational efficiency. Winter use basins will eventually need enclosed roofs. Lodgepole Collection system. Cleaned and pumped every two years. 5,200 lin. ft. of line. Collection system slip lined in 2 lift stations Sewage goes to Cover Creek plant. 1990s. Problem with runoff infiltration in the spring. Vault toilet in picnic area 3,000 gal septic tank. Smaller booster station with larger station that pumps RV dump station New leachfield installed in 1987. sewage 6,000 lin. ft. to Clover Creek plant. Pumped twice annually by contractor with park funds. No charge for use. Wolverton Leachfield for corral NPS area has pit toilets. Picnic area? Wolverton / Sherman Ten-stall vault proposed (6 women / 4 3,000 gal septic tank Shuttle area men) Sherman Tree Current septic 3,000 gal septic /leachfield Sewage is being removed by pumper truck daily and Four-stall vault toilet proposed transported to Clover Creek plant for processing. System to be abandoned when new vault comes on line. Vault uses evaporative process to reduce liquids. Pinewood – supplied Sewered toilet with septic tank and 2001 installation by Wolverton leachfield Bearpaw – Septic system 3,000 gal septic Pumped and cleaned in 1992 Backcountry Giant Forest Septic tank / leachfield for Museum area New tank / leachfield installed in 1999. 4 facilities Two-stall vault proposed for Round (museum, residence 55, museum and lower Kaweah Meadow comfort stations) in museum area connected to system Crescent Meadow Existing – septic tank / leachfields at 3,000 gal septic tank each Moro Rock leachfield rehabbed in 1997. Winter Crescent Meadow / Moro Rock season vault toilet at Moro Rock. Vault proposed for Moro Rock / Crescent Meadow Crystal Cave Cave system 5,000 gal septic tank w/spray disposal Cave system leachfield is not in compliance and no Parking lot? (parking lot) longer in use. Foothills Area Buckeye Campground Septic tank 2,500 gal septic tank Low flush toilets cause sewage flow problems in pipes going to septic tank. Hospital Rock Septic tank 2,500 gal Potwisha Upper comfort station / septic tank 2,500 gal tank Low flush toilets cause sewage flow problems in pipes Lower comfort station / septic tank 3,000 gal tank going to septic tank for both comfort stations. RV dump station septic tank 4,000 gal tank Dump station pumped out twice annually by contractor with park funds. No charge to visitors. Ash Mountain 11,200’ collection lines 17,000 gpd inflow rating. Collection lines sliplined in 1996/97. Treatment Plant 2 lift stations (1,634,300 gal. of effluent in 2000) Sludge pumped by local company and truck to Visalia Activated sludge plant wastewater treatment plant. 2 polishing ponds California state standards variance for sprayfield must Effluent sprayfield & backup be obtained for wet and rainy seasons; new standards may require change in practices. Pumping now must occur 4-5 times annually due to increasing sewage, creating budget concern. Buckeye Housing Area 2,700′ lines Rated at 3,600 gpd Aging system. Sludge pumped by local company and Activated sludge treatment plant. (309,800 gallons of effluent in 2000) truck to Visalia wastewater treatment plan. Polishing pond Changing California standards mean effluent may Sprayfield soon require leachfields with sprayfields only for summer use. Backup location must be found. Pumping now must occur four times annually (rather than twice) due to changes in housing policy, resulting in process upsets and budget impacts. North Fork No facilities NA South Fork Vault toilet 1,000 gal septic tank for camp host Mineral King Area Mineral King Ranger station and campground Septic tank – 750 gal @ 50 gpd Campground vault toilets pumped when needed Permit Cabins at Information received from 48 cabins. Individual leachfields (200-1,000 SF) and Sizes of septic systems vary and are often unknown. Mineral King septic systems (50-1,500 gal) Some septic tanks have been pumped out regularly and recently, others not. While most graywater from cabin sinks also goes to septic tanks, there are 9 cabins where graywater goes directly onto vegetation or ground surface and 8 cabins putting graywater into sumps or subsurface drain pits. Silver City 4 government housing 1,250 gal septic tank @ 50 gpd New leachfield Oct 2000.

384 Appendix F: Choosing by Advantages

CHOOSING THE PREFERRED 9A. Operations ALTERNATIVE 9B.Stock / helicopter use The National Park Service used a decision-making 10. Effective use of housing. process called Choosing by Advantages (CBA) to help make early, value-based decisions and to devel­ 11. Effective use of concessioner. op a preferred alternative for the Sequoia and Kings Provide Cost-Effective, Environmentally Canyon general management plan. This value engi­ Responsible, and Otherwise Beneficial neering process is used to improve value or make Development for the National Park Service selections in many types of construction and planning projects. Congress mandated a decision-making 12. Relationship to Native American and tribal system so that logical decisions could be made and groups and organizations. tracked, taking into account both cost-effectiveness 13. Relationship to private land inside park and the NPS mission. boundaries (inholdings). The CBA process was customized to meet the high 14. Utility use of public land. level of complexity of this general management plan. Two workshops with park staff took place in October 15. Non-profit use of public land. 2001. At the first workshop, held October 2–4, 2001, 16. Private use of public land. the decision factors and variables within those decision factors were developed. Decision factors are 17. Relationship to regional land use patterns. areas where there are differences in alternatives, 18. Relationship to adjacent/local public land actions that are common to all alternatives (e.g., agencies. congressionally mandated programs for protecting natural or cultural resources) are not considered in 19. Socioeconomic influence. the CBA process because there would be no Park staff then scrutinized each alternative to difference between the alternatives. Workshop describe broadly how each variable was addressed participants identified 19 factors, as listed below. : and to summarize the differences at the second CBA workshop, held October 22–26, 2001. At this Protect Cultural and Natural Resources workshop the alternatives were assessed and ranked 1. Protect natural resources — Prevent loss, and according to the decision factors, and then a preferred maintain and improve conditions. alternative was developed. Attributes for each deci­ sion factor/variable were listed, and then the set of 2. Preserve cultural resources — Prevent loss, attributes that was the least preferred for each factor and maintain and improve conditions. was identified. For each factor, all other alternatives Provide for Visitor Enjoyment were described by their advantages relative to that least preferred set of attributes. A pre-agreed com­ 3. Provide visitor services. mon terminology scale for comparing advantages 4. Provide educational opportunities. was used. The most advantageous sets of attributes could be identified for each factor. Comparing the 5. Provide wilderness and backcountry importance of most advantageous sets of attributes experiences. for all factors, a paramount advantage was chosen 6. Provide traditional recreational experiences. and assigned a numeric value of 1000. That paramount advantage was for factor 4 — the ability 7. Provide new or non-traditional recreational of the alternative to provide all kinds of educational experiences. opportunities: 8. Provide stock experience opportunities. • orientation to park and recreational Improve Efficiency of Park Operations opportunities 9. Improve operational efficiency and • access to programs and activities (ranger sustainability. programs, guided and self-guided activities,

385 APPENDIXES

park newspaper, publications, waysides, COST ESTIMATES, LIFE-CYCLE COSTS, exhibits) AND FUNDING

• educational / orientation outreach beyond park Class C (early conceptual) initial cost estimates were boundaries (traveling programs, Internet sites) then applied to alternatives A, B, C, and D (see Table • appropriate visitor-oriented facilities (visitor F-2). These costs were for comparative purposes centers, ranger contact stations, museums, only, and since class C costs are well in advance of education / nature centers, trail centers, most projects, these numbers should not be used for wilderness contact stations, orientation kiosks) construction cost estimating or budgeting. Life-cycle cost estimates were also developed for SCORING each alternative. Life-cycle costing is the develop­ ment of all the significant costs of ownership of an Compared to that paramount advantage other nu­ item, system, or facility, over a specified length of meric values were assigned first to the most advan­ time. Economic analysis is used to put out-year tageous set of attributes for every factor, and then for expenditures on a common basis. For the purposes of other sets of alternative attributes for that same this general management plan, life-cycle costs only factor. Least preferred sets of attributes had no focused on areas where there was a significant advantages and therefore received no points. All difference in operating or staffing the park between relative importance numeric values were reconsid ­ plan alternatives. ered to see if anything had been overlooked. Then the numeric value of advantages for each alternative was Expenditures of over $104 million are common to added, and the most advantageous alternative every alternative and include common actions that identified — alternative D, with 6,325 advantage are already planned and funded, including over $57 points (see Table F-1). million of concession commitments, $22.9 million through the line-item construction program, and over $26 million in the Federal Lands Highway Program. Other actions in the plan would be financed through

TABLE F-1: SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES FOR THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Alternative B (No-Action Preferred Factor Alternative A Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D Alternative 1. Natural Resource Protection 100 325 0 50 200 2. Cultural Resource Preservation 200 0 400 300 300 3. Visitor Services 100 0 350 450 400 4. Educational Opportunities 0 200 600 1000 950 5. Wilderness /Backcountry Experiences 0 100 400 450 550 6. Traditional recreational Experiences 200 0 950 550 800 7. New or Non-traditional Recreational 400 0 100 800 600 Experiences 8. Recreational Stock Use 75 0 250 150 350 9a. Park Operations 100 0 500 500 500 9b. Administrative Stock / Helicopter Use 300 0 250 250 275 10. Housing 250 0 300 300 350 11. Concessions NSA 12. Native American Relationships 0 0 50 150 125 13. Private Land Use inside Park 200 100 0 400 400 Boundaries (Inholdings) 14. Utility Use (Hydroelectric Facilities) 0 100 0 0 100 15. Non-profit Use of Public Land 10 0 10 25 25 16. Private Use of Public Land 300 450 0 550 550 17. Relationships to Regional Land Use 100 0 100 250 250 Patterns 18. Relationships to Adjacent / Local 100 0 150 100 200 Public Land Agencies 19. Socioeconomic Influence 10 0 10 50 75 Total Advantage 2,445 1,275 4,420 6,325 7,000

386 Appendix F: Choosing by Advantages

TABLE F-2: SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES, INITIAL CLASS C COSTS, AND LIFE-CYCLE COSTS

Alternative B (No-Action Alternative A Alternative ) Alternative C Alternative D Preferred Alternative Advantage Total Points 1,275 2,445 4,420 6,325 7,000 LIC funded ( common to all) $22,914,000 $22,914,000 $22,914,000 $22,914,000 $22,914,000 FLHP funded (common to al l) $26,652,000 $26,652,000 $26,652,000 $26,652,000 $26,652,000 Concession commitment $57,000,000 $57,000,000 $57,000,000 $57,000,000 $57,000,000 (common to all) Total already funded / committed $104,566,000 $104,566,000 $104,566,000 $104,566,000 $104,566,000 Initial Total Cost $175,504,000 $125,000,000 $159,465,000 $250,600,000 $144,000,000 Not yet funded $70,938,000 $21,434,000 $54,899,000 $146,034,000 $39,434,000 Life-Cycle Cost $287,000,000 $288,700,000 $341,700,000 $449,200,000 $326,600,000

transportation programs, the fee demonstration of replacing visitor centers, existing visitor centers program, concessioners, or donated funds. would be expanded and exhibits replaced. The resulting preferred alternative reduced cost by over The difference in costs of alternatives relates to those $110 million and increased advantages by 675 points proposals that have not yet been funded and the life- (see Table F-1). cycle costs for the alternatives. Not-yet-funded costs ranged from a high of $146 million for alternative D, to a low of $21 million for the no-action alternative, PARTICIPANT LIST with the preferred alternative having a not-yet funded cost of $39 million. The preferred alternative would NATIONAL PARK SERVICE increase the advantages of alternative D while Washington Office reducing the not-yet-funded costs by around $107 Rich Turk – Value Analysis / CBA facilitator million. Nat Kuykendall – Planning / Special Projects Life-cycle costs include the common costs. While Pacific West Regional Office alternative D had the greatest number of advantage Patty Neubacher – Associate Regional Director, points (6,325), the initial and life-cycle cost were also Administration ** very high — almost $250.6 million in initial costs, and life-cycle costs in excess of $449 million for the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks next 25 years. In contrast the lowest life-cycle cost Dick Martin – Superintendent* alternative was alternative A, with just over $126 David Graber – Senior Scientist / GMP Coordinator million in initial costs, and a life-cycle cost of $287 million. The preferred alternative had initial costs of Division Chiefs $144 million and a life-cycle cost of $326 million. John Austin – Natural Resources, Acting** Debbie Bird – Ranger ** Bob Griego – Administration** THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Scott Ruesch – Maintenance** Bill Tweed – Interpretation The preferred alternative was then crafted in order to maintain or increase advantages while reducing costs. Other Park Staff Every factor, attribute, and advantages was reexam­ Thomas Burge – Interpretation / Cultural ined. Alternative D served as the base for the Resources* preferred alternative, advantages were added to it, Malinee Crapsey – Interpretation* and some actions that that did not bring advantages Jill Edlund – Administration** were removed (for example, the 1700-car parking Annie Esperanza – Science** garage at a cost of $48 million, and a $20, million Gregg Fauth – Wilderness Coordinator Grant Grove bypass road) because an analysis Pat Grediagin – Fire and Visitor Management / indicated they were not needed. Additionally, instead Sequoia* ______* Participated only in advanced planning / CBA training to define decision factors. ** Participated only in second CBA session ranking alternatives and developing the preferred.

387 APPENDIXES

Jeff Manley – Natural Resources* Susan Spain – GMP Team Leader Paul Schwarz – Maintenance Harlan Unrau – Cultural Resource Specialist** Kinsey Shilling – Fire and Visitor Management / Elaine Rideout – Natural Resource Specialist** Kings Canyon* Peggy Williams – Planning / Concessions CONSULTANTS Denver Service Center Nate Larson, URS Corporation – Transportation Ray Todd – Project Manager** Planning**

388 Glossary accessibility — Buildings, facilities, and programs marina operations, and activities such as guiding, are required to be made accessible to people with outfitting, interpretation, and touring. Commercial disabilities. Legislation that provides for this includes: services can originate within the park or outside. the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Rehabili­ tation Act of 1973, 1984 Uniform Federal Accessi­ de minimis — In the context of the Clean Air Act’s bility Standards (UFAS), and the Americans with general conformity requirements, de minimis levels Disabilities Act of 1990. are annual quantities of air pollutant emissions below which a federal action in a non-attainment or main ­ anthropogenic — Caused by or attributed to tenance area is presumed to conform to a state’s humans. implementation plan without undergoing more rigorous air quality analysis or modeling. ADT — Average daily traffic. The average number of vehicles that use a roadway during one day. Conformity de minimis levels are levels of emissions below which a federal action in a non-attainment or backcountry — More remote, roadless, and less maintenance area is presumed to conform to a state’s intensely used park areas where the majority of use is implementation plan and would not require further by overnight campers who hike or ride stock. Back­ review. Actions in attainment areas are presumed to country includes federally designated wilderness. conform and do not require analysis with respect to de minimis levels. Emission values representing the backcountry / wilderness management plan — An Clean Air Act conformity de minimis levels are implementation plan that would detail how the shown in the table at the bottom of the page: visions in the general management plan would be carried out in backcountry and wilderness areas. DO #2 — Director’s Order #2: Park Planning. Establishes a tiered planning approach for preparing carrying capacity — The upper limit of human use general management plans for national park system and desired visitor experiences while maintaining units. Park purpose and significance statements guide desired resource conditions without degradation. the general management plan, which sets the vision Management prescriptions in the general manage­ for what the park should be. The general ment plan conceptually describe the desired social management plan in turn gives broad direction and experiences or carrying capacity for each zone. goals for more detailed implementation plans. commercial service — Any visitor-related service, DO #12 — Director’s Order #12: Conservation activity, or facility for which compensation, Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and monetary or otherwise, is exchanged. By law, all Decision-making. Provides guidance for the National commercial services in parks must be authorized by Park Service in implementing the regulations of the the superintendent. These would include, but not be Council on Environmental Quality for the National limited to, lodging, food and beverage, gift sales, Environmental Policy Act. convenience item and supply sales, firewood sales,

Conformity de minimis Levels

Non-Attainment Area (NAA) Tons/year Maintenance Areas Tons/year

Ozone (VOCs or NOx): Ozone (NOx), SO2 or NO2: All maintenance areas 100 Serious NAA's 50 Ozone (VOCs): Severe NAA's 25 Maintenance areas inside an ozone transport region 50 Extreme NAA's 10 Maintenance areas outside an ozone transport region 100 Other ozone NAA's outside an ozone transport region 100 Carbon monoxide: All maintenance areas 100

Marginal and moderate NAA's inside an ozone PM10: All maintenance areas 100 transport region: Pb: All maintenance areas 25 VOC 50

NOx 100 Carbon monoxide: All NAA's 100

SO2 or NO2: All NAA's 100

PM10: Moderate NAA's 100 Serious NAA's 70 Pb: All NAA’s 25 SOURCE: 40 CFR Chapter 1, sec. 51.853 Applicability.

389 GLOSSARY draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) — measured drawings, written histories, and large- A document that describes and assesses the impacts format photography, which have been made publicly of proposed alternative actions and is available for available through the Library of Congress. public comment for a minimum of 60 days. Growing out of HABS, the Historic American effect — The result of actions on natural and cultural Engineering Record was established on January 10, resources, aesthetics, economic, social or human 1969, by the National Park Service, the Library of health and safety. Effects can be direct, indirect, or Congress, and the American Society of Civil Engi­ cumulative. Used interchangeably with “impact.” neers to identify and record sites, structures, and objects significant in the history and development of enabling legislation — The legislation that estab ­ engineering and industry in the United States. With a lishes national parks and that can be modified by similar documentation process of measured and subsequent legislation. Enabling legislation often interpretive drawings, written histories, and large- describes the park purpose — the special attributes format photography, HAER has documented, and that caused the areas to be set aside with the mandate made publicly available through the Library of to protect these resources in an unimpaired condition Congress, information on more than 7,500 for future generations. engineering and industrial sites and processes. endemism — The relative abundance of endemic In October 2000 the National Park Service, the species found within a geographic area or region. Library of Congress, and the American Society of High endemism indicates that there are many native Landscape Architects established the Historic species found only in that area or region. Low American Landscapes Survey for the systematic endemism indicates that most species found in that documentation of these landscapes. The intent of the area are also found in other places. new HALS program is to document significant final environmental impact statement (FEIS) — historic landscapes throughout the country via The document that responds to public comments on measured drawings, large-format photography, the draft environmental impact statement and may written narrative, and other documentation tech ­ include corrections and revisions as a result of public niques. HALS will document the dynamics of comment. landscapes not already seen in the existing HABS/HAER program models. fire management plan — An implementation plan that details how the natural fire regimes and hydrophytic — Vegetation that is adapted for prescribed fires will be managed in the parks. development, growth, and reproduction in wet soils. frontcountry — Areas that are easily accessible to impact — See effect. visitors (as opposed to backcountry) and that are more highly used, often by single-day visitors to the impact topic — A specific category of analysis for parks. The frontcountry contains developed park impacts, such as wildlife, vegetation, or historic areas and is generally along or accessed by structures. Impact topics are identified through public transportation corridors. scoping and a determination of what aspects of the human environment would be affected if an action general management plan — A legislatively was implemented. An analysis of impacts for a required plan that usually guides park management specific topic may be required as a result of a public for 15–20 years. It is accompanied by a draft and law (Endangered Species Act) or an executive order final environmental impact statement. (e.g., wetlands, floodplains).

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), implementation plan — A plan that tiers off the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), general management plan and that specified how one Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) — of more of the desired resource conditions, visitor On July 23, 1934, the National Park Service, the experiences, or proposed actions will be accom­ Library of Congress, and the American Institute of plished. Implementation plans can be specific Architects established the Historic American resource protection plans or construction documents. Buildings Survey to administer a long-range plan to comprehensively document historic American incidental business permit (IBP) — A type of architecture. Since its establishment, more than commercial service. An incidental business begins 28,000 structures have been documented through and ends outside a park, as do all transactions and

390 Glossary advertising associated with the service. The service is management prescription — A term that describes authorized by a permit and may not exceed a two- desired resource conditions and visitor experiences in year term. No land or facilities are assigned to the a particular area that will be achieved by implement­ permit holder, who has no exclusive rights to use ing the general management plan. Typically there park facilities. All permits contain conditions that can will be numerous management prescriptions that limit use both spatially and temporally for the apply to different types of areas, that prescribe protection of resources and the enhancement of the different resource conditions, and that foster various visitor experience. Incidental business permits are visitor experiences. soon to be converted to commercial use authori­ zations (CUAs) per Public Law 105-391. management zone — The geographic location for implementing a management prescription. inholding — Privately owned land that is inside the boundary of the parks. mitigation — Measures that are taken to reduce the intensity of an adverse impact. Examples include karst — A type of topography characterized by alternative actions that would avoid the impact, that caves, sinkholes, disappearing streams, and would minimize the impact by limiting the magnitude underground drainage. Karst forms when of the action, that would rectify the impact by groundwater dissolves pockets of limestone, repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring a resource, that dolomite, or gypsum in bedrock. would reduce impacts through preservation or maintenance; or that would compensate for the lentic — A nonflowing or standing body of fresh impact through replacement or substitution (e.g., water, such as a lake or pond. creating a wetland environment at another location). level of service (LOS) — A transportation term that National Register of Historic Places — The federal describes how well a road functions. LOS A is the listing of nationally, regionally, or locally significant best, with free-flowing traffic, and LOS F is the properties, sites, or landscapes. Sites listed on the worst, with the roadway at capacity, resulting in stop- national register listing must be considered when and-go traffic, long lines. making management decisions if an action could affect that site. Parks are to assess properties over 50 lotic — A flowing body of fresh water, such as a year old to determine their eligibility for nomination river or stream. to the national register. maintenance area — A geographic region that at Native American consultation — Various laws, some time in the past was designated as a non- policies, and executive orders require consultation attainment area but has been redesignated through a with indigenous peoples who may have traditional or formal rule-making process as being in attainment contemporary interests in the lands now occupied by with the national ambient air quality standards. parks. This compliance activity is considered Maintenance areas continue to be monitored more government-to-government consultation. There are rigorously than attainment areas and to be subject to 13 named tribes or groups with traditional or controls to keep it in attainment with the national contemporary interests in Sequoia / Kings Canyon standards. National Parks. national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 — Concentrations of criteria pollutants in ambient air (NEPA) — This public law requires federal agencies (outdoor air to which the public may be exposed) to look at alternatives for proposed major federal below which it is safe for humans or other receptors actions and to fully analyze the impacts of those to be permanently exposed. The Clean Air Act estab­ alternatives on the human environment before a lishes two types of national air quality standards. decision is made. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) — A measure such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. of turbidity or cloudiness in a water sample. Secondary standards set limits to protect public Suspended materials in water (e.g., plankton, sewage, welfare, including protection against decreased silt, clay) scatter and absorb light passing through it. visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and The amount of light scattered is determined by a buildings. photocell, which is then converted to an NTU measurement.

391 GLOSSARY oligotrophic — A water body characterized by a low mandated, or involves a right or privilege. A right supply of plant nutrients. is based on property ownership, legislative or treaty entitlement, or Constitutional guarantee. paleoecological — The study of ancient or Where none of these factors is present, the use is prehistoric ecosystems. a privilege over which the superintendent may exercise varying degrees of discretion and peak season — High-use times from Memorial Day control. Generally speaking, citizens must be to Labor Day, when most park visitation occurs. afforded the opportunity to exercise their rights; however, a superintendent may establish permit programmatic accessibility — Section 504 of the conditions to protect park visitors, park resources Rehabilitation Act of 1973 expands access for people and values. When considering a privilege, the superintendent has the additional task of deter­ with disabilities. “No otherwise qualified individual mining whether the activity will be allowed. . . . shall be excluded from or be denied the benefits of . . . any program or activity.” Programs could special use permit — Instrument issued by a include activities, educational programs, and superintendent to an individual or organization to interpretive exhibits. allow the use of NPS-administered resources or to authorize activities in 36 CFR Parts 1–7 that require a public involvement — Public input sought in permit. planning for public lands and required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Comment is special use permit cabins — Privately owned cabins sought at the initial scoping and at the DEIS stages. permitted by PL 95-625, sec. 314, to be on federal Substantive comment on the DEIS must be responded land in the Mineral King area of Sequoia National to in the FEIS. Park for a set period of time (from 1978 until the death of the permittee of record in 1978). The cabins record of decision (ROD) — The document that were originally allowed to be on public land under a states which alternative analyzed in an environmental United States Forest Service program, which has impact statement has been selected for implemen­ since been discontinued. tation and explains the basis for the decision. The decision is published in the Federal Register. stock — Animals such as horses, mules, or llamas that can be ridden or used to carry supplies. section 106 compliance — Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 mandates tiered planning — An approach to planning that that federal agencies take into account the effects of progresses from conceptual plans to site-specific their actions on properties listed or eligible for listing action plans. For the National Park Service, the on the National Register of Historic Place. The general management plan sets the broad vision for Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is to be what the parks should be, and other layers of given opportunity to comment on proposed actions. implementation planning provide the details of how to accomplish the vision. special park uses — As defined by Director’s Order #53: Special Park Uses, a special park use is a short- vision — A broad philosophical statement that term activity that takes place in a park area and: describes what the parks should be with regard to • provides a benefit to an individual, group or future resource conditions and human experiences. organization, rather than the public at large; • requires written authorization and some degree VMT — Vehicle miles traveled. Measure used to of management control from the NPS in order to compute automobile emissions. protect park resources and the public interest; • is not prohibited by law or regulation; and wilderness — An area set aside by Congress as part • is neither initiated, sponsored, nor conducted by of the wilderness preservation system. The intent is to the NPS.” protect lands in their primitive condition with little impact by man. These are unroaded areas where no special park uses: right or privilege — Section 3.3 development is permitted, and certain uses, such as of Director’s Order #53 defines right or privilege: wheeled vehicles are prohibited. A superintendent must determine whether a xeric — Characterized by dry conditions. request for a special park use is prohibited or

392 Selected Bibliography

Bibliographic abbreviations used in the text: 1994 “Paleohistory of a Giant Sequoia Grove: The BLM Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Record from Log Meadow, Sequoia National Department of the Interior Park.” In Proceedings of the Symposium on Caltrans California Department of Giant Sequoias: Their Place in the Eco Transportation system and Society, P. S. Aune (tech. coord.), NPS National Park Service, U.S. Department 49–55. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. of the Interior Rep. PSW-151. USFS U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Anderson, R. S., and S. J. Smith Agriculture 1991 “Paleoecology within California’s Sierra USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada National Parks: An Overview of the U.S. Department of the Interior Past and Prospectus for the Future.” In Abell, D. L. Proceedings of the Yosemite Centennial 1977 “A Survey of Macroscopic Invertebrates of Symposium, Pages 329–37. El Portal, CA: Sequoia Streams.” Unpublished report for Yosemite Association. Sequoia Natural History Association, Three 1994 “Paleoclimatic Interpretations of Meadow Rivers, CA. Sediment and Pollen Stratigraphies from 1984 “Invertebrate Studies.” In “A Study to California.” Geology 22:723–26. Facilitate the Impacts of Kaweah No. 3 1997 “Sedimentary Record of Fire in Montane Hydroelectric Facility on the Resources of Meadows, Sierra Nevada, California, USA: Sequoia National Park,” 67–96. On file at A Preliminary Assessment.” In Sediment Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Records of Biomass Burning and Global Rivers, CA. Change, edited by J. S. Clark, H. Cachier, J. Agee, J. K., R. H. Wakimoto, and H. H. Biswell G. Goldammer, and B. Stocks, 313–27. 1978 “Fire and Fuel Dynamics of Sierra Nevada NATO ASI Series, vol. I51. Berlin: Springer- Conifers.” Forest Ecology and Management Verlag. 1:255–65. Baumhoff, Martin A. Anderson, Kat 1978 “Environmental Background.” In California, 1993 “Native Californians as Ancient and edited by Robert F. Heizer, 16–24. Vol. 8 in Contemporary Cultivators.” In Before the Handbook of North American Indians, edited Wilderness: Environmental Management by by William C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Native Californians, compiled and edited by Smithsonian Institution. Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson, Benedict, N. B., and J. Major 151–74. Revised; first presented Oct. 18, 1982 “A Physiographic Classification of Subalpine 1991, at the Seventh Annual California Meadows of the Sierra Nevada, California.” Indian Conference, Sonoma State University. Madrono 29(1): 1–12. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., Anderson, M. Kat, and Michael Barbour 1989 “A History and Significance Evaluation of 2003 “Simulated Indigenous Management: A New the Kaweah Hydroelectric System, Tulare Model for Ecological Restoration in National County, California,” by Susan C. Lehman, Parks,” Ecological Restoration 21 (4): 269– James C. Williams, Robert A. Hicks, and 77. Clinton M. Blount. Prepared for Environ­ Anderson, R. S. mental Affairs Division, Southern California 1990 “Holocene Forest Development and Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Santa Paleoclimates within the Central Sierra Cruz, CA Nevada, California.” Journal of Ecology Bol, Marsha C. 78:470–89. 1998 American Indians and the Natural World. Niwot, CO: Carnegie Museum of Natural History and Roberts Rinehart Publishers.

393 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonnicksen, T. M., and E. C. Stone 2001a “Historical Poverty Tables, Table 19. Percent 1978 “An Analysis of Vegetation Management to of Persons in Poverty, by State: 1998, 1999, Restore the Structure and Function of Pre- and 2000.” Available at . Forest Mosaics.” Prepared for the National Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. Park Service. On file at Sequoia / Kings 2001b “Historical Poverty Tables, Table 21. Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Number of Poor and Poverty Rate, by State: Bonnicksen, T. M., and E. C. Stone 1980 to 2000.” Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. ity Using the Aggregation Approach.” 2001c “Poverty in the United States: 2000. Current Ecology 63:1134–48. Population Reports, Consumer Income.” Bradford, D. F. Available at . 1989 “Allotopic Distribution of Native Frogs and Accessed Nov. 9, 2001. Introduced Fishes in High Sierra Nevada 2001d Profiles of General Demographic Character Lakes of California: Implication of the istics 2000, 2000 Census of Population and Negative Effect of Fish Introductions.” Housing, United States. Available at Copeia 1989:775–78. . Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. 1993 “Isolation of Remaining Populations of the 2001e Profiles of General Demographic Character­ Native Frog, Rana muscosa, by Introduced istics 2000, 2000 Census of Population and Fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Housing, California. Page 1, 11, and 55. National Parks, California.” Conservation Available at . Accessed Nov. 7, Bradford, D. F., S. D. Cooper, T. M. Jenkins, Jr., K. 2001. Kratz, O. Sarnelle, and A. D. Brown 2001f Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. 1998 “Influences of Natural Acidity and Intercensal Estimates for States, Counties, Introduced Fish on Faunal Assemblages in and School Districts. Available at California Alpine Lakes.” Canadian Journal . Accessed Nov. 9, 2001. BRW, Inc., and Lee Engineering Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of 1998 “Draft Transportation and Visitor Use Data Commerce Summary [for Summer 1998].” Prepared for 2000 “Regional Economic Information System the National Park Service. On file at Sequoia/ (REIS), United States.” Geospatial & Sta­ Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, tistical Data Center. Available at . Accessed April 14, 2000. mary for Winter/Spring 1998 and Transpor ­ 2001a “Bearfacts California 1990–2000.” Available tation Condition Assessment, Sequoia and at . the National Park Service. On file at Sequoia/ Accessed Nov. 11, 2001. Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 2001b “Bearfacts Fresno, California 1989–1999.” Available at . 1999 Statistical Abstract of the United States, USA Accessed Nov. 11, 2001. Statistics in Brief, Employment. Available at . Accessed April 14, 2000. Available at . Accessed Nov. 11, 2001.

394 Selected Bibliography

2001d “CA05 Personal Income by Major Source Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the and Earnings by Industry — United States.” Interior Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, Monarch, Crystal Lake, Eagle Lake Dams 2001. (Draft),” by Leon E. Faris. Technical Service Center, Denver, CO. 2001e “CA05 Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings by Industry — California.” Cahill, T. A., J. J. Carroll, D. Campbell, and T. E. Gill Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. 2: 2001. Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options, 1227–60. Wildlands 2001f “CA05 Personal Income by Major Source Resources Center report no. 37, Centers for and Earnings by Industry — Fresno, CA.” Water and Wildlands Resources, University Available at of California, Davis, CA. . Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. California Department of Transportation 2002a California State Rail Plan, 2001–02 to 2010– 2001g “CA05 Personal Income by Major Source 11. Sacramento, CA. and Earnings by Industry — Tulare, CA.” Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, Plan. Sacramento, CA. 2001. Caprio, A. C., and D. M. Graber 2001h “CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time 2000 “Returning Fire to the Mountains: Can We Employment by Industry — United States.” Successfully Restore the Ecological Role of Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, Nevada?” In Proceedings of the Conference: 2001. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, edited by D. N. Cole and S. F. McCool. 5 2001i “CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time Em­ vols. RMRS P-15. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest ployment by Industry — California.” Avail­ Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. able at . Accessed Nov. 6, Cole, D. N. 2001. 1989 Area of Vegetation Loss: A New Index of Campsite Impact. Research paper INT-368. 2001j “CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time Em­ Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range ployment by Industry — Fresno, CA.” Avail­ Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. able at . Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. Cole, D. N., and D. R. Spildie 1998 “Hiker, Horse, and Llama Trampling Effects 2001k “CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time on Native Vegetation in Montana, USA.” Employment by Industry — Tulare, CA.” Journal of Environmental Management 53 Available at . Accessed Nov. 6, 2001. Cole, K. 1985 “Past Rates of Change, Species Richness, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the a Model of Vegetational Inertia in the Grand Interior Canyon, Arizona.” American Naturalist 2000 “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to 125:289–303. Receive Service from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Federal Register Cook, Sherburne F. 65, no. 49 (March 13, 2000): 13298–303. 1978 “Historical Demography.” In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 91–98. Vol. 8 in Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Handbook of North American Indians, edited Interior by William C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: 1996 Caliente Resource Management Plan, Smithsonian Institution. Caliente Resource Area.

395 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cooke, D. B. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1971 “The Perceived Environment of Wilderness 2000 Final 1998 Air Emissions Inventory, Sequoia in Kings Canyon National Park.” M.A. and Kings Canyon National Parks, Cali thesis. University of California, Santa fornia. Prepared for the National Park Barbara. Service. Sparks, MD. Cory, L., P. Field, and W. Serat Economic Development Administration, U.S. 1970 “Distribution Patterns of DDT Residues in Department of Commerce the Sierra Nevada Mountains.” Pesticides 1996 American Indian Reservations and Trust Monitoring Journal 3:204–11. Areas: A Reference Guide, compiled and edited by Veronica E. Velarde Tiller. Council on Environmental Quality Washington, DC. 1981 “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Elsasser, Albert B. Regulations.” Federal Register 46 (March 1978 “Development of Regional Prehistoric 23): 18026–38. Cultures.” In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 37–57. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North Crum, Steven J. American Indians, edited by William C. 1994 The Road on Which We Came, Po’i Pentun Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Tammen Kimmappeh: A History of the Institution. Western Shoshone. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. 1988 Indians of Sequoia and Kings Canyon Na tional Parks. Revised edition. Three Rivers, D’Azevedo, Warren L., ed. CA: Sequoia Natural History Association. 1986 Great Basin. Vol. 11 in Handbook of North American Indians, edited by William C. Farquhar, Francis P. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 1966 History of the Sierra Nevada. Berkeley: Institution. University of California Press. Department of Pesticide Regulation Gayton, Anna H. 1999 California Environmental Protection Agency, 1929 “Yokuts and Western Mono Potterymaking.” Department of Pesticide Regulation Web site University of California Publications in (http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/). American Archaeology and Ethnology 24 (3): 239–51. DeSante, D. F. 1995 “The Status, Distribution, Abundance, Popu­ 1929 “Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans.” Uni lation Trends, Demographics, and Risks of versity of California Publications in Amer the Landbird Avifauna of the Sierra Nevada ican Archaeology and Ethnology 24 (8): Mountains.” Unpublished report to the Sierra 361–420. Nevada Ecosystem Project, Davis, CA. 1945 “Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organiza­ Despain, Joel tion.” American Anthropologist 47: 409–26. 2003 Hidden Beneath the Mountains: The Caves of 1945 “Culture-Environment Integration: External Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. References in Yokuts Life.” Southwestern Dayton, OH: Cave Books. Journal of Anthropology 2 (3): 252–68. Dilsaver, Lary M., and William C. Tweed 1948 “Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography.” 1990 Challenge of the Big Trees of Sequoia and University of California Anthropological Kings Canyon National Parks. Three Rivers, Records 10 (1, 2): 1–302. CA: Sequoia Natural History Association. Gayton, Anna H. and Stanley S. Newman Duriscoe, D. M., and K. W. Stolte 1940 “Yokuts and Western Mono Myths.” 1992 “Decreased Foliage Production and Longev ­ University of California Anthropological ity Observed in Ozone-Injured Jeffrey and Records 5 (1): 1–110. Ponderosa Pine in Sequoia National Park, California.” In Tropospheric Ozone and the Gendar, Jeannine and Sadie Cash Margolin Environment, vol. 2: Effects, Modeling and 2000 “Simply Healthy: Food and Fitness in Native Control, 663–80. Pittsburgh, PA: Air and California.” News from Native California 13 Waste Management Association (3, Spring 2000): 18–37.

396 Selected Bibliography

Gerlach, J. D. Historical Research Associates, Inc. In re- “Exotic Species Cause Ecosystem-Level 1994 “Inventory and Evaluation of Historical view Changes in Soil Water Balance and Costly Buildings Located within the Giant Forest Losses of Ecosystem Services.” Submitted to Area of Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Ecosystems. Park, California.” Seattle, WA. Gibson, Arrell Morgan Hotz, Robert Lee 1980 The American Indian: Prehistory to the 1998 “The Impassioned Fight to Save Dying Lan­ Present. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and guages.” The Los Angeles Times, January 25, Company. 2000. Gifford, Edward W. Houghton, J. T., L. G. Meira Filho, B. A. Callander, 1932 “The Northfork Mono.” University of N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell California Publications in American 1996 Climate Change 1995: The Science of Archaeology and Ethnology 31 (2): 15–65. Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Graber, D. M. 1996 “Status of Terrestrial Vertebrates.” In Sierra Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Council Congress, vol. 2: Assessment and scientific 1997 Wild and Scenic Rivers Reference Guide. basis for management options, 709–34. Jackson, Louise A. Wildlands Resources Center Report No. 37, 1988 Beulah: A Biography of the Mineral King Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources, Valley of California. Tucson, AZ: University of California, Davis, CA. Westernlore Press. Hammitt, William E., and David N. Cole Jennings, Jesse D 1998 Wildland Recreation. 24 ed. New York: John 1986 “Prehistory: Introduction.” In Great Basin, Wiley & Sons, Inc. edited by Warren L. D’Azevedo, 113–19. Harper, John L. Vol. 11 in Handbook of North American 1982 Mineral King: Public Concern with Indians, edited by William C. Sturtevant. Government Policy. Arcata CA: Pacifica Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Publishing Company. Jordan/Avent & Associates Harvey, H. T., H. S. Shellhammer, and R. E. Stecker 1984 “A Study to Evaluate the Impacts of Kaweah 1980 Giant Sequoia Ecology. National Park No. 3 Hydroelectric Facility on the Resources Service. Washington, DC. of Sequoia National Park.” 2 vols. San Francisco, CA. Haultain, S. 1999 “Residual Biomass Monitoring in Wilderness Kilgore, B. M., and R. W. Sando Meadows, Sequoia and Kings Canyon 1975 “Crown-Fire Potential in a Sequoia Forest National Parks.” On file at Sequoia/Kings after Prescribed Burning.” Forest Science Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 21:83–87. Heizer, Robert F. King, Chester 1978 “Introduction.” In California, 1–5. Vol. 8 in 1978 “Protohistoric and Historic Archeology.” In Handbook of North American Indians, edited California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 58– by William C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: 68. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North American Smithsonian Institution. Robert Indians, edited by William C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Heizer, Robert F., ed. 1978 California. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North Knapp, R. A. American Indians, edited by William C. 1996 “Non-native Trout in Natural Lakes of the Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Sierra Nevada: An Analysis of Their Institution. Distribution and Impacts on Native Aquatic Biota.” In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser Final Report to Congress, vol. 3, ch. 8, pp 1984 The Natural World of the California Indians. 363–407. Centers for Water and Wildlife Paperback edition, Berkeley: University of Resources, University of California, Davis. California Press.

397 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Knapp, Roland A., and Kathleen R. Matthews McClaran, Mitchel P., and David N. Cole 2000 “Non-Native Fish Introductions and the 1993 “Packstock in Wilderness: Use, Impacts, Decline of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Monitoring, and Management.” USDA Frog from within Protected Areas.” Forest Service General Technical Report Conservation Biology 14(2): 428–38. INT-301. Knight, Richard L., and Kevin J. Gutzwiller Melack, J., and J. Sickman 1995 Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence 1995 “Snowmelt Induced Chemical Changes in through Management and Research. Seven Streams in the Sierra Nevada.” In Washington, DC: Island Press. Biogeochemistry of Seasonally Snow Cov ered Basins, edited by K. A. Tonnessen, W. Kratz, K. W., S. D. Cooper, and J. M. Melack W. Williams, and M. Tranter, 221–34. IAHS 1994 “Effects of Single and Repeated Experi­ Publication 228. Wallingford, England: Inter­ mental Acid Pulses on Invertebrates in a national Association of Hydrological High Altitude Sierra Nevada Stream.” Sciences. Freshwater Biology 32:161–83. Melack, J., J. Sickman, A. Leydecker, D. Marrett Kroeber, Alfred L. 1998 “Comparative Analyses of High-Altitude 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Lakes and Catchments in the Sierra Nevada: Originally published as Bulletin 78, Bureau Susceptibility to Acidification.” Final report of American Ethnology, Washington, DC: to the California Air Resources Board, Smithsonian Institution, 1925. New York: Sacramento, CA. Dover Publications. Melack, J. M., J. Sickman, F. Setaro, and D. Dawson Kubly, D. M. 1995 “Monitoring of Wet Deposition in Alpine 1983 “Plankton of High Sierra Lakes.” Southern Areas of the Sierra Nevada.” Final Report. California Edison Research and Development Sacramento: California Air Resources Board. Report No. 830RD-47. University of California, Riverside. Melack, J. M., J. L. Stoddard, and C. A. Ochs 1985 “Major Ion Chemistry and Sensitivity to Acid Lawton, Harry W., Philip J. Wilke, Mary DeDecker, Precipitation of Sierra Nevada Lakes.” Water and William M. Mason Resources Research 21:27–32. 1993 “Agriculture among the Paiute of Owens Valley [California]." In Before the Wilder Miller, C., and D. L. Urban ness: Environmental Management by Native 1999 “Forest Pattern, Fire, and Climatic Change in Californians, compiled and edited by the Sierra Nevada.” Ecosystems 2:76–87. Thomas C. Blackburn and Kat Anderson, Miller, P. R. 329–77. Originally published in Journal of 1973 “Oxidant-Induced Community Change in a California Anthropology 3, no. 1 (1976): 13– Mixed Conifer Forest.” In Air Pollution 50. Menlo Park, California: Ballena Press. Damage to Vegetation, edited by J. A. Lewis, Stephanie, Stephen G. Hyslop, Mary Helena Naegele, 101–17. Advances in Chemistry McCarthy, Karen Monks, Robert H. Woodbridge Jr., Series 122. Washington, DC: American and Annette Scarpitta Chemical Society. 1994 The Indians of California. Alexandria, VA: 1996 “Biological Effects of Air Pollution in the Time-Life Books. Sierra Nevada.” In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Lynch, J. A., J. W. Grimm, and V. C. Bowersox Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. 3, 1995 “Trends in Precipitation Chemistry in the Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and United States: A National Perspective.” Background Information, 885–900. Atmospheric Environment 11:1231–46. Wildlands Resources Center Report No. 38, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources, Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes University of California, Davis. 1998 “Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries.” Nature 392:779–87.

398 Selected Bibliography

Miller, P. R., N. E. Grulke, and K. W. Stolte 1980a Development Concept Plan, Giant Forest / 1994 “Air Pollution Effects on Giant Sequoia Lodgepole Area, Sequoia and Kings Canyon Ecosystems.” In Proceedings of the National Parks. Denver Service Center. Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place 1980b Environmental Assessment / Comprehensive in the Ecosystem and Society, P. S. Aune Management Plan for Mineral King, Sequoia (tech. coord.), 90–98. USDA Forest Service and Kings Canyon National Parks. Denver Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-151. Service Center. Mutch, L. S. 1983 “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 1994 “Growth Responses of Giant sequoia to Fire Guidelines for Archeology and Historic and Climate in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Preservation.” Federal Register 48:44716. National Parks, California.” M.S. thesis. Amended and annotated version available at University of Arizona, Tucson. . Site visited Jan. 26, 2004. Stuart Conner, Irina Hines, and Nancy Krekeler 1984 Land Protection Plan, Mineral King Valley, 1994 “Every Morning of the World: Ethnographic Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, Resources Study, Bighorn Canyon National California. Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Recreation Area [Montana and Wyoming], Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Including Information on Adjacent Lands Managed by Custer National Forest and the 1986a Backcountry Management Plan. Sequoia / Bureau of Land Management.” Prepared for Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Na ­ CA. tional Park Service, Denver, CO. Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin at 1986b Draft Environmental Impact Statement / De velopment Concept Plan, Grant Grove / Red Madison. wood Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior National Parks. Sequoia / Kings Canyon 1976 “Hospital Rock, Sequoia National Park, National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. California,” by Roger E. Kelly. National Register of Historic Places nomination form. 1986c Land Protection Plan, Oriole Lake and Western Regional Office, San Francisco. Wilsonia, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Sequoia / Kings Canyon Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, August 29, 1977. National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 1977 “Groenfeldt Archeological Site, Sequoia and 1986d Stock Use and Meadow Management Plan, Kings Canyon National Parks, California,” Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. by Yvonne G. Stewart. National Register of Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Historic Places nomination form. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 1988a Grant Grove and Redwood Mountain Devel Tucson, AZ. Listed on the National Register opment Concept Plan and Final Environ of Historic Places, March 30, 1978. mental Impact Statement. Sequoia / Kings 1978a “An Archeological Assessment of Sequoia Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. and Kings Canyon National Parks, Cali­ 1988b “Sequoia/Kings Canyon Road System Evalu­ fornia,” by David J. Fee. Tucson, AZ: West­ ation / Parkwide Road Engineering Study.” ern Archeological and Conservation Center. On file at Sequoia/Kings Canyon National 1978b “Research and Consultations for the Purposes Parks, Three Rivers, CA. of Implementing the American Indian 1989a Architectural Character Guidelines, Sequoia Religious Freedom Act and Ascertaining and Kings Canyon National Parks. Sequoia / Such Residual Rights of Indians that Might Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, Exist,” by John G. Herron. Denver Service CA. Center. 1989b Fire Management Plan, Sequoia and Kings 1979 Final Environmental Impact Statement / Canyon National Parks. Sequoia / Kings Development Concept Plan, Giant Forest / Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Lodgepole Area, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Denver Service Center.

399 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1989c “Historic Structures Report, Sequoia National 1995a “Memorandum of Agreement Regarding an Park: A Historical and Architectural Study of Implementation Plan for Visitor Use and Three Rustic Structures at Giant Forest in Forest Restoration in Giant Forest, Sequoia Sequoia National Park, The Market, District National Park, California, Submitted to the Ranger’s Residence, and Comfort Station,” Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, by C. Craig Frazier, Craig A. Kenkel, and Pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(a).” Harlan D. Unrau. Denver Service Center. Accepted Sept. 25. On file at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 1990 Road Character Guidelines, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Sequoia / 1995b “Native American Consultations, June 16 Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, through June 25, 1994, and July 18 through CA. July 31, 1994, and Ethnographic Assessment, The Paiutes and Shoshones of Owens Valley, 1992a Cave Management Plan and Environmental California, Manzanar National Historic Site, Assessment, Sequoia and Kings Canyon California, for the General Management Plan National Parks. Sequoia / Kings Canyon and Environmental Impact Statement,” by National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Lawrence F. Van Horn. Denver Service 1992b “Downstream Hazard Classification Report Center. for Crystal Lake, Eagle Lake, Franklin Lake 1995c Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on and Monarch Lake Dams, Sequoia National the National Park System. Washington, DC. Park, California, National Park Service: Safety Evaluation of Dams,” by Douglas J. 1995d Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Trieste, Robert I. Strand, J. L. Thomas. Treatment of Historic Properties, with Washington, DC. Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic 1992c Exterior Lighting Design Concepts, Sequoia Buildings, by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. and Kings Canyon National Parks. Sequoia / Grimmer. Cultural Resource Stewardship and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Series. CA. Washington, DC. Available at . National Register of Historic Places, Regis­ 1995e “Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, tration Form. On file at Sequoia / Kings Visitor Use Survey: 1994–1995.” Socio- Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Economic Studies Division, WASO-TNT. 1993 “Report on Native American/American Denver, CO. Indian Consultations, April 26 to May 7, 1995f “Wilsonia Historic District,” by Historic 1993, The Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Resources Group, Fresno, CA. National Gate National Recreation Area, California, Register of Historic Places, registration form. for the General Management Plan and On file at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Environmental Impact Statement,” by Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Lawrence F. Van Horn. Denver Service Center. 1996a Interim Management Plan, Giant Forest, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 1994a “Inventory and Evaluation of Historical Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, Buildings Located within the Giant Forest Three Rivers, CA. Area of Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks, California.” On file at Sequoia / Kings 1996b Museum Handbook. Washington, DC. Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 1997a “Baseline Water Quality Data Inventory and 1994b Water Resources Management Plan. On file Analysis Report, Sequoia and Kings Canyon at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, National Parks.” Technical Report NPS/ Three Rivers, CA. NRWRD/NRTR-97/121. Washington, DC. 1997b Collection Management Plan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, by J. Bayless, L. Mitchell, M. Ruesch, and P. B. West. Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA.

400 Selected Bibliography

1997c “Long-Range Interpretive Plan, Sequoia and 2000b Fire Management Plan and Environmental Kings Canyon National Parks, California.” Assessment, Sequoia and Kings Canyon Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, National Parks. Sequoia / Kings Canyon Three Rivers, CA. National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 1997d NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management 2000c Management Policies 2001. Washington, Guideline. Release no. 5. Washington, DC. DC. 1998a Director’s Order #2: Park Planning. 2000d “Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape Washington, DC. District,” by Thomas E. Nave. National Register of Historic Places registration form. 1998b Director’s Order #28: Cultural Resource On file at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Management. Washington, DC. Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 1998c “Draft Concept Paper: The Ethnographic Re­ 2001a Director’s Order #12: Conservation sources Inventory,” by Mark Schoepfle, Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, Donald Callaway, Michael J. Evans, Edward and Decision-making. Washington, DC. Natay, Alexa Roberts, David E. Ruppert, Jacilee Wray, Muriel K. Crespi. Washington, 2001b “Park Visitation Report for Kings Canyon DC. and Sequoia National Parks.” Public Use Statistics Office, WASO-TNT. Denver, 1998d Ethnographic Resources Inventory: Concept Colorado. Available at . Accessed Nov. Program, Washington, DC. 8, 2001. 1998e “General Grant National Park Historic 2001c “Tracking the Ancients in the High Sierras,” District,” by Thomas E. Nave. National by Thomas L Burge. Common Ground 6 Register of Historic Places draft registration (Summer/Fall): 6–7. form. On file at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 2002 Director’s Order #75: Civic Engagement and Public Involvement. Washington, DC. 1999a Air Resources Management Action Plan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. 2003a “Archeological Survey of the Upper Kern Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, River: A Report of Investigations.” By Keith Three Rivers, CA. Hamm. Three Rivers, California: Sequoia and Kings Canyons National Parks, National 1999b “The Cultural Landscape of Mineral King, Park Service, U. S. Department of the Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks: Interior. Determination of Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places,” by Ethan Carr 2003b “Emergency Action Plan for Mineral King and Steve McNiel. On file at Sequoia / Kings Dams (Franklin, Monarch, Crystal, Eagle Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Lake Dams),” by Douglas J. Trieste. On file at Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, 1999c Director’s Order #24, Standards for National Three Rivers, CA. Park Service Museum Collections Manage ment. Washington, DC. 2003c “National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory — Sequoia-Kings Canyon 1999d Natural and Cultural Resources Management National Parks, Level I Reports.” Pacific Plan, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Great Basin Support Office, Oakland, CA. Parks. Sequoia / Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. 2003d “Submittal of Literature Search and Review of Reports of Non-NPS Dams at Lady 1999e Director’s Order #41: Wilderness Franklin Dam, Upper Monarch Lake Dam, Preservation and Management. Washington Crystal Lake Dam, and Eagle Lake Dam,” by DC. Available at . 2004 “Preliminary Draft Franchise Fee/ Feasibility 2000a Director’s Order #53: Special Park Uses. Analysis of Current Saddle Horse Ride and Washington, DC. Available at .

401 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Parsons, D. J., T. J. Stohlgren, and P. A. Fodor Interior, and Forest Service, U.S. Department of 1981 “Establishing Backcountry Use Quotas: An Agriculture Example from Mineral King, California.” 1982 “National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems; Environmental Management 5 (4): 335–40. Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Parsons D. J., T. S. Stohlgren, and J. M. Kraushaar Classification and Management of River 1982 “Wilderness Permit Accuracy: Differences Areas.” Federal Register 47 (173). Available between Reported and Actual Use.” Environ at . Peterson, D. L., and M. J. Arbaugh 2000 “High Sierra [Archeological] Surveys in 1992 “Mixed Conifer Forests of the Sierra Kings Canyon National Park,” by Thomas L. Nevada.” In The Response of Western Burge (National Park Service), and William Forests to Air Pollution, edited by R. K. M. Matthews (Forest Service). Paper pre­ Olson, D. Binkley, and M. Bohn, 433–59. sented at the 27th Great Basin Anthropo­ Ecological Studies vol. 97. New York: logical Conference, Ogden, Utah, October 5– Springer-Verlag. 7, 2000. On file, at Sequoia and Kings Canyons National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Price, C., and D. Rind n.d. “Lightning Activity in a Greenhouse World.” Norris, L. L., and D. A. Brennan In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of 1982 “Sensitive Plant Species of Sequoia and Fire and Forest Meteorology, 598–604. Kings Canyon National Parks.” Technical Bethesda, MD: Society of American Report No. 8, Co-operative National Park Foresters. Resources Study Unit. On file at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, Ratliff, R. D. CA. 1982 A Meadow Site Classification for the Sierra Nevada, California. USDA Forest Service Parsons, D. J. General Technical Report PSW84. Pacific 1986 “Campsite Impact Data As a Basis for Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Determining Wilderness Use Capacities.” In Station, Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference. Ft. Collins. CO, Ratliff, R. D., M. R. George, and N. K. McDonald compiled by R. C. Lucas, 449–55. USDA 1987 Managing Livestock Grazing in Meadows of Forest Service General Technical Report California’s Sierra Nevada: A Manager-User INT-212. Guide. University of California Cooperative Extension Leaflet 21421. Parsons, D. J., and S. H. DeBenedetti 1979 “Wilderness Protection in the High Sierra: Raub, Henry Effects of a 15-Year Closure.” In Pro 1988 “Local Nostalgia: The Story of Manzanar.” ceedings of the First Conference on Scientific In The Ridgecrest (California) Preview, part Research in the National Parks, edited by R. one, February 12, 1988, p. 20, and part two, Linn, vol. 2: 1313–317. USDI National Park February 19, 1988, p. 16. Service Transcripts and Proceedings Series No. 5. Washington, DC. Roper Wickstrom, C. Kristina 1992 “A Study of High Altitude Obsidian Parsons, David J., and Thomas J. Stohlgren Distribution in the Southern Sierra Nevada, 1987 “Impacts of Visitor Use on Backcountry California.” Master’s thesis, Department of Campsites in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Anthropology, Sonoma State University, National Parks, California.” National Park Rohnert Park, CA. Service/CPSU-UCD Technical Report No. 25. Davis, California. Rundel, P. W. 1972 “Habitat Restriction of Giant Sequoia: The 1989 “Effects of Varying Fire Regimes on Annual Environmental Control of Grove Bounda­ Grasslands in the Southern Sierra Nevada of ries.” American Midland Naturalist 87:81– California.” Madrono 36:154–68. 99.

402 Selected Bibliography

Schuyler, Robert L. Stephens, S. L. 1978 “Indian-Euro-American Interaction: Arche­ 1995 “Effects of Prescribed and Simulated Fire ological Evidence from Non-Indian Sites.” In and Forest History of Giant Sequoia California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 69– ( (Lindley) 79. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North American Buchholz) – Mixed Conifer Ecosystems of Indians, edited by William C. Sturtevant. the Sierra Nevada, California.” Ph.D. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Shipley, William F. 1978 “Native Languages of California.” In 1998 “Evaluation of the Effects of Silvicultural California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 80– and Fuels Treatments on Potential Fire 90. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North American Behavior in Sierra Nevada Mixed-Conifer Indians, edited by William C. Sturtevant. Forests.” Forest Ecology and Management Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 105:21–35. Sickman, J. M., and J. M. Melack Stephenson, N. L. 1989 “Characterization of Year-round Sensitivity 1987 “Use of Tree Aggregations in Forest Ecology of California’s Montane Lakes to Acidic and Management.” Environmental Deposition.” Final Report. California Air Management 11:1–5. Resources Board, Sacramento. 1994 “Long-term Dynamics of Giant Sequoia Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Populations: Implications for Managing a 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Pioneer Species.” In Proceedings of the Report to Congress. Wildlands Resources Symposium on Giant Sequoias: Their Place Center Reports Nos. 36 and 37, Centers for in the Ecosystem and Society, 23-25 June Water and Wildlands Resources, University 1992, Visalia, California, P. S. Aune, of California, Davis. technical coordinator, 56–63. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-151. Smith, N. R. 1980 “Computer Assisted Reservation and Permit Stevens, Nathan Erik System for Use by U.S. National Park Ser­ 2002 “Prehistoric Use of the Alpine Sierra Nevada: vice and National Forest Service.” M.S. Archeological Investigations at Taboose thesis. California State University, Pass, Kings Canyon National Park, Sacramento. California.” On file, at Sequoia and Kings Canyons National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. Southern California Edison 2000 “DSOD Inspection of Mineral King Dams,” Steward, Julian H. by D. L. Millikan. 1930 “Irrigation without Agriculture.” Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 2003a “Special Use Permit for the Operation of Papers 12:149–56. Kaweah No. 3 Powerhouse and the Mineral King Dams,” by Walter Pagel. 1933 “Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute.” University of California Publications in 2003b “Standard Operation; Mineral King Dams; American Archaeology and Ethnology 33 (3): Inspection, Operation, Maintenance,” by 233–50. Berkeley: University of California Mike Boni. Press. Spier, Robert F. G. 1935 “Indian Tribes of Sequoia National Park 1978 “Monache.” In California, edited by Robert Region [California].” Berkeley, California F. Heizer, 426–36. Vol. 8 in Handbook of Field Division of Education. National Park North American Indians, edited by William Service, United States Department of the C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Interior. Institution. Stoddard, J. L. 1987 “Microcrustacean Communities of High Elevation Lakes in the Sierra Nevada, California.” Journal of Plankton Research 9:631–50.

403 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stohlgren, Thomas J. Sullivan, T. J., D. L. Peterson, C. L. Blanchard, Kristi 1982 “Vegetation and Soil Recovery of Subalpine Savig, and Dee Morse Campsites in Sequoia National Park, 2001 Assessment of Air Quality and Air Pollution California.” M. A. thesis, California State Impacts in Class I National Parks of University, Fresno. California. Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Air Resources 1986 “Variation of Vegetation and Soil Char­ Division. Available at . Proceedings of the National Wilderness Site accessed Mar. 14, 2003. Research Conference, Ft. Collins, CO, compiled by R. C. Lucas, 152–57. USDA Taylor, T. P., and D. C. Erman General Technical Report INT 212. 1980 “The Littoral Bottom Fauna of High Elevation Lakes in Kings Canyon National Stohlgren, Thomas J., and David J. Parsons Park.” California Department of Fish and 1986 “Vegetation and Soil Recovery in Wilderness Game 66:112–19. Campsites.” Environmental Management 10 (3): 375–80. Three Rivers, California 1981 Three Rivers Community Plan. Three Rivers, 1987 “Variation of Wet Deposition Chemistry in CA. Sequoia National Park, California.” Atmospheric Environment 21:1369–74. Tiller, Veronica E. Velarde 1996 Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country: Economic 1988 “Evaluating Wilderness Recreational Profiles of American Indian Reservations. Opportunities: Application of an Impact Albuquerque, NM: Bow-Arrow Publishing Matrix.” In Proceedings of the George Company. Wright Society Conference on Science in the National Parks. Torn, M. S., and J. S. Fried 1992 “Predicting the Impacts of Global Warming Stolte, K. W., M. I. Flores, D. R. Mangis, and D. B. on Wildland Fire.” Climatic Change 21:257– Joseph 74. 1992 “Tropospheric Ozone Exposures and Ozone Injury on Sensitive Pine Species in the Sierra Transportation Research Board Nevada of California.” In Tropospheric 1998 Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report Ozone and the Environment: vol. 2: Effects, 209. National Research Council, Washington, Modeling and Control, 637–62. Pittsburgh, DC. PA: Air and Waste Management Association. Tulare County, California Strong, Douglas H. 1981 Foothills Growth Management Plan. Visalia, 1968 Trees — or Timber? The Story of Sequoia CA. and Kings Canyon National Parks. Three Tweed, William C. Rivers, CA: Sequoia Natural History 1986 Kaweah Remembered: The Story of the Association. Kaweah Colony and the Founding of Sequoia 1996 From Pioneers to Preservationists: A Brief National Park. Three Rivers, CA: Sequoia History of Sequoia and Kings Canyon Natural History Association. National Parks. Three Rivers, CA: Sequoia Tweed, William C., and Lary M. Dilsaver Natural History Association, 1996. 1990 Sequoia Yesterdays: Centennial Photo Strong, Douglas H., and Lary M. Dilsaver History. Three Rivers, CA: Sequoia Natural 1990 “Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks History Association. [California]: One Hundred Years of United States Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Preservation and Resource Management.” Department of the Interior California History (Summer). 1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, by Lewis M. Cowardin. Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

404 Selected Bibliography

1998 Final Endangered Species Consultation 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Consultation and Conference Activities under Statement. R5-MB-046. Available at Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. . Published jointly with the National Marine Site accessed March 22, 2004. Fisheries Service. Washington, DC. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 1982a Sequoia National Forest North Fork Kern Interior Wild and Scenic River Study. 1999 “The Wild and Scenic River Study Process.” In Wild and Scenic Rivers Reference Guide, 1982b Wilderness Management Plan, Golden Trout by Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Wilderness. Coordinating Council. Technical report 1986 Draft Forest Land and Resource Manage prepared for the Interagency Wild and Scenic ment Plan, Sierra National Forest. Rivers Coordinating Council. Portland, OR, and Anchorage, AK. 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan, Sequoia National Forest. van Wagtendonk, J. W. 1985 “Fire Suppression Effects on Fuels and 1989 An Environmental Assessment: Middle Fork, Succession in Short-Fire-Interval Wilderness South Fork and the Kings Wild and Scenic Ecosystems.” In Proceedings – Symposium Rivers. and Workshop on Wilderness Fire, 15-18 1991a Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1983, Missoula, Montana, edited Kings River Special Management Area — by J. E. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, Kings, Kings South Fork and Kings Middle and R. W. Mutch, 119–26. USDA Forest Fork, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Sequoia Service General Technical Report INT-182. National Forest. Vaux, H. J., Jr. 1991b Forest Land and Resource Management 1991 “Global Climate Change and California’s Plan, Sierra National Forest. Water Resources.” In Global Climate Change and California, edited by J. B. Knox 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement, and A. F. Scheuring, 69–96. Berkeley: North and South Forks Kern Wild and Scenic University of California Press. Rivers, Sequoia National Forest. Wallace, William J. 2001 Wilderness Management Plan, John Muir, 1978 “Post-Pleistocene Archeology.” In Ansel Adams, and Dinkey Lakes California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 25– Wildernesses. 36. Vol. 8 in Handbook of North American 2002 Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Indians, edited by William C. Sturtevant. Environmental Impact Statement. Sequoia Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. National Forest, Porterville, CA. Waldman, Carl 2003a Giant Sequoia National Monument Manage 1985 Atlas of the North American Indian. New ment Plan and Final Environmental Impact York: Facts-On-File Publications. Statement. Sequoia National Forest. Avail­ Werner, H. W. able at . Site accessed March 22, 2004. Program for Sequoia and Kings Canyon 2003b Record of Decision, Giant Sequoia National National Parks.” Prepared for the National Monument Management Plan and Final Park Service. On file at Sequoia / Kings Environmental Impact Statement. Sequoia Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, CA. National Forest. Available at . 1952 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Site accessed March 23, 2004. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

405 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Williams, M. R., and J. Melack. Zabik, J. M., and J. N. Seiber 1997 “Effects of Prescribed Burning and Drought 1993 “Atmospheric Transport of Organophosphate on the Solute Chemistry of Mixed-Conifer Pesticides from California’s Central Valley to Forest Streams of the Sierra Nevada, the Sierra Nevada Mountains.” Journal of California.” Biogeochemistry 39:225–53. Environmental Quality 22:80–90. Williams, M. W., and J. M. Melack Zuckert, J. A. 1989 “Solute Chemistry of Snowmelt and Runoff 1980 “Environmental and Psychological in an Alpine Basin, Sierra Nevada.” Water Determinants of Campsite Selection at a Resources Research 27:1575–88. High Sierra Lake.” M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Wray, Jacilee, and M. Kat Anderson 2003 “Restoring Indian-Set Fires to Prairie Ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula.” Ecological Restoration 21 (4): 302–6.

406 Preparers and Consultants

CORE PLANNING TEAM Resource Economics. Experience: 15 years; 9 years with National Park Service as resource Dr. David Graber, Senior Science Advisor and GMP economist/planner. Responsible for descriptions coordinator, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National of the socioeconomic resources and analysis of Park. B.A., Political Science; M.S., Ph.D., socioeconomic impacts. Wildland Resource Science. Experience: 27 years with the National Park Service. Nate Larsen, PE, Senior Transportation Engineer, URS Corporation/BRW. B.S., M.S., Civil Susan Spain, Job Captain, / Landscape Architect, Engineering. Experience: 11 years in trans­ Denver Service Center, National Park Service. portation planning, traffic engineering, transit B.A., Humanities / Studio Arts; B.L.A., planning and operations analysis. Responsible Landscape Architecture; registered landscape for describing transportation patterns and architect. Experience: 25 years in planning and analyzing related impacts. design, 15 years with the National Park Service. Responsible for overall project organization and Greg Sorensen, Editor, URS Corporation. B.A., coordination, and public involvement; described International Affairs. Experience: 29 years, 25 and analyzed impacts for wilderness, visitor use, with the National Park Service. Responsible for land use / public use, and park operations. organizing, editing, and formatting document. Elaine Rideout, Natural Resources Specialist, Denver Service Center, National Park Service. B.S., Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Environmental Studies. Experience: 23 years with the National Park Service. Responsible for Richard Martin, Superintendent Russ Wilson, Deputy Superintendent portions of the purpose and need, and for describing and analyzing impacts for natural resources. John Austin, Biologist Larry Bancroft, retired Chief of Science and Natural Dr. Larry Van Horn, Cultural Resources Specialist / Resources Management Cultural Anthropologist, Denver Service Center, Debbie Bird, former Chief Ranger National Park Service. B.A. in History, M.A. in Gary Bornholdt, retired Safety Officer Anthropology, Ph.D. in Anthropology. Ginger Bradshaw, former GIS Specialist Experience: 27 years with the National Park Tom Burge, Cultural Resources Specialist Service. Responsible for describing and Gregg Fauth, Wilderness Coordinator analyzing impacts on archeological resources, Kris Fister, former Public Affairs Specialist museum collections, and ethnographic resources Bob Griego, Program Manager and landscapes, and for reporting on Native Pat Lineback, GIS Specialist American consultations. William Kaage, Fire Management Officer Jeff Manley, former Resource Management Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resource Specialist / Specialist Historian, Denver Service Center, National Park Ralph Moore, former Wilderness Coordinator Service. B.A., M.A., History. Experience: 32 Scott Ruesch, Chief of Maintenance years with the National Park Service. Respon­ Mike Tollefson, former Superintendent sible for describing and analyzing impacts for Dr. William C. Tweed, Chief of Interpretation historic structures, districts, and landscapes. Peggy Williams, former Concessions Management Mike Giller, Project Manager. B.S. Architectural Specialist Engineering. Experience: 16 years with the Bob Wilson, Law Enforcement Specialist National Park Service, 4 years in private practice. Responsible for budget, schedule, Other Contributors and Consultants liaison with park. Susan Boyle, former Cultural Resources Richard Lichtkoppler, Natural Resource Economist, Specialist, Denver Service Center, National Economics Group, Technical Service Center, Park Service Bureau of Reclamation. B.S., Business Admin­ istration; M.S., Natural Resources; Ph.D.,

407 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Warren Brown, Program Manager, Park Maurice Miller, Transportation Planner, Denver Planning and Special Studies, Washington Service Center, National Park Service Office, National Park Service (retired) Bill Byrne, Transportation Planner, formerly Ray Murray, Planning Chief, Western Regional with BRW Inc. Office, National Park Service John Coates, Park Planning, Washington Office, Ray Todd, Project Manager, Denver Service National Park Service Center, National Park Service. Henry Espinoza, former Project Manager, Stephanie Toothman, Cultural Resources Denver Service Center, National Park Planning Chief, Western Regional Office, Service (retired) National Park Service Barbara Goodyear, Regional Solicitor, Western Bethany Sigel, Transportation Planner, Federal Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, Highways Administration. U.S. Department John Haubert, Park Planning - Wild and Scenic of Transportation Rivers, Washington Office, National Park Chris Vogelsang, Transportation Planner, URS Service Corporation / BRW Inc. David Kreger, Natural Resources Specialist and Frank Williss, Cultural Resources Specialist and Technical Expert - NEPA compliance, Technical Expert for Section 106 Denver Service Center, National Park compliance, Denver Service Center, Service National Park Service, retired Nat Kuykendall, Chief of Resources Planning, Denver Service Center, National Park Service

408 Index: Volume 2

A B

Abbott Creek, 14, 115 backcountry, 32, 37, 187, 190, 194, 238, 250, 254, 255, air quality, 4, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 88, 158, 161, 257, 261, 263, 268, 269, 270, 276, 282, 284, 288, 289, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 290, 326, 329 State Implementation Plan, 21, 22, 24, 158, 161, 163, access to, 111, 137, 140, 244, 249, 309, 312, 326 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 administrative stock use, 318 air tours, 64, 260, 265, 273, 280, 285, 291 camping, 15, 32, 66, 101, 111, 125, 191, 193, 264, Alley property, 68, 71, 298, 303, 307, 310, 315 271, 279 American Indians, 34, 195, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, facilities, 193, 321, 324, 331 370 fishing, 62 archeological resources, 195, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, helicopter use, 73, 74, 318, 322, 325, 329, 332 225, 226, 227 historic structures, 37, 198, 201, 202, 206, 211, 216, archeological sites 219, 351, 352 Groenfeldt, 37, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, management plan, 187 228, 370 management prescriptions, 190, 191, 192, 193, 261, Hospital Rock, 29, 37, 39, 41, 177, 179, 198, 221, 268, 276, 286, 328 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, management zones, 266 233, 270, 370 overnight use, 56, 107, 108 Ash Mountain, 23, 36, 38, 63, 70, 77, 127, 131, 133, 158, packing services, 60 173, 177, 179, 199, 204, 206, 209, 211, 213, 217, 246, permits, 65 247, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 269, 273, resource conditions, 10, 101, 112, 127, 129, 131, 132, 293, 351 135, 140, 182, 184, 274 administrative stock pasture, 74, 322 stock use, 59, 62, 103, 111, 113, 322, 325, 329, 332 air quality monitoring, 22 trails, 63, 64, 73, 110, 111, 112, 247, 278, 289, 297, cultural landscape, 41, 199, 204, 209 300, 305, 319, 322, 326, 329, 333 daily vehicle traffic, 158 use, 32, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 99, 104, 105, 109, 112, entrance, 57, 58, 59, 238, 241 113, 133, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, Foothills visitor center, 45, 54, 60, 262, 269, 283, 288 150, 152, 153, 155, 156, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, headquarters complex, 29, 43, 72, 75, 77, 233, 235, 181, 183, 185, 192, 193, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 255, 258 269, 270, 272, 274, 278, 282, 285, 290, 292, 352, historic district (potential), 39, 199, 201, 209, 213, 354 215, 219 use permits, 63, 266, 280 historic structures, 213 backpacking, 58, 60, 74, 264 historic structures (potential), 40 Bearpaw Meadow, 32, 64, 65, 66, 74, 78, 189, 192, 264, housing area, 199, 209, 211, 217, 321, 351 271, 279, 284, 290 parking, 76, 242, 246, 249, 252, 255, 258 excluded from wilderness, 190, 192 ranger station, 63 high Sierra camp, 32, 64, 66, 74, 113, 137, 142, 189, recreation hall, 199, 209, 211, 217, 351 190, 192, 193, 262, 264, 271, 279, 284, 290, 354 resource conditions, 129, 132, 135 potential wilderness, 188, 189, 191 utilities, 89, 317, 325, 328, 331 Beetle Rock visitor facilities, 287 assembly hall. See Giant Forest wastewater treatment system, 321 education center. See Giant Forest water resources, 74, 99, 318, 321, 325, 328, 331 bicycling, 64, 193, 265, 272, 279, 285, 291, 294 Atwell Mill, 122 Big Stump Basin, 60, 201, 206, 208, 211, 212, 215, 217, campground, 119, 264, 284, 290, 341 219, 350, 351 mill site, 199, 201, 206, 211, 215, 219 cultural landscape, 199, 203 ranger station, 39, 199, 201, 205, 206, 209, 211, 213, resource impacts, 117 215, 218, 219 Big Stump entrance, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, 90, 241, 244, 245, water resources, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123 247, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 267, 268, 275, 281, 287, 293 Big Trees Trail, 60, 63 Boy Scout permit camp, 129, 266, 274, 280, 286, 292, 298, 302, 314, 352, 353

409 INDEX bridges, 38, 56, 62, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 126, 128, in national forests, 62, 65 129, 131, 133, 198 Mineral King, 45, 70, 284, 290, 298, 302, 306, 308, Buckeye Flat 310, 314 campground, 29, 65, 173, 177, 179, 264, 271, 284 prohibited areas, 92, 125 cultural landscape, 41 setbacks from water, 97, 99, 102 Bureau of Land Management, 27, 88, 315, 317, 320, 324, winter, 65, 272, 285, 291 327, 330, 331, 334, 359 Canyon View, 65 carrying capacity, 62, 158, 173, 197, 202, 207, 212, 216, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, C 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 Mineral King, 252 Cabin Cove, 70, 71, 200, 202, 204, 209, 211, 298, 302, caves, 8, 9, 11, 16, 28, 33, 43, 56, 59, 60, 92, 93, 94, 95, 307, 310, 314 96, 191, 260, 264, 272, 278, 279, 283, 285, 289, 290 Cabin Creek, 38, 41, 199, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211, 213, cave tours, 8, 56, 74, 92, 260, 272, 279, 319, 322 215, 217, 219, 351 wilderness designation, 190 California Air Resources Board, 21, 158, 159 wilderness protection, 192, 193 California Department of Transportation, 51, 90, 91, 175, Cedar Grove, 10, 11, 25, 36, 45, 46, 75, 89, 159, 198, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 248, 253, 256, 257, 320, 324, 200, 203, 205, 208, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 244, 248, 327, 330, 331, 334, 337, 340, 343, 345, 348 250, 253, 254, 256, 259, 264, 265, 271, 277, 279, 284, California Highway 180, 45, 51, 80, 83, 89, 90, 162, 164, 290, 344 166, 168, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 221, 223, 224, 226, backcountry access, 244 227, 243, 244, 247, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 320, bicycling, 272, 276, 285, 291, 294 324, 327, 330, 334, 337, 340, 343, 345, 348 bridges, 54, 126, 129, 131, 177, 182, 184, 185 California Highway 198, 45, 51, 80, 162, 170, 243, 244 campground, 65, 89, 98, 101, 127, 131, 133, 264, 271, California Highway 65, 91, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 221, 278, 284, 289, 292, 341 223, 224, 226, 227, 244, 337, 340, 343, 345, 348 concession operations, 74, 345 California historic preservation officer, 39, 40, 88, 197, contact station, 277 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169, 241 215, 217, 218, 219, 303, 314, 337, 339, 355, 356 entrance station, 251, 253 campgrounds, 12, 36, 37, 45, 56, 59, 64, 65, 73, 75, 76, food service, 67 77, 101, 110, 127, 131, 139, 176, 177, 178, 181, 183, historic structures, 77 185, 192, 224, 225, 254, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, housing, 77, 79, 321 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 278, 282, 285, 286, 287, lodging, 66, 342, 352 288, 291, 292, 321, 324, 328, 331, 338, 342 pack station, 78, 265, 280 Atwell Mill, 65, 119, 264, 284, 290, 341 parking, 76, 244, 245, 247 Buckeye Flat, 29, 65, 173, 177, 179, 264, 271, 284 ranger station, 63 Canyon View, 65 resource conditions, 129, 132, 135 Cedar Grove, 65, 89, 98, 101, 127, 131, 133, 264, 271, seasonal use, 266, 274, 280, 286 278, 284, 289, 292, 341 stock use, 62, 273, 285, 291 Cold Spring, 11, 65, 71, 98, 101, 264, 271, 278, 284, trails, 63 290 utilities, 75, 89 Dorst, 65, 75, 271, 278, 284, 289 visitor center, 60, 89, 269, 282, 288, 346 Grant Grove, 65, 271, 278, 284 visitor contact station, 262 Lodgepole, 28, 65, 97, 101, 107, 127, 131, 133, 177, visitor facilities, 67, 287 179, 264, 271, 278, 284, 290, 341 year-round use, 292, 331 Mineral King, 65 Chimney Rock, 27, 33, 63, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 North Fork of the Kaweah River, 290 Cold Spring, 11, 29, 65, 71, 98, 264 Potwisha, 28, 41, 51, 54, 65, 70, 177, 179, 221, 223, campground, 101, 264, 271, 278, 284, 290 228, 231, 232, 233, 264, 271, 278, 279, 284, 290, ranger station, 75 293, 298, 302, 306, 314, 351, 353 Colony Mill Road, 27, 33, 35, 46, 63, 71, 189, 193, 199, South Fork of the Kaweah River, 30, 65, 173, 252, 201, 204, 206, 209, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219, 247, 250, 271, 278, 284, 290 252, 253, 258, 315 camping, 35, 56, 58, 113, 127, 131, 133, 176, 177, 178, bicycling, 291 179, 181, 182, 183, 185, 244, 260, 264, 269, 271, 274, commercial permit holders, 74, 317, 319, 320, 323, 324, 278, 280, 284, 286, 290, 292, 293, 294, 343, 344 326, 327, 329, 331, 333, 334, 342 backcountry, 15, 26, 32, 65, 125, 136, 255, 258, 264, commercial services, 302 271, 284 concessioners, 24, 32, 59, 64, 74, 76, 77, 78, 83, 91, 189, frontcountry, 266, 271, 276, 278, 279, 284, 289, 290, 265, 274, 308, 317, 319, 320, 324, 326, 327, 331, 333, 292, 353 334, 335, 338, 341, 342, 344, 346, 348, 349 Giant Sequoia National Monument, 267, 275, 281, Converse Basin, 35 287

410 Index cooperating association. See Sequoia Natural History educational programs, 263, 269, 270, 276, 277, 279, 283, Association 287, 289, 294, 323, 326 corrals, 62, 110, 265, 273, 280, 285, 291, 332 ethnographic resources, 41, 42, 72, 228, 229, 230, 231, Crescent Meadow, 45, 52, 63, 239, 242, 244, 246, 267, 232, 233, 358, 370 275 ethnography, 42 bicycling, 291 parking, 76 Crystal Cave, 8, 27, 28, 36, 37, 45, 60, 75, 92, 93, 94, 95, F 96, 247, 264, 272, 279, 284, 290, 326 cultural landscape, 41 fire management parking, 76 wildland fires, 21, 44, 158, 161, 163, 165, 167, 168, cultural landscapes, 40, 41, 42, 72, 198, 200, 202, 203, 169, 170, 171, 345 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, fishing, 56, 60, 62, 77, 82, 146, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 217, 218, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 264, 272, 279, 285, 290, Ash Mountain, 41, 199, 204, 209 298, 302, 306, 314 Big Stump Basin, 199, 203 floodplains, 10, 11, 31, 71, 89, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, Buckeye Flat, 41 105, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185 Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormitory, 41 food service, 45, 64, 67, 78, 79, 189, 246, 249, 260, 266, Crystal Cave, 41 267, 272, 274, 275, 281, 285, 286, 290, 293, 319 General Sherman Tree, 41 Cedar Grove, 266 Generals Highway, 41 Fresno County, 21, 68, 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 162, 164, 166, Giant Forest, 41 168, 170, 337, 339 Giant Forest Lodge Historic District, 41 frontcountry, 28, 37, 58, 63, 65, 73, 75, 108, 111, 112, Giant Forest Village / Camp Kaweah Historic District, 138, 141, 155, 172, 173, 177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 184, 41 185, 186, 187, 261, 263, 265, 268, 270, 273, 276, 278, Grant Grove, 41 285, 289, 291, 325 Hospital Rock, 41 camping, 271 Kern River Trail, 41 stock use, 59, 62 Lodgepole, 41, 206, 215 trails, 108, 111, 137, 140, 141, 278, 283, 284, 287, Mineral King, 77, 209, 210, 350, 351 289 Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District, 41, use, 60, 104, 105, 112, 127, 131, 133, 142, 260, 262, 201, 204, 205, 206, 219 268, 277 Pear Lake, 41 Potwisha, 41 Sycamore CCC camp, 41, 204, 209 Wilsonia, 41 G Wolverton, 206, 215 Gamlin cabin, 38, 77, 198, 203, 208, 212, 217 General Grant National Park Historic District (potential), 39, 198, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211, 212, 215, 216, 219 D General Grant Tree, 34, 63, 198, 203, 208, 212, 217 General Sherman Tree, 54, 55, 115 Delaware North Parks Services, 66, 74, 78, 79 Generals Highway, 28, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 52, Dillonwood, 13, 33, 57, 63, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 67, 70, 75, 88, 89, 112, 136, 138, 123, 200, 205, 209, 214, 218, 247, 250, 252, 253, 255, 140, 141, 158, 159, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 198, 200, 256, 258, 259, 270, 286 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, wilderness study, 194 218, 219, 221, 223, 239, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, Disney properties, 30, 36, 83, 339, 345 251, 253, 257, 260, 267, 273, 275, 281, 287, 289, 293, Dorst, 27, 63, 65, 67, 89, 199, 292 318, 319, 326, 327, 333, 338, 340, 343, 345, 348 campground, 75, 271, 278, 284, 289 cultural landscape, 41 driving, 46, 52, 56, 70, 257, 267, 269, 275, 281, 287, 293 daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169, 241 parking, 76 winter use, 142 E Giant Forest, 5, 35, 36, 37, 46, 56, 159, 248, 253, 292 air quality monitoring, 22 East Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 29, 30, 31, 33, 69, 101, Beetle Rock assembly hall, 40, 60, 76, 88, 200, 205, 127, 131, 133, 173, 174, 176, 179, 181, 183, 185, 352 210, 214, 218 East Mineral King, 70, 71, 200, 202, 204, 209, 211, 298, Beetle Rock education center, 262, 263, 269, 277, 302, 307, 310, 314 280, 283, 289, 293 educational facilities, 60, 260, 262, 269, 270, 276, 277, cultural landscape, 41 282, 283, 287, 288, 293, 321, 338 daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169 educational facilities, 288

411 INDEX

food service, 266, 274 lodging, 66, 76, 88, 116, 129, 266, 274, 280, 286, 302, historic structures, 199, 201, 203, 206, 209, 211, 213, 319, 337, 340, 342 215, 217, 219 pack station, 265, 280 interpretation, 269 parking, 76, 249, 254 lodging, 66, 302 ranger station, 63 museum, 46, 51, 55, 60, 63, 76, 88, 262, 269, 277, resource conditions, 117, 120, 122 280, 283, 288, 319 seasonal housing, 73 parking, 76, 88, 239, 266 stock use, 62, 274, 285, 291 restoration, 75, 77, 88, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, traffic, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 109, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, 136, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 270, 276 138, 142, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 267, 275, 281, transit system, 251, 257 287, 293 visitor center, 54, 60, 89, 242, 245, 254, 262, 263, stock use, 62, 286 269, 283, 288 trails, 291 visitor facilities, 67, 98, 100, 102, 103, 120, 122, 136, transit system, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 109, 136, 138, 142, 221, 223, 276 138, 142, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, visitor use, 119 251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 263, 268, 270, 274, 280, water demand, 132 338, 340, 343, 346, 348 water resources, 68, 74, 99, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, utilities, 75, 89 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 318, 321, visitor facilities, 221, 223, 262, 267, 276, 281, 283, 325, 328, 331 287, 292, 293, 294 winter use, 62, 265, 272, 285, 290 water demand, 128, 132, 134 Groenfeldt. See archeological sites winter use, 265 Giant Forest Lodge Historic District, 38, 41 Giant Forest Village / Camp Kaweah Historic District, H 38, 41 giant sequoia groves, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29, 30, 33, 115, 116, historic districts, 39, 40, 68, 88, 89, 198, 200, 202, 205, 118, 119, 121, 123, 190, 191, 192, 193, 267 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 351, Atwell Mill, 13, 114, 117, 119, 120, 122 353 Big Stump, 114, 115, 122 Giant Forest Lodge Historic District, 38 Dillonwood, 13, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, Giant Forest Village / Camp Kaweah Historic District, 122, 123 38 Giant Forest, 13, 34, 35, 77, 88, 115, 159 potential historic districts Grant Grove, 13, 14, 35, 74, 99, 115, 120, 122, 159 Ash Mountain, 39, 199, 201, 204, 206, 209, 211, Muir Grove, 63, 122 213, 215, 217, 219 Redwood Mountain, 114, 122 General Grant National Park Historic District, 39, Squirrel Creek Grove, 114 198, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211, 212, 215, 216, 351 Giant Sequoia National Monument, 37, 57, 62, 67, 68, Grant Grove National Park Historic District, 219 89, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, Lodgepole, 39, 201, 203, 206, 211, 213, 215, 219 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, Sycamore CCC camp, 39, 199, 201, 204, 206, 209, 134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219, 351 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 244, Wolverton, 201, 203, 206, 213, 215, 352 247, 248, 250, 253, 255, 257, 258, 259, 267, 268, 271, Wolverton, 206 275, 276, 281, 287, 292, 293, 294, 299, 304, 311, 315, Shorty Lovelace Historic District (backcountry), 39, 319, 320, 323, 326, 327, 330, 333, 334, 343, 344, 359 198, 202, 206, 215 Grant Grove, 34, 36, 39, 45, 56, 68, 89, 159, 200, 205, Wilsonia Historic District, 39, 199, 201, 203, 206, 210, 214, 218, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 257 211, 212, 215, 217, 219 bicycling, 285, 291 historic structures, 36, 38, 39, 40, 56, 70, 72, 73, 197, bypass, 112, 113, 141, 143, 227, 257, 259, 292, 294, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 352 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 224, campgrounds, 65, 271, 278, 284 226, 227, 318, 321, 328, 331, 351 concession operations, 74, 79, 105, 108, 109, 121, 134 Ash Mountain, 213, 219 cultural landscape, 41 Atwell Mill ranger station, 39, 199, 201, 205, 206, daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169, 241, 209, 211, 213, 215, 218, 219 245, 248 backcountry, 198, 207, 211, 212, 215, 216 entrance station, 277, 282 Beetle Rock assembly hall, 40, 76, 88 food service, 67 Cabin Creek ranger residence and dormitory, 38, 199, historic structures, 77, 198, 203, 208, 212, 216 201, 203, 206, 208, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219 historic structures (potential), 40 Gamlin cabin, 38, 77, 198, 203, 208, 212, 217 housing, 77, 321 Giant Forest, 199, 203, 213, 219 Grant Grove, 198, 208

412 Index

Lodgepole, 203, 215 Lookout Point residence, 199, 201, 205, 206, 209, K 211, 213, 215, 218, 219 Lost Creek comfort station, 201, 206, 211, 215, 219 Kaweah Han (private inholding), 30, 69, 89, 295, 297, Mineral King, 204, 209 301, 306, 309, 313, 316, 339, 345 Pear Lake ski hut, 39, 198, 201, 202, 206, 207, 211, Kaweah River, 8, 9, 11, 26, 27, 29, 31, 35, 42, 45, 62, 69, 215, 219 89, 101, 127, 131, 133, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 183, Redwood Mountain residence, 39, 198, 201, 203, 206, 184, 185, 352 208, 211, 212, 215, 217, 219 kayaking, 273 Wilsonia, 203, 212 Kern River, 18, 41, 146, 147, 150, 153, 155 Wolverton, 203, 215, 352 Kern River Trail, 41 Hockett Plateau, 30, 33, 108, 110, 113, 137, 142, 189, Kings Canyon Highway, 45, 46, 52, 68, 158, 177, 179, 190, 191, 192, 193, 262, 291 181, 183, 185, 239, 241, 245, 248, 251, 253, 254, 256, Hospital Rock, 29, 37, 39, 41, 177, 179, 198, 221, 222, 257, 273, 320, 324, 327, 330, 334 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 242, daily vehicle traffic, 241 270, 370 Kings Canyon Lodge, 67, 89 cultural landscape, 41 Kings Canyon Park Services, 66, 74, 78, 83 housing (for employees), 77, 78, 79, 83, 88, 198, 199, Kings River, 8, 9, 25, 35, 36, 126, 129, 173, 179 203, 204, 206, 211, 213, 217, 246, 267, 308, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, 326, 329, 330, 333, 334, 335, 339, 340, 341, 344, 346, 348, 351 Hume Lake, 62, 67, 83, 89, 138, 140, 142, 244, 245, 248, L 249, 250, 251, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 276, 277, Lake Kaweah, 89, 267, 275, 281, 293 292, 299, 304, 311, 315 local economy, 81, 82, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345, hydroelectric power generation system, 9, 28, 29, 31, 38, 346, 347, 348, 349 39, 69, 70, 96, 100, 101, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, Lodgepole, 10, 28, 36, 45, 52, 53, 56, 62, 63, 65, 67, 74, 134, 135, 146, 149, 151, 172, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 77, 78, 79, 89, 97, 107, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 158, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 200, 201, 205, 206, 209, 210, 159, 173, 177, 199, 200, 205, 208, 210, 211, 214, 215, 214, 217, 218, 223, 260, 272, 279, 295, 297, 301, 304, 217, 218, 219, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 249, 306, 307, 309, 311, 314, 315, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 264, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356 266, 271, 274, 279, 280, 283, 284, 286, 290, 292, 319, Kaweah no. 3, 199, 201, 202, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 323, 341, 351 213, 214, 215, 217, 219, 220, 350, 351, 353, 355, campground, 28, 97, 101, 107, 127, 131, 133, 177, 356 179, 264, 271, 278, 284, 290, 341 cultural landscape, 41, 206, 215 daily vehicle traffic, 161, 164, 166, 169 I food service, 67 historic district (potential), 39, 201, 203, 206, 211, impairment, 59, 62, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 104, 213, 215 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, historic structures, 215 127, 129, 130, 133, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 147, historic structures (potential), 40 150, 152, 155, 157, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 178, 180, housing, 321 182, 184, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 201, 206, 210, interpretation, 269 215, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228, 235, 236, 237 parking, 76, 344 incidental business permit. See commercial permit holder ranger station, 63 inholding. See private inholdings resource conditions, 129, 132, 135 interpretation, 60, 72, 202, 207, 212, 216, 263, 269, 270, transit system, 248 277, 283, 289, 310, 314, 333 visitor center, 60, 242, 262, 269, 277, 283, 288 outreach programs, 60, 260, 263, 270, 276, 277, 283, visitor facilities, 67 287, 289 water resources, 74, 318, 321, 325, 328, 331 wayside exhibits, 37, 60, 88, 228, 260, 261, 263, 269, lodging, 13, 37, 45, 56, 66, 67, 74, 76, 83, 88, 90, 115, 270, 272, 277, 278, 279, 282, 283, 288, 290 127, 131, 133, 175, 198, 246, 249, 254, 257, 260, 262, Inyo National Forest, 32, 62, 80, 162, 228, 230 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 286, 287, 292, 293, 294, 297, 301, 302, 306, 308, 309, 312, 313, 319, 323, 342, 343, 344, 351 J Cedar Grove, 66, 352 Giant Sequoia National Monument, 267, 275, 281, Jennie Lakes, 27, 32, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 287 John Muir Lodge, 66, 88, 116 Grant Grove, 66, 88, 129, 266, 274, 280, 286, 337, 340 water use, 321

413 INDEX

Wuksachi, 66, 274, 275, 281, 287, 292, 293, 337, 340 Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District, 29, Lookout Point, 75, 199, 201, 205, 206, 209, 211, 215, 38, 41, 45, 70, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 209, 219 211, 213, 214, 215, 218, 219, 303, 310, 319, 350, air quality monitoring, 22 351, 355, 356, 359 Lost Creek, 201, 206, 211, 215, 219 mining remnants, 200, 202, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, 218 pack station, 78, 99, 101, 265, 280 M parking, 54, 76, 247, 250, 252, 297, 301, 306, 309, 313 management prescriptions, 176, 180, 182, 184, 186, 260, private inholdings, 30, 69, 97, 107, 207, 247, 337, 302, 313 339, 345, 347 management zones, 260, 262 public use, 297, 303, 315 high-use frontcountry, 133, 261, 262, 263, 268, 269, ranger station, 63 270, 277, 280, 282, 283, 288, 324, 331, 354 special use permit cabins, 45, 68, 70, 71, 77, 83, 97, high-use scenic driving, 261, 265, 268, 272, 277, 282, 99, 107, 201, 202, 204, 210, 213, 214, 218, 247, 288 265, 273, 295, 298, 300, 302, 304, 305, 307, 308, low-use frontcountry, 127, 131, 175, 261, 262, 265, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 321, 328, 332, 266, 268, 272, 274, 276, 282, 286, 288, 321, 324, 335, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 328, 331 348, 350, 351, 355 major trails, 178, 193, 321, 324, 328, 331 tax revenue, 83 residential areas, 261, 268, 282, 321, 324, 328 stock use, 62, 274, 285, 291 secondary major trails, 156 transit service, 247 villages, 268, 276, 282, 288, 324, 328, 331 transportation carrying capacity, 250, 252, 253, 255, Cedar Grove, 177, 179, 248, 253 256, 258, 259 Grant Grove, 36, 60, 66, 68, 73, 89, 208, 244, 245, utility systems, 99, 322, 328 247, 248, 249, 250, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 340 vehicular access, 278 Wuksachi, 55, 66, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 109, visitor contact station, 60, 262, 269, 283, 288 245, 249, 267, 275 water resources, 30, 318, 321, 325, 328, 331 wild and scenic rivers, 173, 175 wilderness study, 33, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194 Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 10, 27, 28, 29, 31, winter use, 142 35, 38, 39, 97, 99, 101, 103, 104, 127, 129, 131, 133, Mineral King Preservation Society, 310 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 198 mining remnants, 200, 202, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 215, meadows, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 30, 56, 60, 62, 124, 125, 218 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 175, 350 mitigation measures, 93, 97, 99, 118, 119, 121, 122, 149, Merritt Spring, 14, 128, 130 152, 155, 157, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 196, 197, 199, Middle Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 16, 18, 28, 31, 64, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 209, 211, 215, 217, 219, 220, 97, 99, 100, 101, 129, 146, 149, 151, 154, 156, 173, 222, 224, 225, 227, 310, 350, 355, 356 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 269, 273 Montecito-Sequoia Lodge, 45, 62, 66, 67, 89, 254 Middle Fork of the Kings River, 174, 177, 178, 179, 181, Moro Rock, 5, 35, 36, 39, 45, 46, 51, 52, 76, 158, 239, 183, 184 242, 244, 246 Mill Flat Creek, 14, 115 parking, 76 Mineral King, 31, 46, 58, 59, 63, 77, 159, 200, 205, 210, Mount Whitney shelter, 39, 198, 201, 202, 206, 207, 211, 214, 218, 241, 247, 255 215, 219 access, 285, 291 museum collections, 42, 43, 44, 72, 233, 234, 235, 236, air quality monitoring, 22 237, 369, 407 campgrounds, 264, 271, 278, 284, 290 concessioner operations, 74 cultural landscape, 77, 209, 210, 350, 351 N daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169, 241 entrance, 46, 51, 57 Native Americans, 27, 30, 34, 41, 42, 72, 177, 179, 195, floodplain, 10, 11 228, 283, 333 historic structures, 204, 209 consultations, 72, 228, 358 housing area, 321 uses of park resources, 283 hydroelectric dams, 9, 30, 70, 97, 101, 126, 127, 129, North Fork of the Kaweah River, 27, 71, 131, 133, 154, 130, 272, 279, 298, 302, 306, 314 157, 269 legislative history, 36, 299 campground, 290 Mineral King Road, 34, 36, 45, 46, 51, 69, 70, 71, 75, North Fork of the Kern River, 8, 9, 25, 174, 177, 178, 158, 239, 241, 250, 255, 258, 299, 301, 304, 306, 179, 180, 183, 184 307, 309, 311, 313, 315 carrying capacity, 246

414 Index

Silver City, 30, 67, 69, 77, 78, 83, 89, 200, 204, 207, O 295, 297, 299, 301, 304, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 315, 316, 339, 342, 345, 347, 351 Oriole Lake, 32, 68, 69, 83, 89, 295, 296, 297, 299, 300, Silver City Resort, 78, 342 301, 304, 305, 309, 311, 312, 337, 339, 342, 345, 347, Wilsonia, 14, 39, 68, 77, 83, 89, 97, 99, 199, 203, 207, 352 208, 212, 217, 265, 273, 285, 291, 295, 296, 299, potential wilderness, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194 300, 304, 305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 315, 316, 318, overnight use, 57, 111, 132, 174, 175, 249, 254, 257 321, 328, 331, 337, 339, 342, 345, 347, 351

P Q pack station, 4, 33, 75, 99, 175. See also stable Quail Flat, 67, 138, 140, 142, 248, 249, 250, 251, 254, Mineral King, 99, 101 256, 257, 259 park administration and operations helicopter use, 318, 322, 325, 329, 332 ranger stations, 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 71, 73, 74, 75, R 77, 319 snowmobile use, 325, 332 Redwood Canyon, 27, 33, 57, 89, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 staffing, 72, 78, 262, 263, 317, 319, 320, 323, 324, Redwood Mountain, 13, 27, 33, 36, 39, 63, 89, 120, 198, 326, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 340, 201, 203, 206, 208, 211, 212, 215, 217, 249, 251, 351 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349 water resources, 117 stock use, 74, 110, 318, 322, 325, 329, 332 regional economy, 335, 336, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, winter operations, 254, 257, 318, 322, 325, 329, 332 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349 work camps, 323 riparian / aquatic ecosystems, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, parking, 10, 36, 45, 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 69, 70, 75, 76, 27, 28, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 77, 88, 97, 99, 102, 104, 110, 115, 119, 159, 175, 212, 133, 134, 135, 137, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 151, 216, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 238, 239, 241, 154, 156, 350, 351 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, river access, 97, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 127, 129, 131, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 268, 272, 133, 135, 137, 140, 142, 143, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 284, 290, 292, 306, 312, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 272, 273, 284, 290, 298, 342, 344, 346 302, 306, 314 Cedar Grove, 244 Round Meadow, 14, 35, 60, 115, 116, 128, 130 Giant Forest, 88, 266 Grant Grove, 120, 122, 249, 254 trailhead parking, 297, 301, 306, 313 Wolverton, 286 S Pear Lake, 32, 39, 41, 63, 65, 198, 201, 202, 206, 207, San Joaquin River, 8, 9, 26, 174 211, 215, 219 San Joaquin Valley, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 34, 88, 158, 159, picnicking, 41, 55, 58, 60, 70, 77, 97, 99, 102, 104, 221, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 245, 246, 251, 252, 257, 266, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 267, 274, 275, 280, 281, 287, 292, 293, 312 District, 19, 20, 21, 22, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, Potwisha, 28, 70, 173, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 258 168, 169, 170, 171 campground, 28, 41, 51, 54, 65, 70, 177, 179, 221, Sequoia Creek, 14, 115 223, 228, 231, 232, 233, 264, 271, 278, 279, 284, Sequoia National Forest, 25, 27, 32, 37, 57, 162, 320, 290, 293, 298, 302, 306, 314, 351, 353 323, 327, 330, 333, 343, 344 cultural landscape, 41 Sequoia Natural History Association, 60, 72, 74, 263, visitor center, 288 272, 279, 290, 317, 318, 322, 326, 329, 332 Potwisha Indians, 28, 29, 42 sequoia trees (named) private inholdings, 14, 30, 45, 68, 97, 99, 296, 300, 309, General Grant Tree, 34, 198, 203, 208, 212, 217 331, 335 General Sherman Tree, 41, 54, 55, 115 Disney properties, 30, 36, 83, 339, 345 camping, 104 Grant Grove, 14 Shepherd Saddle, 127, 131, 273, 285, 291 Kaweah Han, 30, 69, 89, 295, 297, 301, 306, 309, 313, bicycling, 291 316, 339, 345 Shorty Lovelace Historic District (backcountry), 39, 198, Mineral King Valley, 30, 78, 97, 107, 247 202, 206, 215 Oriole Lake, 32, 68, 69, 83, 89, 295, 296, 297, 299, Sierra National Forest, 32, 162, 320, 323, 327, 330, 333 300, 301, 304, 305, 309, 311, 312, 337, 339, 342, Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and 345, 347, 352 Collaboration, 89, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109,

415 INDEX

110, 112, 113, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139, Stony Creek, 27, 45, 89 141, 142 Stony Creek Lodge, 66, 67, 89, 292 sightseeing, 60 Sycamore CCC camp, 77, 199, 204, 206, 209, 211, 213, Silliman Creek, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134 215, 217, 219, 351 Silver City, 30, 67, 69, 77, 78, 83, 89, 200, 204, 207, 295, cultural landscape, 41, 209 297, 299, 301, 304, 306, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 315, potential historic district, 39, 201 316, 339, 342, 345, 347, 351 visitor services, 67 Silver City Resort, 67, 78, 297, 301, 306, 309, 313 T snow machines, 265, 273, 279, 285, 291 snowmobiling, 62, 68, 69, 71, 73, 260, 265, 267, 273, Tehipite Valley, 8, 36, 177, 179 275, 279, 281, 285, 287, 291, 293, 318, 320, 322, 323, Tharp’s Log, 39, 76, 115, 199, 203, 209, 213, 217 324, 327, 329, 330, 331, 334 threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, 12, 14, 16, snowshoeing, 62, 265, 272, 285, 290 17, 18, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 155, 157, 354 soils, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 28, 29, 87, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, amphibians, 18, 146, 149, 151, 154, 156 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, birds, 17, 145, 148, 151, 153, 156 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 129, 133, 136, 138, 140, 142, crustaceans, 18, 149, 152, 154, 157 350, 351, 352, 355, 356 fish, 18, 146, 149, 151 South Fork of the Kaweah River, 30, 101, 174 insects, 18, 146, 149, 151, 154, 157 campground, 30, 173, 252, 271, 278, 284, 290 mammals, 17, 144, 148, 150, 153, 155 South Fork of the Kings River, 11, 25, 62, 97, 98, 100, plants, 18, 147, 149, 152, 154, 157 101, 103, 105, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, 174, 175, 177, reptiles, 17, 146, 149, 151, 154, 156 179, 181, 183, 185, 265, 273 Three Rivers, 34, 39, 42, 45, 51, 78, 83, 88, 89, 90, 162, Southern California Edison, 31, 69, 335, 337, 338, 339, 267, 271, 275, 281, 286, 293, 319, 336, 340, 343 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 349 trails, 12, 34, 36, 38, 97, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, special status species. See Threatened, endangered, or 110, 113, 115, 133, 261, 265, 268, 269, 272, 277, 278, sensitive species 282, 288, 289, 357 special use permits, 31, 45, 70, 71, 87, 176, 179, 181, backcountry, 33, 58, 59, 62, 63, 73, 99, 101, 110, 136, 185, 204, 213, 218, 295, 299, 303, 304, 305, 308, 310, 145, 150, 151, 153, 156, 193, 252, 255, 258, 263, 311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 326, 335, 337, 338, 339, 341, 270, 288, 289, 322, 326, 329, 333, 351 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 392 caves, 8, 92, 93, 95 Boy Scout camp, 129, 266, 274, 280, 286, 292, 298, frontcountry, 28, 63, 73, 88, 99, 102, 108, 111, 112, 302, 314, 352, 353 113, 118, 120, 121, 122, 137, 140, 141, 257, 272, hydroelectric facilities, 9, 28, 29, 31, 38, 39, 69, 70, 278, 279, 283, 284, 287, 289, 290 96, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 110, 126, 127, 128, impacts of maintenance, 12 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 146, 149, 151, 172, 176, in sensitive areas, 15, 125, 131, 133 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 199, social, 12, 15, 107, 125, 129, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 201, 202, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 184, 185, 264 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 260, 272, 279, 295, 297, stock use, 266, 274, 286, 291, 292 300, 301, 304, 306, 307, 309, 311, 314, 315, 335, transit systems, 242, 243, 254, 257, 258, 259, 263, 269, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 278, 283, 288, 292, 294 350, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 365, 386 Giant Forest, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 108, 109, 136, Mineral King permit cabins, 45, 70, 71, 77, 97, 99, 138, 142, 246, 247, 249, 251, 255, 263, 268, 270, 107, 201, 202, 204, 210, 213, 214, 218, 247, 295, 274, 280, 338, 340, 343, 345, 348 298, 300, 302, 304, 305, 307, 308, 310, 314, 316, transportation, 22, 24, 35, 47, 87, 162, 164, 166, 168, 319, 321, 328, 332, 355, 383, 384 170, 171, 216, 238, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, stables, 60, 273, 319, 322, 326, 329, 333 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, staffing, 72, 78, 262, 263, 317, 319, 320, 323, 324, 326, 265, 273, 337, 338, 340, 341, 343, 345, 346, 348, 349 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 340, 341, 342, Grant Grove, 253, 257, 259, 270 344, 345, 346, 348, 349 Grant Grove bypass, 112, 113, 141, 143, 259, 352 stock use, 15, 28, 31, 57, 59, 62, 64, 74, 101, 107, 108, level of service, 46, 47, 51, 52, 239, 241 110, 111, 113, 125, 129, 137, 139, 140, 145, 146, 148, Tulare County, 20, 21, 45, 70, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83, 90, 162, 149, 151, 154, 156, 174, 178, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 164, 166, 168, 170, 200, 205, 210, 214, 218, 221, 223, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 260, 266, 273, 274, 285, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 335, 337, 339, 286, 291, 318, 319, 322, 326, 329, 332, 333, 342, 344 347 backcountry, 103, 111, 113 Cedar Grove, 291 Grant Grove, 291 impacts of, 266 U Mineral King, 291 stables, 60, 273, 319, 322, 326, 329, 333 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 14, 16, 143, 147, 149, 152, 155, 157, 359

416 Index

U.S. Forest Service, 16, 25, 27, 31, 32, 36, 45, 62, 63, 65, water resources, 9, 96 70, 83, 88, 89, 98, 100, 102, 103, 105, 114, 116, 117, conservation measures, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 118, 119, 121, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 121, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 354 139, 141, 142, 162, 254, 265, 267, 269, 273, 280, 281, drought plans, 318, 321, 328, 331 285, 291, 295, 299, 304, 311, 315, 317, 319, 320, 323, groundwater, 8, 9, 14, 29, 115 324, 326, 327, 330, 331, 333, 334 surface water, 10, 71, 96, 115, 121 utility systems, 68, 73, 74, 81, 82, 88, 202, 204, 207, 211, wastewater, 12, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, 88, 89, 90, 98, 216, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 267, 275, 281, 287, 293, 100, 101, 103, 104, 268, 272, 290, 317, 318, 321, 302, 303, 317, 318, 321, 324, 328, 330, 331, 332 322, 325, 328, 331, 332 Mineral King, 328 withdrawals, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 354 V watercraft use, 60, 176, 178, 181, 183, 185, 273, 291 West Mineral King, 70, 71, 129, 200, 202, 204, 209, 211, vegetation, 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 26, 27, 28, 63, 87, 97, 99, 252, 298, 302, 307, 310, 314, 319 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, wetlands, 14, 15, 16, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 113, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 173, 350 128, 129, 130, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, wild and scenic rivers, 25, 26, 27, 31, 56, 60, 87, 172, 145, 147, 149, 152, 155, 157, 199, 208, 264, 272, 279, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 260, 350, 351, 353 284, 290, 350, 351, 352, 354 backcountry rivers, 173, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184 visitation, 8, 19, 56, 57, 58, 59, 88, 92, 98, 99, 108, 125, designated rivers 162, 165, 167, 168, 170, 177, 180, 181, 184, 186, 191, Middle Fork of the Kings River, 174, 177, 178, 192, 216, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227, 238, 239, 240, 241, 179, 181, 183, 184 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, North Fork of the Kern River, 8, 9, 25, 174, 177, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184 272, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 288, 301, 326, 336, South Fork of the Kings River, 11, 25, 62, 97, 98, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349 100, 101, 103, 105, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, visitor centers, 42, 54, 59, 60, 67, 72, 77, 89, 226, 232, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 265, 273 233, 241, 246, 249, 251, 252, 257, 258, 259, 260, 269, eligible rivers 276, 292, 293, 294, 319, 324, 328, 331, 346, 353 East Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 29, 30, 31, 33, Ash Mountain / Foothills, 45, 54, 60, 262, 267, 269, 69, 101, 127, 131, 133, 173, 174, 176, 179, 181, 275, 276, 281, 283, 287, 288, 293 183, 185, 352 Cedar Grove, 60, 227, 269, 277, 282, 288, 292, 294 Marble Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 10, 27, 28, Grant Grove, 60, 242, 245, 254, 262, 267, 269, 275, 29, 31, 35, 38, 39, 97, 99, 101, 103, 104, 127, 281, 283, 287, 288, 292, 293 129, 131, 133, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, Lodgepole, 60, 242, 262, 269, 277, 283, 288 183, 185, 198 Potwisha, 226, 227, 288 Middle Fork of the Kaweah River, 9, 16, 18, 28, Wye, 226, 227 31, 64, 97, 99, 100, 101, 129, 146, 149, 151, visitor experience, 52, 55, 56, 87, 176, 179, 181, 185, 154, 156, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 181, 183, 187, 202, 207, 212, 216, 238, 239, 243, 251, 260, 261, 185, 273 263, 267, 268, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 281, South Fork of the Kaweah River, 30, 101, 173, 174 282, 284, 286, 287, 288, 290, 292, 293, 294, 319, 350, South Fork of the San Joaquin River, 8, 9, 26, 174 351, 353 frontcountry rivers, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, visitors with disabilities, 272, 279, 290 183, 185 recreational opportunities, 55, 266, 273, 280 ineligible rivers volunteers, 70, 72, 74, 77, 83, 263, 274, 277, 292, 298, North Fork of the Kaweah River, 27, 71, 131, 133, 302, 314, 317, 319, 320, 322, 324, 326, 327, 329, 330, 154, 157 331, 333, 334, 337 management zones, 175 outstandingly remarkable values, 25, 26, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 W recreational rivers, 173 river protection measures, 173 Walter Fry Nature Center, 60, 262, 269, 277, 283 stock use, 174, 176, 177, 179 wastewater treatment systems, 12, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 78, use levels, 173, 175 88, 89, 90, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 268, 272, 290, 317, wild rivers, 173 318, 321, 322, 325, 328, 331, 332 wilderness, 12, 15, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 36, 56, 58, 62, 65, water play, 56, 60, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 68, 69, 80, 87, 89, 96, 98, 100, 102, 106, 108, 109, 183, 184, 185, 186, 260, 264, 271, 273, 279, 283, 284, 110, 112, 113, 128, 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 139, 147, 290 150, 152, 155, 173, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 187, 188, water quality, 10, 15, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 260, 262, 263, 265, 269, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 124

417 INDEX

270, 273, 278, 282, 284, 285, 288, 289, 291, 296, 300, 291, 292, 298, 302, 307, 310, 314, 323, 329, 333, 351, 305, 312, 335, 352 352, 353 Ansel Adams Wilderness, 89, 98, 100, 102, 126 Boy Scout permit camp, 129, 266, 274, 280, 286, 292, Dinkey Lakes Wilderness, 89, 98, 100, 102, 126 298, 302, 314, 352, 353 Golden Trout Wilderness, 25, 32, 33, 188, 189 cultural landscape, 206, 215 John Muir Wilderness, 32, 35, 36, 66, 80, 89, 98, 100, daily vehicle traffic, 158, 164, 166, 169, 241 102, 126, 188, 189 food service, 67 Mineral King area, 188 historic district (potential), 201, 203, 206, 213, 215 Monarch Wilderness, 9, 30, 32, 34, 98, 100, 102, 110, historic structures, 215, 352 126, 188, 189 pack operations, 62 potential wilderness, 32, 69, 89, 187, 188, 296, 300, parking, 76, 346 305, 312 stock use, 62 wildlife habitat, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 354, winter use, 272, 285, 290 355, 356 Wolverton Creek, 126, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134 Wilsonia, 14, 39, 68, 77, 83, 89, 97, 99, 203, 207, 208, Wuksachi, 27, 28, 37, 41, 42, 55, 62, 63, 66, 67, 74, 75, 211, 217, 265, 273, 285, 291, 295, 296, 299, 300, 304, 77, 78, 79, 88, 100, 102, 103, 105, 126, 128, 130, 132, 305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 315, 316, 318, 321, 328, 331, 134, 159, 199, 228, 239, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 337, 339, 342, 345, 347, 351 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 267, 286, 323 cultural landscape, 41 concession operations, 105, 108, 109, 345 Wilsonia Historic District, 199, 203, 208, 211, 212, daily vehicle traffic, 158, 161, 164, 166, 169, 241 215, 217, 219, 300, 351 food service, 67, 266, 274 winter use, 62, 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 249, 265, 266, housing, 321 272, 273, 274, 279, 280, 282, 285, 286, 290, 291, 292, lodging, 66, 266, 274, 275, 281, 287, 292, 293, 319, 322, 332, 352 337, 340 Wolverton, 36, 45, 52, 55, 62, 63, 67, 70, 74, 78, 88, 126, parking, 76 129, 134, 159, 161, 199, 206, 208, 211, 213, 215, 217, transit system, 248 219, 239, 242, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, visitor facilities, 98, 100, 102, 103, 136, 138, 142, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 266, 274, 279, 280, 286, 221, 223 visitor services, 67

418 As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participa- tion in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation com- munities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-510 April 2004

Printed on Recyled Paper