|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Home Forum News Contact | ||
|
Scoping Study Submission To Yosemite Park Planners, from the Brian Ouzounian, Co-founder of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition
February 1, 2010Dave Uberuaga, Acting SuperintendentATTN: Merced River Plan/SEIS P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, CA 95389
Superintendent Uberuaga:
Following are scoping comments that we hope will be useful in developing the Merced River Plan/SEIS. We trust that the National Park Service (NPS) will enthusiastically embrace this unique opportunity by truly wiping the slate clean, as repeatedly stated, and designing a plan with specific measurable goals and objectives that will truly protect the Merced River and its environs while improving the quality of the visitor experience.
Comments are organized around the three legs of user capacity as defined by the still valid 1982 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) Guidelines:
the quantity of recreation use which an area can sustain without adverse impact · on the outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing character of the river area, · the quality of recreation experience, and · public health and safety.
When the three legs are factored together, we are hopeful it will result in a numerical capacity that can be scientifically and objectively determined and applied with consistency across all projects. Additionally, a transportation component has been included at the end along with some final comments.
As an aside, scattered throughout this letter are numerous questions. These are not rhetorical questions but questions deserving of a response. We trust they will be addressed in the Scoping Report and in the Plan.
…WITHOUT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ORVs AND FREE-FLOWING CHARACTER OF THE RIVER AREA
1. All ORVs must be clearly and thoroughly defined so they can be easily understood, accepted, and supported by the public.
In reviewing various WSRA guidance documents, it is acknowledged that there is no “official” definition of ORV. However, there is common agreement that an ORV should constitute the very best of the best and that it be river related or river-dependent. Is there anything regionally or even nationally to compare—and what specifically was used as the basis for comparison? Do visitors travel great distances specifically because of a particular ORV—something not available anywhere else?
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 2 of 32 February 1, 2010
For example, visitors come from all over the globe to view the Scenic and Geologic ORVs associated with Yosemite Valley—Half Dome, El Capitan, Bridalveil Fall, Yosemite Falls, etc. These iconic wonders are world renowned.
Recognizing the importance of ORVs, the WSRA Interagency Commission (2002) published the following management directive: “Thoroughly define the ORVs to guide future management actions and to serve as the baseline for monitoring.” Such a definition should include documentation and justification for selection, denoting goals for protection, and specifying how management prescriptions would achieve stated measurable objectives. Descriptions should be in easy-to-understand language so as to be meaningful to a scientifically challenged public. An oft-repeated statement that ORVs may be in conflict appears to be a barrier to providing adequate protection for any of them—are there too many; do ORVs need to be weighted; what are the specific measurable goals and objectives for each ORV that will guarantee their protection within each project and plan.
Decisions in past plans/projects as to which ORVs are protected and which are pushed aside using the “net gain” argument appear to have been made in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner by the NPS based on existing commercialization and infrastructure as well as laying the groundwork for future, perhaps already funded, pet projects. Money, whether appropriated by Congress or the Yosemite Fund, and how to spend it often seem to be the driving force, often complicated by politics and influence.
There must be clear and objective methodology that can be explained to the public and consistently applied.
2. The new Plan needs to clearly explain the relationship between the selection and the protection of ORVs and the nondegradation standard and how the Park applies that standard.
As stated in Section 10(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the “primary emphasis shall be given to protecting [the River’s] esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features.” The 1982 Interagency Guidelines go on to state that “each component will be managed to protect and enhance the values for which the river was designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses which do not adversely impact or degrade those values.” This is referred to as the nondegradation standard. WSRA then provides examples of possible River values such as scenery, recreation, fish and wildlife, geology, history, culture, and other similar values—but the primary emphasis still rests with the esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features.
An example of a “disconnect”: WSRA mandates ‘Scenic’ and ‘Esthetic’ as primary emphasis elements. ‘Scenic’ is also an ORV for the segment of the Merced River corridor in East Yosemite Valley. That being the case, WHY was the Yosemite Fund allowed to construct a restroom that looks more like a mini-lodge, and an outrageously oversized bus stop structure that looks like a monument to the Yosemite Fund’s private architect as part of the Lower Yosemite Fall project? One would think “fundraising” was the ORV rather than preserving the scenic value of Yosemite Falls and the Merced River corridor. ‘Archeologic’ features are also primary emphasis elements, yet the NPS allowed the desecration of subsurface archaeologic deposits in the project area including the prehistoric/historic Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 3 of 32 February 1, 2010
village of Chief Tenaya. This project is the ultimate example of how money and influence can corrupt the goals/objectives for protection of the Merced River corridor.
Future decisions must be consistent across the board based on clear and objective methodology. Past public frustration (even outrage) has occurred when decisions appeared to be arbitrary administrative mandates based on the special interest group and political agenda of the day.
3. The Park Service must provide documentation of baseline resource conditions along with an on-going program for monitoring.
A recent (2002) technical assistance paper published by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Interagency Commission states as a management directive: “To achieve a nondegradation standard, the river-administering agency must document baseline resource conditions and monitor changes to these conditions.” Such a scientific base of information would need to document the resources that are to be protected and preserved in the park; the condition of those resources; any changes in condition over time; and actions needed to ensure preservation (Natural Resource Challenge Action Plan, 1999).
Aside from an occasional newspaper article, there has been little to no communication to the public with respect to resource conditions along the Merced River corridor. For example, in 2004, the Park Service urged the Court to allow them to proceed with data collection studies that included installation of 110 ground water monitoring wells and soil pits; collection of tree coring samples; geotechnical subsurface exploration and wetlands delineation; and debris flow research. There have been no updates to the public as to how those activities are proceeding. In fact, a FOIA request for the results of the debris flow research was actually denied because management had decided to leave it in “draft” status, thereby exempting it from FOIA.
An additional concern is what condition will actually be determined as “baseline” and factoring in that in many instances, conditions have been allowed to deteriorate due to poor management oversight. For example, the Park arbitrarily removed the group campground after the ’97 flood; even though there is a Park rule of up to 6 people in a campsite, groups of up to 30 have been using individual campsites for lack of anywhere else to go and there has been no enforcement of the existing rule. Trampling, overuse and radiating impacts in an area caused by as many as 30 people in a campsite vs. 6 people, multiplied over 10 years, will most certainly cause resource deterioration. It is up to the Park Service to accept the onus of responsibility for failing to provide oversight and enforcement instead of using the current state of affairs as justification to penalize the visitor with ever more regulations and reduced opportunities. Fences have been installed with urgent calls for restoration activity, yet the 6-person/campsite rule is still not enforced. Is this an example of “let’s make it look like we’re doing something while we continue to do nothing?”
Another example is the concessionaire’s raft rental operation. Excited rafters race down to Stoneman Bridge to put their raft in the water and then wait for the gigantic diesel bus followed by a box truck to drive through sensitive Sentinel Beach picnic area to pick them up and bring them back to the rental facility. Why does the NPS allow the concessionaire to operate a busy raft concession that accelerates severe erosion of the river bank alongside Stoneman Bridge; drive huge diesel vehicles through Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 4 of 32 February 1, 2010
peaceful Sentinel Beach wiping out picnickers enjoying natural quiet (who apparently aren’t of the same financial priority to the concessionaire) while ultimately degrading the entire area. Though the concessionaire may profit from rentals, concessionaire profits should not determine park policy. And these areas now become examples of resource degradation blamed on visitors—when it’s really a situation of “cause and effect” as initiated by the Park’s own concessionaire and allowed by the National Park Service.
Protection of resources cannot occur without a sound scientific base of information with respect to resource conditions and monitoring. The Park cannot achieve the nondegradation standard mandated in WSRA without such documentation, but is there sufficient information available to enable the planning process to proceed with integrity and transparency? An immediate improvement in resource conditions would be noticeable if managers would just enforce the rules that are already on the books as an evaluative first step before implementing more draconian (and punitive) measures. Such management oversight and enforcement could begin right now while the Plan is being prepared.
As an aside: Not all visitors coming to Yosemite have the keen eye of the scientist. And though visitors deeply love Yosemite and want to see it protected, they may be viewing resource concerns raised by the NPS through a different lens of urgency. Consequently, it will be very important for planners to bridge the gap by seriously considering who will actually be reading and commenting on the yet-to-be-developed plan. Most likely, the audience will comprise few biologists, hydrologists, anthropologists, historians, or other scientific experts. But readers will definitely include “experts” in the kinds of activities experienced at Yosemite that have shaped their lives and are the source of life-long memories. Therefore, it is critical that explanations of resource conditions—both existing and desired—be explained not only in clear, easy-to-understand language but in a way that the reader can relate the information to what s/he likes to do on the ground. The dots need to be connected between ORVs, management prescriptions and visitor experiences; if not, this Plan will face the same difficulties as other plans where the public perceives the Park is just using (even manipulating) the science, ORVs, etc. as an excuse to do what management wanted to do all along. That’s not to say the Plan should be a public relations document, but it definitely needs to keep the reader in mind.
4. The entire 81 miles of the Merced River should be studied and evaluated as a comprehensive living ecosystem—the primary artery of Yosemite National Park.
Many actions have dealt with the River in small segments, even down to linear feet of shoreline, as part of numerous stop-gap measures. Planners need to step back and view the River as a complete free-flowing system as part of a long-term vision, not one to be controlled by rip rap, fencing, bank stabilization, re-vegetation, diversions, road construction, El Capitan moraine, etc. As stated by David Cehrs, a registered geologist and a certified hydrogeologist with years of experience with Yosemite:
“The NPS does not seem to be cognizant of the fact that the river has infinitely more power than the NPS does and the river will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to any and all anthropogenic structures within Yosemite Valley.” (Declaration to the Court; October 3, 2006)
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 5 of 32 February 1, 2010
“Within the confines of Yosemite Valley the Merced River is a meandering river. The meandering Merced channel migrates laterally across the Valley floor and over time the channel occupies all locations within the Valley, talus slope to talus slope, and this action forms the floodplain. Channel migration is natural river behavior and is the result of river hydraulics within the channel curves. Water moves faster on the outside of the channel curve and slower on the inside of the channel curve. This results in erosion on the outside of curves and deposition on the inside of curves; the resulting deposit is called a point bar. The top of the point bar deposit is the floodplain. Most of the Yosemite Valley floor (river channel, floodplain, meadows, wetlands) is formed from the meandering river point bar deposits reworking past Valley floor glacial sediments with the additional input of new Sierran derived sediment; the remainder of the Valley floor is formed by alluvial fans from the tributary side streams entering the Valley, for example Yosemite Creek. Old Merced River locations can be located by their remnant oxbows observable on portions of the Yosemite Valley floor. The oxbows are abandoned channel meander curves.” (Declaration to the Court; September 6, 2006)
The draft ORV Report explains the Hydrologic ORV as: “The rivers start in high alpine settings, drop down sheer cliffs and steep gradients at high speeds with large springtime volumes, and then become calm and meandering before tumbling down another steep gradient. This hydrologic variability caused by abrupt elevation changes of the two branches of the Merced River is unique.” That description is certainly easy to understand, but how does it translate to the average visitor on the ground participating in the activities s/he has always enjoyed. When s/he sees the Falls, the rapids, the quiet meandering flow of the River it is deeply appreciated, even taking on a spiritual significance—but the Park has used the Hydrologic ORV as a primary determiner of land use and justification to take arbitrary management actions in the front country (i.e., regulations, restrictions, removal of campgrounds, etc.). Why are wetlands important to the river system and why is it OK for the Park to destroy some and not others—again the “net gain” phenomenon—and what objective methodology is used to make those decisions? What is the role of meadows to the river system and though there’s been a reduction of meadows, why does that matter? Why are oxbows important? Yosemite’s Merced River portion covers 81 miles; can planners better explain how management of the 3-5 miles of the River at the busy East end relates to the health of the other 76 miles? If campgrounds have been located in the floodplain for multiple decades, and are not occupied during winter/spring runoff thereby not posing a safety risk, does their presence really impact the hydrology of the River and how? What is the justification for locating some campgrounds in the floodplain and using the floodplain as the excuse for not locating others? WSRA guidelines state that ORVs must show regional or national significance; is the Hydrologic ORV different because protection of meadows, wetlands, flood regime, etc. is specific to the health of this particular river?? This raises an interesting question as to whether Hydrologic is really an ORV by segment at all; thinking outside the box, should hydrology be discussed instead in terms of the larger comprehensive “free flow” process that caused the River to be designated Wild and Scenic in the first place?
As mentioned before, the general public is not as well-versed in science as those who may be developing this Plan; it is imperative that planners communicate in simple, easy-to-understand terms the importance of hydrology to the Yosemite visitor experience and the activities that visitors enjoy. The above hypothetical questions must be answered in a scientifically supported and objective manner to the satisfaction of the public.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 6 of 32 February 1, 2010
5. The Biologic ORV needs particular specificity since it is often a primary determiner of land use and the ORV that is most frequently used as justification to take front country management actions (i.e., restrictions, regulations, etc.).
When visitors look out at the River, what are they seeing biologically that represents the best of the best—regionally or even nationally to compare; and what specifically is used as the basis for comparison? Is what constitutes this ORV unable to survive anywhere else? And what exactly constitutes this ORV—is it primarily special status species? Visitors especially enjoy being able to observe bear, deer, squirrels, birds, raccoons, coyotes, and other more visible and recognizable species; how does the biologic ORV impact those species or does it, since those species are not of regional or national significance? There have been many land-use changes in Yosemite over the decades; what is different now with respect to wildlife health and survival (not just special status species) that could demand greater regulation and restriction?
The draft ORV report on the Park’s MRP website discusses how the River runs through "5 major life zones, from alpine to foothill, while supporting large areas of riparian, wetland, meadow, and riverine habitats." That sounds good, but what does that mean to the public? Do people even understand what "riparian" or "riverine" mean? There was mass destruction that occurred when the sewer line was forced across the River at Housekeeping which most certainly destroyed substantial riparian and riverine habitat not to mention altering the flood regime; why was that of no concern yet family camping continues to be threatened because of alleged visitor impacts (even though most Valley campgrounds are only used 5 months of the year)? Since most of the controversy over development and access appears to be in Yosemite Valley, it would really be helpful to spend a lot more time explaining the importance of the Biological ORV in this particular segment. What occurs in this segment that must be preserved because it doesn't survive/cannot survive anywhere else--whether regionally or nationally OR even along another segment of the Merced River further downstream/upstream?? What condition is it in now and what are your goals and measurable objectives for protection?
Support for this ORV will largely be based on the Park’s ability to communicate in simple, easy-to-understand language as to its purpose and how it might actually improve the visitor experience and the activities visitors enjoy. And there MUST be consistent application across the Board—the River’s values cannot be ignored based on the NPS priority of the day.
6. Resolving the deep-seated controversy concerning Yosemite’s lineal descendants (Paiute vs. Miwok) is critical to adequately defining the Cultural ORV and ensuring its protection and enhancement.
The Paiute people have reams of documentation validating their ancestral ties to Yosemite which the Park Service has continued to ignore. Meanwhile, Park managers continue to sign cooperative agreements with, hire as site monitors, and rely heavily on negotiations with the American Indian Council of Mariposa County/AICMC (Southern Sierra Miwok), a non-recognized tribe functioning as a non-profit organization. From the Paiute perspective, the National Park Service is committing “cultural genocide” against their people by refusing to accurately recognize their ancestral ties in the
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 7 of 32 February 1, 2010
Park’s historical archives. There was hope for resolution when Acting Superintendent Uberuaga announced the following study as reported to the Associated Press:
“Yosemite National Park will review its visitor brochures, information booths and historical archives to ensure that local tribes' ancestral ties to the treasured landscape are accurately reflected. Acting Supt. Dave Uberuaga last month requested the sweeping reexamination of the park's tribal relations program, including an oft-visited American Indian replica village built near Yosemite's falls. National Park Service officials say no other park has undertaken such a broad review of its storytelling about the sometimes brutal confrontations that helped create the country's cherished preserves.” (AP, May 2009)
There have been no further updates as to whether the study has actually been launched, what outside experts were contracted to perform the reexamination, the methodology, or if there has been any resolution. Meanwhile, shortly after the study was announced the Miwok/AICMC (with support from the Yosemite Fund) were allowed to break ground on a new Indian Cultural Center—in effect “staking their claim” in Yosemite Valley. Such an action would appear to predetermine/unduly influence what was supposed to be an independent study.
This unresolved controversy was especially visible during construction of the Yosemite Fund’s Lower Yosemite Fall project which resulted in the desecration of subsurface archaeologic deposits in the project area including the prehistoric/historic village of Chief Tenaya. The controversy was further escalated when the Park Service proposed removal of the old El Portal Sewer Plant—resulting in the project being enjoined by the Court pending Park Service negotiations with Paiute lineal descendants. The latter has yet to be resolved (an understatement) with legitimate concerns ranging from the Park’s plan to use heavy earth-moving equipment and invasive construction techniques in an area of known burials to the potential release of toxins including mercury into the Merced River as well as the groundwater supply from removal of the cistern or sump.
Cultural ORVs are unique among ORVs in that once a cultural site is destroyed or desecrated it is an irretrievable, irreversible loss. WSRA mandates that ‘Archaeologic’ and ‘Historic’ are primary emphasis elements; therefore it is imperative that the Cultural ORV be clearly defined with goals, measurable objectives, and management prescriptions that explain specifically how the agency will protect the archaeologic, historic, or cultural values of the Merced River Corridor. What about ORVs specific to the Paiute culture—and does the NPS even acknowledge them? And now that the Miwok Indian Cultural Center is under construction, will it provide sufficient “net gain” points to allow desecration of all other cultural sites along the River Corridor? This would be a tragic loss—especially in light of the justifiable concerns of the Paiutes and the failure of the Park Service to recognize their ancestral ties to the Park.
Native American values must be embraced by the Park and embedded in park plans. Tribal representatives (not just those employed or contracted by the Park Service) must be included as a critical part of the planning team—not as window-dressing but as a highly valued resource. Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 8 of 32 February 1, 2010
7. In light of the 9th Circuit ruling, special attention must be directed to clearly defining the Recreation ORV to prioritize the protection and enhancement of low impact and resource-focused activities conducive to the National Park experience & significantly reduce/eliminate the proliferation of profit-driven commercialized applications (e.g., raft/bike rentals, trail rides, special events, etc.) and facilities.
In order to broaden our understanding of Recreation as an ORV, we researched approximately 50 Wild & Scenic Rivers on-line to see how this Value is handled at other sites and in other plans, if available. Some of these rivers were managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the US Forest Service which operate under a multiple use mandate; we also reviewed the 32 rivers managed under the more protective mandate of the National Park system. Though each river unit has been designated for its unique characteristics, we were in hopes of finding a common theme that could be applied to reflect what makes Yosemite special. So here are some thoughts:
In the high country Yosemite hosts numerous trails that showcase 13,000-foot peaks, dozens of lakes, canyons and granite cliffs and cross land "blessed with the mildest, sunniest climate of any mountain range in the world." These trails include a segment of the Pacific Coast Trail which was designated one of the first scenic trails in the National Trails System, largely through the efforts of hikers and equestrians. Many backpackers say it is the "finest mountain scenery in the United States," offering hikers and equestrians a unique, varied experience. Yosemite also hosts a 37-mile segment of the John Muir Trail which begins at the east end of Yosemite Valley and ascends in the view shed of such classic sights as Vernal Falls, Nevada Falls, Half Dome, Cathedral Peak, and more. Largely through the efforts of the Sierra Club and LeConte, the trail was constructed for recreational purposes to make the area accessible.
It would seem that appropriate recreational activities in this "wild" segment of the Merced River Corridor would be hiking, backpacking, fishing, well-managed equestrian use, primitive camping, snow-shoeing, cross-country skiing, viewing scenery, wildlife observation, nature study, and photography; a true wilderness experience in a scenically diverse river setting with opportunities for solitude while developing a deeper relationship with nature. For example, citing some parameters from a version of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: "Primitive settings are characterized by an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is low and evidence of others is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free of man-made "improvements" and facilities [e.g., absence of Merced Lake High Sierra Camp glamping/”glamour camping”]. Experiencing isolation from sights and sounds of humans is probable. Opportunities for independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of outdoor skills abound and present high degrees of challenge and risk."
As the Merced River drops into world-famous Yosemite Valley, its gentle meandering beneath towering granite cliffs and scenic waterfalls enables visitors to enjoy a spectacular front country experience. While many people use the river for traditional recreation activities, others see it as an opportunity for spiritual growth, inspiration, or meditation. Low impact activities along the river corridor include waterplay, sunbathing, exploring the rock formations, picnicking, fishing, bird watching, photography/videography, painting, writing or just appreciating nature and enjoying the scenery and peacefulness of the river. In addition to the river-associated activities, users like to hike Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 9 of 32 February 1, 2010
on the natural trails along or near the river, bicycle on one of the paved multi-use trails in the East end, or enjoy the challenge of Yosemite’s world-renowned big-wall climbing; drawn by the scenery, there are opportunities to explore and photograph the spectacular falls, float the river, and camp or picnic on its banks—or snow-shoe or cross-country ski as snow permits. Easy access by private vehicle enables visitors to enjoy pleasure driving and sightseeing, with the freedom to explore nature on our own terms, while experiencing solitude within this world-renowned environment. This is scenic viewing at its best where all of the senses are engaged—the opportunity to listen to the sounds of the river and the wind blowing through the trees, to smell the freshness of the great outdoors, to see the natural dark night sky filled with stars and maybe even witness a moonbow, to feel the soil beneath our feet and the weather—and to do so in the absence of the elements of suburbia with the bustle of crowds.
The sun shines not on us but in us, The rivers flow not past, but through us… The trees wave and the flowers bloom in our bodies as well as our souls, and Every bird song, wind song, and tremendous storm song of the rocks in the heart of the mountains is our song… --John Muir
Such activities could be accommodated in what might be referred to as a Rural/Roaded Natural Setting: should provide an opportunity to relieve stress and to get away from a human-built environment; preferred activities should be resource dependent (e.g., wildlife viewing, nature study, hiking) with opportunities to see, hear, and smell natural resources and occasions to enjoy periods of solitude; moderate evidence of development, human activity, and natural resource modifications that are designed to be harmonious with the natural environment; presence of others is expected and tolerated with encounters ranging from low to moderate; conventional motor vehicle use is permitted on paved, graveled, and unsurfaced roads; settings should offer a sense of independence and freedom over comfort and convenience; the challenge and risk associated with more primitive types of recreation are not very important; practice and testing of outdoor skills are important.
As the River leaves Yosemite Valley, it drops another 2000 feet as it roars through the rugged Merced River Gorge. Classified as "scenic," road access enables visitors to enjoy sightseeing, picnicking, photography, exploring the rock formations, waterplay in favorite tucked away swimming holes, fishing, bird watching and other low impact activities while appreciating the scenery and powerful dynamics of the river.
Though the above description is far from complete, it’s an effort to capture the soul of the Yosemite experience—an experience where the visitor leaves a bit changed, coming away with something out of the ordinary upon departure, something much deeper than a trinket purchased at a store. This is what makes the Yosemite experience “outstandingly remarkable”—something not just that you do, but something that is done to you. The low-impact, resource focused activities of the Recreation ORV must be fervently protected from the profit-driven commercialized experience. As the 9th Circuit noted:
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 10 of 32 February 1, 2010
To illustrate the level of degradation already experienced in the Merced..., we need look no further than the dozens of facilities and services operating within the river corridor, including but not limited to, the many swimming pools, tennis courts, mountain sports shops, restaurants, cafeterias, bars, snack stands and other food and beverage services, gift shops, general merchandise stores, an ice-skating rink, an amphitheater, a specialty gift shop, a camp store, an art activity center, rental facilities for bicycles and rafts, skis and other equipment, a golf course and a [High Sierra Camp] dining hall accommodating 70 people. Although recreation is an ORV that must be protected and enhanced, see 16 U.S.C. § 1271, to be included as an ORV, according to NPS itself, a value must be (1) river-related or river dependant, and (2) rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context. The multitude of facilities and services provided at the Merced certainly do not meet the mandatory criteria for inclusion as an ORV. NPS does not explain how maintaining such a status quo in the interim would protect or enhance the river’s unique values as required under the WRSA. As WSRA guidance documents have cautioned, river “classification is often confused with outstandingly remarkable values.” For example, a river classified as recreational does not imply that the river will be managed or prioritized for recreational exploitation. It is understandable that the Merced River segment in East Yosemite Valley was classified as “recreational” by virtue of the evidence of human impact along its shorelines. However, we continue to be concerned that the classification will be used as justification for prioritizing recreational development (e.g., raft rental facility, RV hook-ups, etc.) along the Merced River Corridor, often to the detriment of other ORVs.
Inherent in this discussion is the question “at what point does too much use of the recreation ORV diminish the ORV itself?” What is the quantity and mix of an activity that an area can sustain without adversely impacting this ORV as well as the other ORVs, the quality of the experience, and public safety? When does one person’s recreational interest intrude on another person’s right to solace? Can an activity be mitigated to the level where it only impacts those in the immediate vicinity of the activity? What guidelines will prevent an activity from reaching critical mass where it can potentially impact nature, history, and large volumes of people? To what degree does commercializing an informal activity significantly increase the impacts? Should the NPS (and by extension, the concessionaire) even be in the business of “marketing” or exploiting recreation (e.g., raft rentals, bicycle rentals, commercial trail rides, fishing/backpacking rentals and sales) or merely be “accommodating” recreational activities for those who supply their own equipment? Does the current park practice of site hardening and erecting fencing and other obstructions to contain and control large volumes of people impact the individualized, self-guided experience free from the bustle of crowds? What levels of noise drown out the sounds of the River and the wildlife—numerous tour buses, RVs, RV generators, loud radios, supply trucks, motorcycles, loud partying, barking dogs, too much construction in the name of trying to “improve” or “exploit” nature? Does the smell of diesel fumes or the stables—byproducts from activities that serve a few—impact the sensual experience of the many? Is the future of Yosemite to be a “nature center,” or will it continue its march toward becoming a “profit center? These questions relate to the second leg of user capacity—without adverse impact on the QUALITY of the recreation experience…
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 11 of 32 February 1, 2010
…WITHOUT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF THE RECREATION EXPERIENCE
1. The Park Service needs to clearly define the recreation experience before it will be able to objectively evaluate the quality of that experience.
Visitors come to Yosemite for refreshment of mind and spirit; to participate in activities that refresh and recreate; activities that renew one’s health and spirits by enjoyment and relaxation. Opportunities enabling that spirit of renewal are the essence of visitor experience. Consequently, the visitor experience and its intrinsic relationship to the esthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features or “core values” of Yosemite Valley and the Merced River corridor must be clearly defined. It is impossible to objectively evaluate/measure any adverse impact on the quality of the recreation experience (as required in establishing user capacity) if that experience is not defined. Interestingly, the 1980 General Management Plan defined the “Park Experience” as “programs for doing, thinking, dreaming, and being in relationship with Yosemite’s resources” (page 22); the Plan goes on to state that the “visitor experience will consist of opportunities for educational and park-related recreational pursuits such as walking and hiking, backpacking, and Merced River floating;” “activities such as picnicking, hiking, and camping, which take advantage of the park’s natural features…are the most appropriate uses…”
Resource-focused opportunities unique to a national park setting, based on resource preservation as opposed to resource exploitation, provide the framework for such a definition (e.g., camping as a resource-based activity that requires minimal permanent infrastructure vs. the multitude of services and facilities required to support upscale lodging and bus touring). Past planners have stated that the visitor experience is “whatever the visitor wants it to be.” How do you evaluate or measure “whatever?” Such a vague description will only continue to facilitate the special interest feeding frenzy taking place in Yosemite Valley. Concessionaires have carried on the ‘want’ versus ‘need’ debate for more than a century; using the Recreation ORV as a guide, the Merced River Plan can finally provide the foundational backbone that will guarantee true protection and preservation of Yosemite.
Perhaps a template or filter can be configured to help narrow the focus on the types of activities/facilities that exemplify the national park experience. Words like nature-focused or resource-focused; affordable to the average American; family friendly (across the whole spectrum of family from infants to elderly grandparents); “…uncluttered by piecemeal stumbling blocks of commercialism…and fragments of suburbia” (1980 GMP); freedom to explore/freedom to just “be”; rustic; etc. Couple that with the GMP definition of “doing, thinking, dreaming, and being in relationship with Yosemite’s resources.” Every activity/facility can then be evaluated for appropriateness using the template as a filter.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 12 of 32 February 1, 2010
2. The current contract for concessions at Yosemite is due to expire, enabling a new bidding process. Therefore, the new River Plan should be free to make decisions as to what’s best for the River Corridor rather than tied to contract specifics requiring a “reasonable profit” for the concessionaire.
Rockfalls and floods resulting in a loss of lodging accommodations have undoubtedly been a challenge to Delaware North’s profit margin in Yosemite, though the Park still remains one of the most lucrative contracts in the company’s Parks and Resorts Division. However, replacement of lost facilities cannot drive decisions in the new Merced River Plan. Delaware North certainly has the option of not bidding on the new concessions contract if what is determined to be appropriate in the new Plan (which will also amend the expiring Concessions Services Plan) fails to fit the company’s profit structure.
Recalling a 1997
article: “In 1993, Delaware North landed a 15-year contract to manage food and lodging at America’s oldest national park. The government and Delaware North negotiated a deal that gives the concessionaire a little more freedom in the park in exchange for a higher percentage of revenue being returned to the park. Under the new contract as much as 20 percent of revenue Delaware North derives will go to the government. However, much of that money will be funneled directly back to the park to improve facilities. “We see this as a win-win situation,” Jacobs says. “It is an opportunity for us to ‘exploit’ the natural assets of the park in a way that actually complements the park, instead of harming it.” (“Jeremy M. Jacobs: Delaware North’s Intrepid Captain Loves ‘The Thrill of the Deal’”, by Paul King, Nation’s Restaurant News, January 27, 1997.)
“Exploit the natural assets.” “Improve facilities.” “…gives the concessionaire a little more freedom in the park in exchange for a higher percentage of revenue returned to the Park.” Such a mindset has been the source of on-going concern as the public sees the Park transition more and more to event visitation catering to well-heeled visitors while becoming less and less affordable to the average American family. Acquiring one park contract after another, it appears that Delaware North has greatly expanded its influence and is redirecting the mission and policies of the National Park Service toward a more elitist, commercialized, and homogenized experience rather than the more traditional back-to-nature experience associated with a National Park.
Clearly defining the visitor experience is the first step in deciding what facilities are needed. There is a direct correlation between facilities and revenue generation; the concessionaire claims to want to “improve facilities” (which of course facilitates higher prices and increased profits), but the question should be does the Park even need those facilities. Do swimming pools, tennis courts, pizza parlors, bars/liquor outlets, gift shops, snack stands, art center, ice rink, equipment sales/rentals, in-room TV, Wi-Fi, RV hook-ups, etc. contribute to the uniqueness of Yosemite Valley or are they intrusive “fragments of suburbia”? And perhaps more importantly, do facilities support protection of the Merced River’s “esthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and scientific features”—the primary emphasis elements of a comprehensive river management plan?
Past plans claim to be responding to “visitor demand for expanded or additional services.” The new Merced River Plan must set objective guidelines for what services and facilities are needed—moving beyond the “want” vs. “need” debate and instead focusing on what is most protective of the river corridor. Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 13 of 32 February 1, 2010
Planners need to participate in the exercise of viewing Yosemite Valley as a do-over. If one could start from scratch, what facilities would be “needed” and where would they be placed and what would be the justification. Such an exercise should not only include just an evaluation of visitor facilities but also debate the “need” for an elementary school and the few students it serves vs. the footprint required, amount of NPS and concessionaire housing in the Valley, the Court, the NPS and concessionaire stables, and more—everything should be “on the table.”
3. The new River Plan should establish a base level of services to be provided and then decide on the base level of employees—NPS and Concessions—needed to provide those services.
Employee numbers seem to be a shell game of sorts; they’re very difficult to track. New employee dorms added 217 concessionaire beds in the Valley with the promise to remove the “trainwreck” and housing behind the Post Office—yet nothing has been removed; only more has been added with concern that still more will be needed.
As stated in GAO Report GAO/T-RCED-98-35: “Each park that provides housing is required by the Park Service to have a housing management plan. This plan is to identify the park’s need for housing, the condition of housing, and an assessment of the availability and affordability of housing in nearby communities. The agency requires that the parks update their housing management plan every 2 years so that it reflects the current need of the park.” What is the status of Yosemite’s compliance with this system-wide requirement?
The Report goes on to state that “In accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidance, the Park Service is authorized to provide park housing to seasonal employees in all locations and to permanent employees (1) whose position description requires them to live in the park to provide needed service or protection or (2) when adequate housing in the local community is not available.”
Interestingly, a follow up Report GAO/T-RCED-99-119 revealed: “at Yosemite National Park, the contractor determined that, based on agency criteria, the park needed 69 units for staff to respond to after-hours incidents. However, in revising the results of the contractor’s assessment, park managers more than doubled this number to 175 housing units. They did this in order to have what they thought was an acceptable number of employees who could be called back to duty during the middle of the night, when there are typically no staff on duty, or during unusually busy periods of the day. The park managers indicated that the park needed the additional 100-plus housing units because it was difficult to get staff to respond to after-hours incidents. These managers said that the park normally must call about four off-duty law enforcement staff or other staff in order to get one to respond to an after-hours incident. The Yosemite park managers’ views are not consistent with the direction of the Park Service’s policy that encourages parks to minimize its employee housing. In this case, there may be other options for the agency to address its after-hours needs other than providing this amount of housing—for example through using shift work to cover the off-duty period.”
There needs to be a comprehensive operational study evaluating how many employees—both NPS and Concessions—are needed to perform a base level of services. Such a study should include analysis of
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 14 of 32 February 1, 2010
seasonal needs, split shifts, how many people does an employee really represent, needs of single employees vs. employees with families, cost-benefit evaluation of shoulder season activities vs. employees required, emergency response criteria, and more. Another component of the study should evaluate how many employees—both NPS and Concessions—should have housing in Yosemite Valley based on the nature of their job function. It appears that the current practice locates employees based on vacancies in existing structures rather than evaluating whether those structures (or employees) are even needed at all. The operational study also needs to analyze the environmental, economic, sociological and sprawl-inducing impacts of not reducing the number of employees but merely moving them to sensitive outlying communities such as El Portal and Wawona.
Each employee (single or with family) needs housing, food, water, parking place and/or transportation, HR services and more, requiring an increased development footprint while adding to the overall capacity in the park. At present, it appears that 80% of the development footprint in the Valley is in support of the 20% of visitors and residents who stay overnight in the park. A reduction in employees would become an opportunity to reduce the development footprint while streamlining operations and reducing impacts.
4. The national park experience is NOT a resort experience.
Enjoy magic from dawn to dusk. Make yourself at home in a cabin, or stay in secluded campsites for tents and all types of RVs. Hike winding paths, explore nature trails on horseback and have the time of your life in the great outdoors among hundreds of acres of natural beauty. Savor a variety of dining options including sit-down meals, cool drinks and quick snacks to go. Have some rustic fun in the great outdoors with recreational activities for the entire family. Escape to the rustic charm of a Resort that recalls the majesty of the grand National Park Service lodges from the Great American Northwest with a soaring split-log lobby, eight stories high, honoring American craftsmanship and artistry. Pools, beach, banking services, camera rental, guest services desk, children’s activities, credit cards accepted, dining, snack bar, laundry facilities, lounge/bar, kennel, shopping, water rentals, bike rentals, fishing, horseback riding and pony rides, campfire sing-a-long. Buses (Motor Coach) service the resort both internally taking guests to the attractions and externally transporting guests to the Ticket and Transportation Center. The previous description promotes Fort Wilderness Resort and Campground at Walt Disney World. And now from a cached DNC Parks and Resorts website promoting Yosemite…
Encompassing 1,170 square miles, an area the size of the state of Rhode Island, this unique destination offers both expansive wilderness as well as the guest services and amenities you would find at a year-round resort. This site is managed by Yosemite's primary concessionaire, Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. (DNC at Yosemite), which provides the majority of visitor services in Yosemite National Park, including lodging, food and beverage, retail operations, transportation, tours and recreation services.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 15 of 32 February 1, 2010
There's so much to do at Curry Village, you might find it hard to leave to explore the rest of Yosemite! Food and Beverage Services - the Curry Village Pavilion serves all -you-can-eat buffet style breakfast and dinner service daily. Other seasonal options include Taqueria, Pizza Patio and Bar, Curry Ice Cream Stand and Curry Coffee Corner. Gift Shop - Sundries, newspapers, gift items, magazines, books, posters, snacks and ATM machine. Swimming Pool - Outdoor swimming pool with showers and changing rooms. Amphitheater - Ranger/naturalist programs, slide presentations and scenic movies. Yosemite Mountain Shop - Offers extensive inventory of camping, hiking, and climbing goods, dehydrated food and snacks. Tour & Activities Desk - Obtain information or arrange for tours, transportation, Yosemite Mountaineering School classes, horseback or mule rides and other activities. Curry Recreation Center - Standard bicycles in all sizes may be rented for the day or by the hour. Rafts may be rented from mid-May to mid-July. Yosemite Mountaineering School - Rock climbing instruction, guided hiking and backpacking and rental equipment are available. Cross-country skiing instruction and rental equipment are available November to April. Transportation - Free Valley shuttle service to various locations in the park is accessible, including winter service to the Badger Pass Ski Area. Ice Skating Rink - Open daily from late November to early March, the outdoor ice rink also offers skate rentals and instruction. Nearby Activities - Guided tours, stable rides, rock climbing, hiking, fishing, photography and ranger/naturalist programs, snowshoeing, downhill skiing and cross-country skiing are all located nearby.
Is the goal of the visitor experience to encourage the public to spend TIME in direct interaction with the resource or spend MONEY at the resource?
A resort is usually privately owned and challenges the manager to design activities that will enable the enterprise to stay in business. Resorts are not subsidized by the taxpayer but must generate their own revenue based on what the market will bear; if visitors don’t come, the resort goes under. National parks are publicly funded by taxpayers and owned by the American people; regardless of the number of visitors, the parks will always be funded. Transforming our national parks into concessionaire resorts creates inherent conflicts of interest ranging from capacity issues to preservation to revenue generation. What do Bracebridge Dinners at $400 (now expanded to 8 evenings rather than 1), Chef’s Holidays ($700-$1,000/couple), Vintner Holidays, etc. have to do with the central mission of a national park—other than increasing revenue for the concessionaire. Why is Yosemite promoted as a place to hold conferences—other than to increase revenue for the concessionaire? And all the while the increased level of services, employees, and infrastructure required to support such resort-style activities takes its toll in wear and tear on Park resources—frequently during the off-season when the Park needs time to regenerate from busy summer use. If a visitor is desirous of resort-style services and activities, there are facilities in the gateways outside the Park that can accommodate that lifestyle. And finally, how do these programs and activities fulfill the goals of experiencing Yosemite free from the “fragments of suburbia” and “being in relationship with Yosemite’s resources,” not to mention affordability for the average American. Interestingly, the 1980 GMP clearly states: “Space in the Valley will not be allocated for resort activities, since they are not directly related to the significant resources.”
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 16 of 32 February 1, 2010
5. Commercial raft and bike rentals and their impact on the river environs need to be thoroughly analyzed.
There is no mention in the GMP of a full-blown concessionaire rafting operation. In fact, no such operation even existed in 1980; but in 1982 the Park’s concessionaire (Yosemite Park and Curry Company) saw an opportunity to transform a casual visitor activity into a mass-produced, organized, paid Disney-style attraction (aka $$$$).
As detailed in Yosemite, The Embattled Wilderness by Alfred Runte (pages 213-216), use of the Merced multiplied three- or fourfold between 1982 and 1986 as a result of the explosive growth of commercial rafting. “…in a confidential report* dated March 1, 1986, the division identified twenty-four separate issues affecting Yosemite’s air, water, vegetation, and wildlife. In Yosemite Valley the issue posing special problems was rafting on the river. ‘The current high use levels have resulted in extreme crowding, aesthetic impairment for those wishing to view the Valley from the riverbank or from the Valley rim, litter problems in the river and along the banks, increased trampling and volunteer trails through meadows and erosion on riverbanks, and increased pressure to remove trees in the river on which rafts become entangled and those on the riverbank that may fall into the river.’ Accordingly, the division proposed limiting company rafts ‘to 90 per day and not more than 20 per hour.’ Without those limits, the report concluded, issuing a subtle reminder about the alleged purposes of Yosemite National Park, ‘the visitor experience in central Yosemite Valley will continue to shift away from quiet appreciation of the natural beauty of the flowing river, the meadows and riparian vegetation, and the scenic vistas toward a more amusement park atmosphere in which the recreational activity itself becomes the focus of attention.’[emphasis added] (* Confidential Report to the Superintendent, Division of Resources Management, Yosemite National Park, “Natural Resources Management Issue Statements,” March 1, 1986, p. 9, Yosemite Park Office Records)
And though the GMP mentions providing a facility for bike rentals, did it envision the expanded operation that exists today? The proliferation of bikes, largely exacerbated by a robust rental program, has led to increased pedestrian/bicycle conflicts, a perceived need for more multi-use asphalt trails, vehicle/bicycle conflicts, off-trail resource damage, and more. When visitors bring their own bikes, not only are they familiar with their equipment but there is a greater chance they are more skilled at riding. All too frequently, bike renters haven’t ridden a bike in years coupled with rental equipment they’re not used to; this poses an additional safety risk when sharing a narrow bike path with pedestrians. We can’t even count the times we’ve been almost run over by bikes or how disruptive it is to hear “behind you” every two minutes and have to move off the trail.
The Park Service should be able to develop guidelines that accommodate visitors who bring their own bikes or their own rafts/tubes. It’s the overblown commercial rental opportunities, pandering to impulse decision-making, that appear to have tipped the scales to the disadvantage of the resources and the visitor. Conversely, if rentals are not available, visitors self-select their participation in a recreational activity based on whether or not they’ve chosen to go through the hassle of bringing/supervising their own equipment. The visitors themselves voluntarily reduce the impacts as opposed to the Park issuing more restrictions. Though rental opportunities may be profitable for the concessionaire, they expand the development footprint while enabling a shift away from quiet Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 17 of 32 February 1, 2010
appreciation of the natural beauty “toward a more amusement park atmosphere in which the recreational activity itself becomes the focus of attention.”
6. Commercial trail rides in Yosemite Valley and the impact on the river environs as well as the visitor experience need to be thoroughly analyzed.
Do commercial trail rides support protection of the Merced River’s “esthetic, scenic, historic, archeologic, and scientific features” or do they exist for the benefit of the concessionaire and a few visitors? It seems that any time an activity is commercialized, the impacts increase multifold. Though riding a horse can be enjoyable, it’s an activity that is commonplace in numerous other locations. Is it appropriate in the highly valued resource area that is the Merced River corridor? The smell, the proliferation of “road apples” along the trails, cowbirds, the development footprint required to operate a stable-dependent activity all need to be reevaluated in light of protecting the river environs.
As an aside, we know the Park Service is extremely proud of its mounted ranger program. Visitors are excited to see a mounted ranger and these individuals provide a positive public relations role within the Park. However, we find it objectionable when a horse dumps a load in the middle of a busy walkway and the mounted ranger merely rides away leaving the smell and the flies behind for visitors to step around. Dog owners are supposed to clean up after their dogs; why is not the same expected of mounted rangers?
7. Family auto-camping in Yosemite Valley is a nature-focused activity that is often the seminal experience that instills a life-long resource preservation ethic in young and old alike. It is from this idyllic front-country adventure that future climbers, backpackers, hikers, and conservationists are born.
There has been a significant public outcry over the 40% reduction in family camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley following the 1997 flood. The Rivers Campgrounds and a portion of Lower Pines Campground were closed by NPS administrative mandate (a loss of more than 300 sites)—even though Congress appropriated $17 million as part of a flood appropriation package to “restore damaged property to its pre-damaged condition” (U.S. House of Representatives Field Report, 3/97). Additionally, the Group campground was eliminated. In the meantime, it appears more campers are being squeezed into smaller and smaller sites at Upper and Lower Pines Campgrounds creating increased human-bear conflicts, law enforcement conflicts, and greater opportunities for environmental degradation. Our concern is that allowing such a negative situation to continue will ultimately become the justification to get rid of camping in the Valley altogether—as causing too many impacts and being more trouble than its worth.
Particularly troubling is a recent quote concerning camping from NPS Director Jon Jarvis in an interview with the San Jose Mercury (10/06/09): “And he said he'd like to see Yosemite Valley campsites destroyed in a 1997 flood rebuilt out of the valley, on Tioga Road and other locations, rather than in the valley along the sensitive Merced River. "Unfortunately, the public's perception is that Yosemite is just the valley," he said. "There are plenty of opportunities to end up with a no-net loss of campgrounds."” Such a pre-decisional comment from the top Park Service official is clearly inappropriate and has the potential to poison this entire planning process—which has been touted as Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 18 of 32 February 1, 2010
being open and transparent. Additionally, the comment fails to consider the transfer of impacts to another area of the Park, higher elevation/colder temperatures not conducive to camping, and putting additional pressure on day visitation by turning thousands of displaced campers into “day visitors” or commuters to Yosemite Valley from their out-of-Valley campsites.
Acknowledging the value of camping as a resource-focused activity, the GMP proposed 756 campsites in Yosemite Valley of which there would be 684 "family friendly" auto campsites and 14 group campsites; this number already accounted for the removal of 116 sites from along the banks of the sensitive Merced River. Planners more recently appear to be advocating for more walk-in or walk-to sites which may appeal to the strong and healthy but which would be discouraging for the disabled as well as families camping with infants and young children or with grandparents. There are plenty of opportunities in the back-country for walk-in or walk-to sites but drive-in camping is the introductory activity for the novice outdoorsman and should be preserved. Interior Secretary Salazar and NPS Director Jarvis have both indicated a focus on encouraging young people to experience their national parks. An outreach event here or there may raise awareness but until the young person can enjoy the Park with his family in a manner that is not too expensive or too intimidating, his/her interest will not be long-lasting. Family friendly auto camping bridges that gap.
Additionally, campers are self-contained requiring few support services and minimal permanent infrastructure. Unlike year-round facilities, campgrounds are only used seasonally allowing an opportunity for the resources to regenerate.
As planners begin to discuss the camping component for the new Plan, we strongly encourage consultation with members of the camping community—an advisory council of sorts. There is much to be learned from those who have been camping in Yosemite Valley for generations. It is also critical for the NPS to tap into camping reservation databases to inform campers about the opportunity to participate throughout development of the new MRP. The camping public, the largest group of visitors to the Park, has been disenfranchised from the comment process for much too long.
As alternatives are developed in the new Merced River Plan, we hope that the Park will present choices with respect to the quantity and mix of camping the land can sustain. We trust the following will be specifically addressed: Campsites less tightly configured? Drive-in tent only campgrounds separate from RVs? Limits on length of RV campers considering the fragility of the resources (23’ as the limit used at Mariposa Grove rather than allowing as large as 40’ RV towing an extra vehicle= 65’ trying to maneuver in a campground)? Separate dog campers from non-dog campers as was done in the 50s and 60s? Expanded camping opportunities (Rivers, Lower Pines, North Pines)? More (smaller) campgrounds with fewer sites located in various “pockets” around the Valley? Possibly rotating campgrounds annually or adjusting the length of the season giving the land an opportunity to recover? Replace Ahwahnee cottages with camping opportunities? Reduce Yosemite Lodge development and replace with camping opportunities? The Plan also must eliminate the current management practice of allowing Park Partners and volunteers to camp in the public campgrounds, thereby reducing the number of sites available to the public.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 19 of 32 February 1, 2010
8. The new Merced River Plan must contain and consider as part of the planning process an in-depth analysis of the recreational patterns of low income and non-Anglo populations.
Any discussion of user capacity, which as defined includes the quantity of recreation an area can sustain without adverse impacts on the quality of the recreation experience, MUST include an in-depth examination of the recreational patterns of low income and non-Anglo populations. Past plans have stated that “It is generally believed that low-income and minority visitors to the park are underrepresented in the total visitor population. However, the overnight accommodation and recreation patterns of low income and minority park visitors have not been studied in detail. As a result, the impacts on low-income and minority overnight and day visitors cannot be analyzed quantitatively. It may be assumed that visitation patterns of low-income visitors tend toward the more inexpensive methods: day visits, camping, housekeeping, tent cabin rentals…” How can planners begin to make decisions as to how (and how many) visitors will be able to visit and/or overnight in Yosemite Valley without this important information—especially at a time when the Park Service is trying to encourage greater participation from previously underserved populations. And if managers are not even knowledgeable about the recreation patterns of these populations, how can they be expected to adequately evaluate whether user capacity determinations are having an adverse impact on the quality of their experience?
Previous plans document that “the largest percentage of visitors to Yosemite National Park (26%) have an annual household income greater than $100,000. The smallest proportion of visitors (5%) have an annual household income of less than $20,000. By contrast, in the State of California the largest percent of the population (37%) has an annual income below $20,000. The data illustrate that people from low-income households are largely underrepresented in the population of visitors to Yosemite… This is true on both a statewide and regional basis.”
As a publicly funded entity, the national parks must serve ALL Americans. It appears that many of the plans and policies now advocated in Yosemite are resulting in economic discrimination—especially for the day visitor. One can’t help but recall another Delaware North quote: “I think we would be looking at full-service kinds of parks. I don’t think we would be so interested in day-tripper kind of parks.” (“A Sharper Focus;” Buffalo News, 10/3/99) Previous plans, including the 1980 GMP, advocate mass transit tourism. By controlling the manner in which day visitors access the Park (mass transit), separating these visitors from their rolling storage lockers (i.e., their personal vehicle), will the concessionaire be offered a way to make “day trippers” more profitable? (Studies have acknowledged that bus passengers spend more money.)
Quantitative studies with respect to recreational patterns of low-income and non-Anglo populations are critical to future land-use decisions and user capacity determinations and must inform all alternatives presented in the new Merced River Plan.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 20 of 32 February 1, 2010
…WITHOUT ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
1. The new Merced River Plan must include updated information and maps concerning rockfalls, debris flows, and other geologic hazards as integral to siting of facilities.
The very definition of user capacity requires that decisions about the quantity of recreation use be considered in terms of avoiding adverse impacts on public health and safety. Such a discussion must include a comprehensive reevaluation of rockfalls, talus zones, and shadow zones as they relate to the River Corridor. It is irresponsible to dismiss rockfalls as a common occurrence in the Park when geologists are fully aware of areas where the dangers are greatest.
For example, in reference to the Curry Village area, a 2007 USGS Report states that the “rockfall hazard was underestimated when the USGS developed a map of rockfall potential in Yosemite Valley to support the NPS Yosemite Valley Plan.” It goes on to state that the potential for debris flows to damage facilities in the Curry Village dormitory area appears to be fairly high; “however, dormitory planning, contracting, and construction schedules could not accommodate the slowly accumulating evidence from models, field work, and landslide events of potential hazards.” The report concludes that “unpredictable landslides might occur in many regions, especially within Curry Village in Yosemite Valley.” “Examination of recent landslides and subsurface trenches in the western section of Curry Village has indicated that in some places landslide deposits extend further than the current talus slopes above Curry Village, thus facilities are more vulnerable to landslide hazards than originally assumed.” (USGS Open-File Report 2007-1378: Staircase Falls Rockfall on December 26, 2003 and Geologic Hazards at Curry Village, Yosemite National Park, California)
The above-referenced report goes on to state: “Subsurface trenching in the proposed dormitory area indicated that unrecorded debris flows and flyrock from rockfall reached the dorm area and noted that a stream channel mapped in 1934 had been filled by a debris flow. Other evidence of rockfall into the shadow zone appeared when excavations for dorm building foundations encountered a 15-foot long boulder two feet under the surface and again when tons of flyrock and rockfall boulders were removed for building foundations. On Oct. 25, 2005, a rockfall from the cliffs above sent flyrock well into the new dorm during construction with only one minor injury.” It is inconceivable that Park managers placed dormitory planning, contracting, and construction schedules ahead of the safety of human life—even with significant problems occurring during the construction phase. This employee facility is a ticking time bomb.
Previous planning documents (even before the October ’08 rockfall) have stated that “redevelopment of facilities within the common area of Curry Village (which includes Curry Pavilion, the historic visitor registration, retail facilities, and employee facilities such as housekeeping, maintenance, and employee lounge facilities) would be within the rockfall zone. All of these facilities are considered standard occupancy [nonessential structures], except the Curry Pavilion… The retention of Curry Pavilion in the rockfall zone would result in a local, long-term, moderate, adverse impact to public health and safety.” Meanwhile the Park recently invested considerable funds to rehabilitate the historic Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 21 of 32 February 1, 2010
visitor registration facility—within the rockfall zone. And though YI students narrowly escaped injury from the October 2008 rockfall, their temporary relocation still requires use of the Curry Pavilion—within the rockfall zone.
Additionally, a 2000 Geotechnical Engineering Report in support of a seismic study for the Ahwahnee Hotel states that “recent studies in the area suggest that the hazard of rock slope and related phenomena at the site might be sizeable.” It goes on to recommend that the “hazard of rock fall be assessed on a more site specific basis…” And currently, the Miwok Indian Cultural Center is under construction in another area of the Valley that is also sensitive to rock fall.
In a narrow valley where nearly all land is classified as a highly valued resource, it would seem that any structure determined to be “nonessential” should be removed altogether. Furthermore, there should be no guarantee that accommodations lost in the 2008 rock fall event will be replaced. Though such decisions will impact the concessionaire’s ability to make a profit, decisions about the number and future siting of facilities must not be driven by revenue production.
Detailed, updated rockfall studies and maps must be included and analyzed in the new Merced River Plan. This information is integral to development of user capacity requirements (which explicitly state no adverse impact on public health and safety) in advance of any site specific planning. It remains very difficult to understand why there is more attention paid to flooding hazards where there is greater opportunity for advanced notice than to a rockfall event which provides no notice at all.
2. There needs to be a correlation between numerical capacity in a box canyon and the ability to safely evacuate should a major emergency occur.
East Yosemite Valley is a box canyon. Past plans have directed visitors to the easternmost end of the canyon. The number of visitors that can be safely accommodated must be considered in terms of how they can be evacuated in an extreme emergency. How do those visitors arrive—by bus? By private vehicle? Private vehicles are easier to evacuate from the Valley and pose less interference to incoming emergency vehicles than buses. Also, buses would have to wait for all of their passengers to board before leaving a threatened area, putting larger groups of people at risk in an evacuation situation. If the vast majority arrives by bus, how many buses are needed to evacuate and where will those buses come from and what kind of lead time would be required? What exit routes will be available? There should be a direct ratio between the number of visitors that can be accommodated vs. the ability of the NPS to successfully carry out evacuation plans.
The new Merced River Plan needs to include a risk management component which includes evacuation strategies that relate to a numerical user capacity determination.
3. Day visitor access to and from Half Dome within the Merced River corridor must be included in the Wilderness System for determining user capacity.
The existing Wilderness Permit System does not include day visitors. The number of day visitors desiring to access the Half Dome cables is adversely impacting public safety from the start of the Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 22 of 32 February 1, 2010
trailhead, along the granite staircase, right on up to the top of the Dome. Recent deaths have magnified the situation resulting in numerous articles and photographs documenting the wall-to-wall crowds at this “attraction.” The very presence of cables (i.e., handrails) implies that this adventure must be safe. Additionally, climbing the Dome is marketed by the Park and the concessionaire as almost a “rite of passage” with t-shirts/sweatshirts proclaiming the visitor “made it to the top;” entire church groups reserving weekends to make the annual trek; widespread publicity; and more.
The new Merced River Plan must ensure there are no adverse impacts to the Merced River, to the quality of the experience, and to public safety with respect to the number of day visitors coupled with overnight visitors desiring to climb Half Dome. Additionally, it would be to the Park’s advantage to provide more supervision and oversight to this climb as long as cables exist.
Park-Wide Transportation Component
Previous plans, guided by the 1980 GMP, support implementation of the NPS vision of converting the Valley from auto-touring to mass transit tourism—even though environmental rules and regulations as well as technology have drastically improved since 1978.
The foundational element of transportation system design is user capacity. In a recent (11/15/02) report, “National Park Service: Opportunities to Improve the Administration of the Alternative Transportation Program,” a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation substantiated that each NPS busing proposal is supposed to address non-construction alternatives (i.e., simple remedies such as traffic management that would not involve road widening/realignment, bus depots, etc.). Additionally, each proposal must mandate park capacity data (i.e., user capacity) to guarantee that a bus won’t bring in more people than what the user capacity will allow.
Returning to the basic definition of user capacity as the quantity of recreation which an area can sustain without adverse impact on 1) the outstandingly remarkable values and the free-flowing character of the river area, 2) the quality of the recreation experience, and 3) public health and safety—the concept of mass transit tourism adversely impacts all three.
1) With respect to the outstandingly remarkable values and the free-flowing character of the river area—already irreversible damage has occurred due to the widening and realignment of El Portal Road, a project that destroyed historic, cultural, hydrologic, and biologic ORVs. A primary purpose of the project as stated in the EA was to meet the “long-term need for buses to use the road as part of a regional transportation system” (i.e., YARTS). And should there be a decision to carry forward the conversion to mass transit, Park resources will be at even greater risk as the development infrastructure needed to accommodate buses continues to expand.
Recognizing that buses bring in more people per hour than private vehicles, the radiating impacts of busload after busload of visitors loading/unloading will result in toxic hot spots caused by trampling, noise, diminished air quality, and on-going environmental degradation. The Park has already stated that the justification for allowing the obtrusive oversized bus stop structure adjacent to Yosemite Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 23 of 32 February 1, 2010
Falls—clearly not in keeping with the ‘scenic’ ORV—was to accommodate increased bus traffic to the Falls. As stated in a 1994 Alternative Transportation Feasibility Study: “potentially higher levels of particulate and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions would be generated by high volumes of bus travel on park roads;” “increased noise levels on park roads and in the Valley would be associated with high volumes of bus travel.” So many negatives—and still the vision of containing and controlling visitors through mass transit lives on.
Planners might be interested in reviewing a 2009 report, “Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains,” (based upon work supported by UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, and the University of California Transportation Center). The report acknowledges that “Governmental policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains, and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes” with the automobile receiving the greatest attention while buses, rail, and air have received little focus. Researchers found that total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contributed an additional 63% for onroad, 155% for rail, and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation. Inventorying criteria air pollutants showed that vehicle non-operational components often dominated total emissions. Life-cycle criteria air pollutant emissions were between 1.1 and 800 times larger than vehicle operation. Ranges in passenger occupancy could easily change the relative performance of modes. The report can be found on-line at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024008/erl9_2_024008.html
Utilizing simple and effective traffic management strategies coupled with a consistently applied, scientifically and objectively determined user capacity to inform planning decisions—the entire issue of mass transit tourism needs to be reexamined from a life-cycle as well as a Yosemite-specific environmental perspective based on facts.
2) The adverse impacts of mass transit tourism on the quality of the visitor experience are well documented. “Because of the serious drawbacks of remote staging for valley access,” the 1994 Alternative Transportation Feasibility Study discarded the concept as a viable option because “the cost, visitor confusion, visitor delay, information challenges, and management difficulties associated with operating remote valley staging areas would be substantial. In return, the benefits would be minor, consisting of moderate decreases in vehicle traffic along sections of park road that are not congested. Perhaps the greatest drawback of remote staging would be the loss of visitors’ personal freedom to experience portions of Yosemite at their own pace and in their own way.” As far back as the1988 “Feasibility Study Relating to Increased Bus Traffic in Yosemite,” then-Superintendent John Morehead warned Congress that “increasing the number of…buses in the park would increase the number of bus passengers who represent an older, slightly wealthier, and a non-family unit, and would cause a resulting decrease in the number of traditional families, especially those with children, who rely upon an automobile to travel.” Additionally, previous plans documented at great length the adverse impact busing would have on the quality of the recreation experience for day visitors. The entire issue of mass transit/assembly line tourism needs to be reexamined from a visitor experience perspective.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 24 of 32 February 1, 2010
3) And finally, as discussed above—there are public safety concerns with respect to mass transit tourism from both an evacuation perspective as well as a single accident perspective. A bus going over an embankment can require life-or-death medical attention for 40 or more people all at one time. What, if any, medical facilities are available in the gateway communities or the Park to handle large numbers of people? Are there airlift capabilities beyond 1 or 2 helicopters? How many ambulances are available? Will emergency vehicles even be able to access an accident competing for space on narrow, winding, 2-lane mountain roads? Transportation workshops need to include emergency personnel (e.g., Sheriff, CHP, medical, fire, Caltrans, US Forest Service personnel, etc.) from throughout the region (e.g., local communities, Fresno, Merced, Modesto, etc.) who would be called on for assistance in a multi-casualty or catastrophic incident. Their expertise would be invaluable to the development of a park-wide transportation plan.
Additional thoughts to be considered in discussions about transportation:
· Unlimited day visitation is frequently cited as the core of the capacity issue. It would seem that before the NPS can design a plan to manage day visitors, it would be important to know more about who the day visitor is. Guests staying inside the gates at either a campground or lodging, but outside the Valley, who want to visit the Valley for the day? Residents (with guests) living inside the gates (e.g., Yosemite West, Wawona, Foresta) visiting the Valley for the day? A gateway local? A gateway hotel guest? An in-Valley overnighter who checks out of a campground or lodging facility in the morning but doesn’t leave the Valley until later in the day? A prospective in-Valley overnighter who comes into the Valley early in the day and checks into a facility later in the afternoon? A tour bus making a brief stop in the Valley on the way to somewhere else? An employee or Park Partner (or family members/guests) living outside the Valley but who goes into the Valley for work or to access services? YI students and staff? Visitors from San Joaquin Valley communities wanting to visit or picnic in the Park for the day? Attendees at day-long meetings (e.g., Gateway Partners, Planner for a Day workshops, Open Houses, etc.)? Vendors? · Reduce resort-style services and programs which have no relationship to the reasons for which the Park was established (e.g., Chefs Holidays, Vintner Holidays, conferences, multiple Bracebridge Dinners, expanded shopping opportunities, etc.). Fewer programs can result in fewer visitor impacts as visitors desiring resort activities may opt to go elsewhere. · The NPS has never attempted to manage visitor use other than by eliminating parking and/or closing roads or gates. There needs to be a broad-based discussion thinking “outside the box” rather than just playing “musical chairs” with parking spaces. Reduced opportunities for dispersal results in more and more people confined to an ever smaller area—heightening the perception of crowding. · There needs to be an enforced length limit on RVs in high visitation areas such as Yosemite Valley. 40’ RVs towing an additional vehicle can total 65’ and will take away 3 or 4 parking spaces from other visitors. Perhaps the 23’ limit that is used at Mariposa Grove would be a place to start using the premise that vehicles must be able to fit into one parking space. · Maintain the two-lane, one-way circulation system as it exists today rather than converting roads to two-way. Keeping both Northside Drive and Southside Drive open is critical from an Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 25 of 32 February 1, 2010
emergency standpoint. Converting Southside Drive to a 2-way, as discussed in previous plans, would entail widening and realigning; additionally, Southside Drive is in the shade most of the winter resulting in greater opportunity for icing—forcing all traffic to that side of the Valley would only increase the risk of accidents. · Well-managed private vehicle access to Yosemite Valley and throughout the Park is environmentally, economically, and sociologically superior to any busing scheme and must be retained as the primary mode of travel. Sedan-style vehicles associated with auto-touring have far less impact on park resources than the oversized RVs and buses. · Explore strategies resulting in better coordination of tour buses including a possible reduction in numbers. · The decision to substantially reduce parking in Yosemite Valley needs to be revisited. The addition of small, dispersed, unobtrusive parking areas served by a fast, fun, and friendly in-Valley shuttle system needs to be explored and would reduce much of the traffic congestion—perhaps parking areas that are less formal and less regimented, not requiring more asphalt. Such lots might only operate seasonally, Memorial Day through Labor Day, enabling resources to recover the remaining 7-8 months of the year. · Increase shuttle service throughout the Valley including West Valley destinations. Implement aggressive “Ride the Valley Shuttle” campaign: would include restricting overnight visitors to assigned parking; requiring YCS/NPS employees to “bus” to work; informing day visitors to leave their vehicles parked until such time as they are ready to leave the Valley. · Explore strategies for using traffic management personnel more effectively, more broadly, and more visibly. · Road widening, realignment, relocation, or increasing the number of lanes should not be an option. · Yosemite Lodge logistics need attention. The area is currently overwhelmed with buses and the parking lot is not large enough to serve both hotel overnighters and day visitors wishing to access an overabundance of Lodge services (e.g., food, bike rentals, gift shops, swimming pool, etc.). Lodge patrons who have to pay $200/night for a room find they can’t even get a parking space until evening when the lots empty out. A similar situation exists at the Ahwahnee. Perhaps reduction of services would reduce demand? Perhaps a small overflow parking area to serve those guests who check out at 11AM but who plan to spend the rest of the day in the Valley before leaving—that way the overnight parking space could be made available for the new check-in? Without such an arrangement, these “interim” day visitors are dumped into the pool with other types of day visitors in need of a parking space. · Explore creation of a traffic management working group as part of your 15-workshop Transportation Forum. This working group would include shuttle bus drivers, patrol rangers, gate fee personnel, road maintenance, and other employees who have experience working directly with visitors “on the ground;” such individuals often have a wealth of ideas to improve traffic management/circulation (e.g., signage, parking locations/management, traffic circulation patterns, etc.). · A mandatory employee transportation program must be explored that is the financial and administrative responsibility of the Park or Concessionaire or Park Partner as employers. In designing such a program there needs to be an examination of ways to reduce split shifts, avoid Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 26 of 32 February 1, 2010
staggered start times, and otherwise consolidate work schedules, etc. Employees commuting to Yosemite Valley using their private vehicle for convenience currently occupy parking spaces that are supposed to be available to visitors. Visitor parking must have priority over employee parking. · Lodging guests in the Valley typically receive a tag to hang on the mirror of their vehicle guaranteeing them a parking space. They should be advised that this parking space is theirs for the length of their stay and that they will not be allowed to park their vehicle elsewhere in the Valley for the sake of convenience; that in-Valley shuttles are available for their use. That way an overnighter won’t take away limited parking available to day visitors. The same kind of tag system should be used for campers. · Coordinate NPS media releases during periods of peak visitation. If Memorial weekend is the most crowded weekend of the entire year, why promote it further with widespread press encouraging people to come see the waterfalls at that time? If people want to see the falls, they will come on their own. Additional hype just makes a busy situation that much more difficult to manage. · Most of Yosemite is uncrowded most of the time. Any transportation solution must deal with the real Yosemite, crowded only in specific areas a very small percent of the hours of a small percent of the days—and generally between May and September. If the mythical problem of year-round gridlock is targeted for solution a great deal of money will be wasted, the experience of visiting Yosemite will be ruined, and environmental impacts will be increased dramatically. · Previous studies have revealed that as many as one-third of day visitors enter the Park through one gate and exit through a different gate. Any transportation plan needs to consider this travel pattern so as not to add more vehicles to the road should visitors have to backtrack. · A primary reason visitors go straight to the Valley is because that’s where all the roads lead; that’s where the “official” Visitor Center is located; and that’s the first place where visitors can actually park and ask a question without feeling rushed. In effect, the NPS is sending everyone down to the Valley exacerbating the traffic management situation. Consider putting Welcome Centers at each of the gates offering visitors a sense of arrival to the Park. Such Centers could also be helpful in better dispersing visitors. Visitors could clarify/confirm their lodging reservations and locations (e.g., Yosemite Lodge vs. Yosemite View Lodge; businesses often put “Yosemite” at the front end of their name to gain attention leading international visitors to think anything that says “Yosemite” must be in the Park); receive assistance planning their itinerary, perhaps taking advantage of attractions on their way down to the Valley instead of finding out what they missed after the fact; restrooms; postcards; guides; books; souvenirs; watch a video; cup of coffee or ice water, or whatever. (Interesting how many times visitors were unable to get answers at the South Entrance due to the line backing up and drove all the way down to the Valley because that’s what they thought they were supposed to do, only to learn that they would have to drive all the way back up to see Mariposa Grove, or the Pioneer History Museum, or Glacier Point; though there are signs along the way that direct people to these attractions, visitors often don’t understand their significance when first arriving in the Park. Information distributed at the gate usually isn’t studied until the vehicle is parked and passengers are settled.) Explore making one of the lanes at the gates for passes only; perhaps Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 27 of 32 February 1, 2010
visitors to the Welcome Center could purchase a pass inside which would give them quicker throughput rather than having to go back out and wait in a traffic line. Strongly suggest planners consult with gate employees for other ideas to speed up throughput as well as to gather input on the kinds of assistance most frequently requested. What’s happening at the gates directly impacts what happens in the Valley.
Additional Comments
1. There needs to be a clear and objective methodology used to determine user capacity. Such methodology must be consistently applied to the decision-making process, throughout the Plan and to all tiering projects, to ensure protection of the ORVs and free-flow of the Merced River area, the quality of the visitor’s recreation experience, and public health and safety.
2. Since establishing a numerical capacity is a major part of this planning effort, the process for collecting statistics must be refined. The current method of relying on underground mechanical counters at the gates and elsewhere that (when operable) are unable to delineate between visitors, employees, and vendors other than by a formula established in 1994 needs to be reexamined for validity. Consider the following statements made by NPS staff over the past four years as recorded by the NPS Public Use Statistics Office: “Tioga Pass counter broken, BOF [Big Oak Flat] counter broken for last 11 days”; “South Entrance and Big Trees counter out for 7 days. Badger Pass counter out for 30 days”; “BOF traffic counter now uses correct inbound figures. Used lane 2 in error from beginning/installation. Inbound/outbound reversed, but now corrected”; “Arch Rock traffic counter was out 14 days”; “Arch Rock, Badger Pass, & Tioga Pass traffic counters look like they're still having problems”; “Traffic counters at Arch Rock, South Entrance, and Big Trees appear to be out-of-order; traffic counts are estimates only”; “Arch Rock and Big Trees traffic counters were out all month; South Entrance and Badger Pass were out some of the month”; “Broken counter at Arch Rock”. It would appear that visitation counts appear to be highly unreliable.
Citing 1999 public testimony to the California Transportation Commission from Peggy Kukulus, then-Executive Director of the Yosemite-Sierra Visitors Bureau, with respect to 1998 visitation statistics through the South Entrance: “Yosemite says 1,284,967 visitors pass through Highway 41 to and from Yosemite. Caltrans says that 1,714,770 visitors pass through Highway 41 to and from Yosemite. That’s a difference of 429,803 visitors. It’s a difference of 148,208 vehicles. Who is wrong? Whose calculations are off? Do we believe Caltrans figures? Do we believe the National Park figures? I have had numerous conversations with the department which calculates Yosemite’s visitation counts in Denver and have heard on numerous occasions how the actual traffic counters on 2 of the major entrances into Yosemite have not been working for more than a year. Even the Denver statistician was concerned about how averages from other gate counts were manipulated into complete “guesstimations” to plug into other entrance counts.”
With respect to the Park’s use of 2.9 persons as the average count per vehicle… Having participated in survey collection during the summer of 1999 standing at the 4-way on Labor Day weekend with the assignment of counting the number of people per car as they drove by, nearly every single vehicle had Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 28 of 32 February 1, 2010
tinted side and back windows making it impossible to give an accurate count of the number of individuals inside. When this situation was brought to the attention of the survey supervisor, the recommendation was to “make your best guess,” and yet from such guesses the figure of 2.9 continues to live on. A fair, accurate, and protective numerical capacity cannot be established by “guesstimation.”
3. Decisions made by the Park concerning user capacity also affect the surrounding gateway communities. Once user capacity in the Valley has been determined, the new Merced River Plan must also include an analysis as to how those numbers differ from historical visitor use as well as the socioeconomic impact on the surrounding region. Whether it’s 10 million visitors or 3 million visitors—all must travel through one of the four corridors into the park, utilizing the services and infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, roads) within the gateway communities. The Park has a responsibility to evaluate prospective policy changes in light of how those changes might actually advance sprawl and environmental degradation outside its boundaries. Bus access to the Park will force counties to consider infrastructure changes from the standpoint of road safety and maintenance, economic survival, fire and emergency measures as well as other perspectives. Local communities and governments need to be intimately involved in the decision-making process as adjacent Federal land use policy is developed.
Likewise, the U.S. Forest Service needs to be intimately involved in the decision-making process as an adjacent Federal land unit. Any reduction in capacity or facilities within Yosemite National Park has the potential to increase overflow activity in the Sierra National Forest, the Stanislaus National Forest, and the Inyo National Forest.
4. Though the 1980 GMP states that “special facilities will be provided for students,” there is no mention about the scope or location of such facilities, or that they will provide a “permanent home” for any specific program. Yosemite Institute must not be granted a “permanent home” in Yosemite Valley. Unfortunately, it appears the NPS has cleared the way to allow the well-funded and influential Yosemite Institute to build a large campus/conference center at Henness Ridge, albeit through a flawed process absent an adequate plan from which to tier and absent a reopened scoping period. As such, the Institute would already have a “permanent home” within Yosemite National Park. This group most certainly doesn’t need two “permanent homes.” On a temporary “emergency” basis only, the Institute has been allowed to use the Boystown facilities at Curry Village.
However, YI Directors recently sent out a letter to their member schools stating: "We are happy to report that we have found a short-term solution which may become a permanent home to YI programs in Yosemite Valley.” “There are several reasons why we think this is a terrific solution for YI programs: * Boystown has a clearly delineated periphery which will make free time student management easier and more defined, * the cabins are currently being insulated so they will be warm throughout the year * the area and the dedicated bathhouse will only be utilized by YI students, * the area is beyond a 300 foot buffer YI has added to the National Park Service rockfall closure zone in Curry Village, and * the area still has access to the Curry Dining Pavilion for meals and the Curry ice rink in the winter.
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 29 of 32 February 1, 2010
The NPS has failed to address the issue as to whether it is even appropriate to have a private entity, rather than a public entity, providing education and interpretation at a monetary cost to children on a public land? (A very high monetary cost…) Why is YI in a more privileged category than the taxpaying public who funds the Park? Additionally, there are concerns the group may still retain an administrative facility at Crane Flat. Their march toward expansion and revenue generation within Yosemite National Park must come to a halt.
5. There has been significant focus on the Merced River as it flows through Yosemite Valley. An equal amount of energy must be focused on the South Fork of the Merced River as it flows through Wawona. Of particular concern is the large maintenance yard alongside the River as well as any future plans for expansion of Park Operations within the South Fork river corridor. Will NPS decisions be directly responsible for advancing commercial sprawl and environmental degradation within the historical community of Wawona? There has also been rapid expansion of the Sierra Nevada Research Institute (SNRI) and the number of individuals it serves adding to capacity issues in Wawona. And there is the question as to the appropriateness of faculty feathering their nests by acquiring more grants, generating publicity, etc. using public land (Yosemite) as the drawing card—not to mention facilities being used for K-12 programs, retreats, etc., similar uses as promoted by YI. Is this the next group that will be lobbying for a campus/research center?
6. Likewise, significant energy must focus on El Portal. As previous plans have stated: “The El Portal archeological district contains 17 known sites. Prehistoric human burials in both isolated locations and in cemeteries, along with burial objects, have been identified. Recent archeological research (Hull et al. 1999) indicates resources in El Portal may represent some of the earliest human occupation and use of the Merced River corridor, dating possibly as early as 9,500 years ago. El Portal also may contain the best-preserved archeological resources from the protohistoric and early historic periods associated with American Indian cultural change. Although modern development has significantly changed the landscape and has destroyed archeological deposits in many places, much could be learned from these resources.” An interpretation of NHPA by Chief of Resources Niki Nicholas that “NHPA allows digging up as long as there is mitigation. Some of the areas most suitable for development from a construction standpoint are those that include ORVs” is of concern. Cultural resources are not renewable.
The entire Merced Canyon is full of natural and cultural resources that are unique, especially in comparison to the rest of the now over-developed western slope of the Sierra. This new planning effort is a great opportunity for the NPS to foster a holistic view of the Merced River west of the park boundary and beyond, to begin to coordinate better with the community of El Portal, its homeowners, as well as all the various entities and agencies involved with the Merced River (Caltrans, the Mariposa County Unified School District, the BLM, Mariposa County, and the State of California). This better collaboration would ensure that the Wild and Scenic Merced River is protected adequately throughout the Merced Canyon and not just within the boundaries of YNP. The wetlands and archeological sites within El Portal are highly valued by residents and local Native Americans and should be discussed with the El Portal community so residents have the information they need to participate productively in this planning process. Such collaboration between the NPS, community members and other agencies
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 30 of 32 February 1, 2010
would result in better communication for the entire Yosemite community and more consistent use of river protective practices by homeowners and all of these agencies throughout the Merced Canyon.
In recent years, Mariposa County has been unable to provide an accurate year-round population number for El Portal largely because of the addition of two apartment complexes and several single family homes in the Rancheria Flat area of El Portal which is maintained for government employees. It would seem this should be a major river capacity issue since all the sewage from Yosemite Valley flows through El Portal infrastructure and gets mixed with the El Portal sewage before being treated and released back into the W&S Merced. In other words, it is important to finally get an accurate count of how many toilets and showers exist in El Portal now, especially given the expansion in the past several years of the government housing area, as well as new development at both the Yosemite View Lodge and Cedar Lodge.
7. The new Merced River Plan must include a reasonable range of alternatives. For example: increase protections and enhancements of the Merced Wild and Scenic River’s ORVs; require vehicles to fit the size of existing roadways rather than expanding roadways; restore certain lodging areas to natural conditions; retain and rehabilitate a larger proportion of the low-cost overnight units; remove a large proportion of the highest-cost overnight accommodations; retain well-managed private vehicle access system with limit on tour buses; increase in camping with respective decrease in lodging; reduce the overall levels of commercial activity in Yosemite including full-service hotel accommodations, restaurants, and retail; not add additional development to areas in the Park outside Yosemite Valley.
Additionally, as the Plan discusses the “kinds and amounts of public use which the river area can sustain without impact to the values for which it was designated,” that planners offer the public a range of choices within the alternatives. For example: perhaps an area could support ‘x’ amount of camping or ‘x’ amount of day use including picnicking, or ‘x’ amount of lodging, etc.; such choices would be supported by studies that “will be made during preparation of the management plan and periodically thereafter.”
8. At scoping meetings, planners mentioned that there would be numerous workshops held in advance of releasing the Draft EIS. What plan does the Park have for documenting/distributing the information gained from these workshops and will there be any way to track how the input actually helped shape the new Plan? Though the internet is a terrific vehicle, many folks still have “dial up” which makes it difficult to download large documents; and many folks still don’t have access to a computer. It is important for the public to understand the value of their participation in these workshops and that they just won’t become another “check-off” so the Park Service can tout increased collaboration as part of the planning process.
9. According to the Settlement Agreement, “NPS hired as primary consultants Bo Shelby, Doug Whitaker, and David Cole, recognized experts in user capacity, to work directly with [Kristine Bunnell] in developing the new Merced River CMP. These experts will be involved in the planning process from the beginning…” “[Kristine Bunnell, Jim Bacon], and other NPS staff will work directly with these experts in implementing…tasks.” Planners stated they have met with the experts on at least two occasions (a couple of days in both August and October), yet there has been no disclosure to the
Merced River Plan Scoping Comments Page 31 of 32 February 1, 2010
public as to what occurred at these meetings. What recommendations did the experts make? What recommendations did Park planners accept or reject and why? Did the experts approve the 4 questions on the comment card which served as a primary component of the public scoping sessions? If the experts were to be involved in the planning process from the beginning, why didn’t they attend any of the public scoping sessions to launch a discussion of user capacity and get feedback directly from the public? Will the experts be posting their recommendations followed by the planning staff’s responses on the MRP website so the public can feel a part of the on-going user capacity discussion? Failure of Park planners to address user capacity in the two previous MRP versions resulted in the plans being declared invalid by the Courts—hence it is critical that the public be able to hear directly from the experts as they lead the user capacity discussion and the rationale used by Park planners as they begin to shape the discussion for implementation along the Merced River Corridor.
10. As the Park continues to recruit more “Park Partners” (e.g., Yosemite Fund, Yosemite Association, Yosemite Institute, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, concessionaires, NPCA, etc.) and volunteers (corporate groups and others), it is critical for managers to clearly delineate a consistent policy as to priorities—especially as these groups increasingly impact capacity, expand the development footprint, as well as intrude on visitor facilities. The power of some of these groups has been elevated to the point (i.e., money and influence) that their desired projects are slipped through under Categorical Exclusions, in effect bypassing the public review process. In many ways, it seems like the Park has passed the tipping point and is now being controlled by Park Partners. The needs of Partners and volunteers must be held in check so as not to compete with the needs of visitors.
Of particular concern is the merger of the Yosemite Fund and the Yosemite Association, in effect creating a very powerful “shadow agency” overseeing the Park under the direction of a former Superintendent. What Mike Tollefson was unable to accomplish as a Park Superintendent he can now attempt to accomplish as an Executive Director/Lobbyist for an extremely well-funded and well-connected organization—an inherent conflict of interest.
The increased activity/aggressiveness of the various Partners can remind one of the political turmoil that existed in Yosemite during the 19th Century when various private interests created a jigsaw puzzle of sorts, slicing up the Valley floor for marketing and profit. In an effort to eliminate the competing interests, the Park was put under one ownership to be subsidized by the taxpayer for the benefit of ALL. It seems like the Park Service is harkening back to that long-ago era once again as we see YI, SNRI, concessionaires, etc. all striving to carve out their own special interest piece of paradise to advance their own agendas.
11. Public scoping is the most legally significant part of the plan development process. Park press releases have announced that scoping for the new MRP was extended to February 4, 2010. However, to date there has been no Federal Register Notice published that legally authorizes that extension. We expect that such a Notice will still be forthcoming so that our comments can be legally considered and analyzed as part of scoping for the new MRP.
Brian H. Ouzounian Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition P.O. Box 54, Newport Beach, CA 92662-0054 Email:
brian.oci@sbcglobal.net February 2, 2010 Yosemite National Park Sent via Express US Mail Attn: MRP Planning and Superintendent P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, CA
95389 Re: Scoping
Comments for the “New” MRP Dear
Superintendent and Merced River Planning Staff: This package and
associated comments are hereby submitted for your consideration
for scoping the New Merced River Plan and subsequent plans that
spring from it on behalf of myself as a representative of the
Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition (YVCC), representing Valley
campers in the millions. Although we have played an active role
in most all forums, workshops, hearings, etc. our members have
been active for nearly 30 years submitting comments both written
and oral, in the park, in the gateway communities, and in
Washington D.C.. This package is submitted due to our unease and
non confidence that past comments will be used and included in
your scoping of the project. However, our hopes are that you
will use those comments from the past and supplement them with
any new comments in this submittal. The YNPS has made so many
personnel changes that continuity was always broken in the past
along with promises to those who actually participated.
Therefore these comments are once again submitted in hopes of
inclusion guiding the future of the Merced River and the
corridor it flows through. The following
comments are requested for consideration: 1. Recognize that
camping in Yosemite Valley is an ORV (Outstanding Remarkable
Value) to Yosemite and its visitors and cannot be replicated by
camping in other parts of the Park. The Valley walls keep the
temperature warmer at night. The biting bugs are minor
distractions to visitors in the Valley versus other parts of the
Park and the traditions of camping in the Valley date back to
our Native American tribes (and that’s a long time ago).
Ahwahnechee (sp) means “dwellers in a deep grassy valley,” as
this writer understands it. It was attractive then and it is so
now. 2. Study the
river to accommodate maximum affordable family auto-based
drive-in camping from Happy Isles to the “Swinging Bridge.” For
the balance of the river, furnish picnic locations for day
visitors. This type of camping or visitor experience is an ORV
of all our national parks and in particular for Yosemite Valley.
This type of visitor experience facilitates the appreciation of
the following ORV’s: Recreational, Social, Cultural,
Environmental, Geological, Architectural, Nature. It commands
fewer support services than the “fixed-roof-lodging” at an
affordable price. Reference the
2009-2010 Delaware North Rate sheets (attached) for fixed-roof
lodging accommodations; after camping at $20 per night for up to
six people or $3.33 per night per person, the minimum cost is a
Housekeeping unit for up to four people at $79 per night or $20
per person all the way up to the Ahwahnee Library Suite at
$1,127 per night. These rates have escalated each year with fees
that cause economic discrimination to visitors and certainly an
imbalance for U.S. Citizens to access their own Park given the
reducing numbers of campsites over the past 30 years. Consider
the total visitor cost to travel (on a bus), eat, and recreate
using concessions versus camping. The tradition of
family auto based drive-in camping also values riverbank
camping, the most sought after spaces of all campgrounds.
Restore and improve upon riverside campsites in the corridor
from Happy Isles to the Swinging Bridge to the maximum possible.
Remove the “split-rail fences” currently blocking access to the
river to allow the enhanced value of family camping. Having at
least 2 miles of riverside camping and prohibiting in for the
downstream 79 miles is a surely reasonable balance. 3. Restore the
Group Campground north of Tenaya Creek. Currently campsites are
overloaded exceeding the maximum allowable visitors of 6
persons. This has created diminished visitor experiences
detracting for the natural setting and setting a “party”
mentality that has increased year by year. This also overloads
the restroom facilities, law enforcement, quiet times, and the
campground landscape. The previous group campground provided for
large groups with controls till damaged by the flood. 4. Study and
return the flood damaged campgrounds and campsites to their
historical locations and quality. Camp 4 litigation has set a
precedent as to the historical nature of all campsites back
before the flood and prior to the re-characterized Camp 4(use to
be for campers with animals), which is now on the U.S. Registry
for Historical Places. All campgrounds and sites should have
equal status/standing, without litigation, back to their
pre-1980 GMP (General Management Plan) status. Campers were left
out of that planning process and sites have been removed
unjustly since. 5. Return / use
the $187,000,000 allocated by Congress for the Valley repair of
flood damage ($17 million to be specifically used for
campgrounds) as it was intended. 6. Floating down
the Merced river is one of the most rewarding activities in the
Valley, especially on a hot summer day. The sense of relaxation
and enjoyment of major ORV’s is obvious to those who have
ventured. As you spin around and gaze at the shear cliffs,
nature, geology, natural architecture, nature’s flora and fauna,
blue skies, puffy clouds, all mesh to produce jaw-dropping
wonderment that soothes the soul and relaxes the mind. For you
planners and the newly appointed Superintendent, you are invited
to take this journey from Clark’s Bridge to Sentinel or Swinging
Bridge while studying this plan, on your own vessel of course.
To miss this, would be short-changing the plan and those
visitors who love it so much and misunderstanding this ORV.
Remove the raft
concessions and allow personal flotation devices (i.e.: tubes
and rafts) to be used from Clark’s Bridge to the Swinging
Bridge. The concession rafts, no doubt, wreck the natural bank
vegetation and concentrate damage by multitudes of people who
haul in and out their vessels at their designated locations and
at indiscriminant locations along the river by the users’ own
discretion. This activity forces visitors to spend their money
on an unnatural activity creating the need for additional
support services by the Park and its concessionaire. Allowing
visitors to fend for themselves is a much more compatible and
environmentally acceptable activity. 7. Remove the few
trees that cause river floating accidents. This is a simple fix
for a huge ongoing problem. Swift water rescues are needed due
only sometimes to the obstinate opposition to removing a few
fallen trees at certain points in the river. (i.e. at the Merced
River /Tenaya Creek Island. This is an easily managed condition. 8. Provide for
two automated vending devices at each campground for affordable
ice and dry firewood. This will eliminate unnecessary trips to
the Camp Curry and Village markets and reduce traffic, auto
emissions, and air pollution from the burning of green and wet
wood, and reduce the pilfering of wood in the Park. 9. Provide more
picnic areas throughout the auto corridor that is spread out to
avoid concentration and the loading of the few areas now
established. This will also reduce the voluntary makeshift areas
that are vegetated and not designated for picnic use. 10. Incorporate
the book, Yosemite, by Vilija and Robert Deutschman into
the scoping comments as an example of affordable family based
auto drive-in camping as an ORV in Yosemite Valley, which was
previously submitted for the record in the previous New Merced
River Plan workshop (Planner for a Day February 2008) 11. Do not remove
the Northside Drive. It is necessary for emergency evacuation.
To change and direct traffic to Southside Drive as a two way
drive would cause damage to established geology and vegetation
as well as limit evacuation to one side of the Valley only;
environmental disaster. 12. Add a bike
lane on Northside Drive to the connector road to Southside Drive
to Bridalveil Falls and east to the campgrounds to facilitate
safe bike riding in the Valley. Bike riding in the Valley is an
ORV and the Park needs to make it safe. Add bike repair for
outside bikes to the concessionaire’s charge to accommodate this
environmentally friendly activity. It is a great way to see the
Park and absorb all the ORV’s. 13. Improve
restroom facilities in the campgrounds to enhance the visitor
experience. Include updated interiors that all conform to
disability standards for federal and state level, including
access ramps to potable water on the outside; not just one token
restroom per campground. All restrooms need to be accessible.
Add cold water showers with waste lines to control human oils
and mitigate human impact (oils) induced into the Merced River.
14. Stop the tour
bussing. The roads leading into and out of the Valley are
designed for auto touring. Inducing diesel emissions on a
regular basis adds to the worst of drives when following in an
auto that is emission controlled. How can we make sense of the
policy to limit campfires to control airborne particulate matter
when you allow constant diesel busses to operate and pollute the
Park air? This is hypocritical! Also, they are a public safety
concern as they are too big for the roads; they must be profit
motivated because those that visit via a bus are the big
spenders at the concessions and accommodate foreign visitors
with deep pockets and are less likely to be U. S. or California
residents. How do foreigners gain better access than U. S.
residents….because they spend more? 15. Use the
excess gate fees to enhance the camping experience. Campers make
up the majority of overnight visitation, historically. These
fees have not demonstrated improvement for campers since they
were implemented. 16. Include the
comments of our petitioners, some 1400 attached to this package
provided by the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition website:
www.yosemitevalleycampers.org
. These signers were promised influence in THIS planning process
and want to be heard. Please include them and access the website
on an ongoing basis to capture more as they post. 17. Include the
500 hand written petition signatures obtained by the YVCC
previously submitted at the Planner-For-A-Day workshop in
February 2008 for the then “New Merced River Plan.” It was hand
delivered to Linda Dahl, the project manager. 18. As this
planning project is an epic event that sets precedent to how all
wild and scenic rivers in our nation will be studied, it seems
imperative that there be a wide outreach of respondents. There
was, in the court documents signed the end of September 2009, a
10 month scoping period, which did not occur. It should have
been termed out in May of 2010 but instead cut short to
February. It is understood that less than 200 respondents to the
public meetings appeared and participated. Hardly enough to
warrant a precedent setting event for national policy. A real
embarrassment to the process. The YVCC requested that the Park
planners contact, via their camping database, all those who
camped since 1979 because they were left out of the process
since that time and are disenfranchised in this public process.
The YVCC directly contacted staff to make this request and NO
ONE RESPONDED! As of this writing, it is unclear what outreach
basis they used. It is also understood that the most effective
method of planning this document is the scoping process versus
the comment period on plans and alternatives after the study.
The Park continues to mishandle the planning process by not
obtaining enough respondents in this epic process and not allow
enough public input to be studied. The petitions we have
accumulated, on our own dime, will hopefully make better
representation for the millions of people who love to camp in
Yosemite Valley. It would be
encouraging to be engaged in the process with feedback.
Hopefully, a reply would be forthcoming. Sincerely,
Brian H. Ouzounian Co-Founder Yosemite Valley Coalition
|
|