You are here

Yosemite National Park Issues Massive Draft Plan Addressing Merced River And The Yosemite Valley

Share

Published Date

January 8, 2013

A reading frenzy was kicked off Tuesday when a massive draft plan for managing the wild and scenic Merced River through Yosemite National Park was released, a plan park officials hope will end years of litigation over visitor impacts on both the river and the Yosemite Valley.

Reaction to the voluminous document was muted, as groups with interests in the final plan said they needed time to digest the draft. So big was the plan that Yosemite officials created a 20-page summary guide to help interested parties understand what was in the full draft.

Greg Adair, whose group, Friends of the Yosemite Valley, twice took Yosemite officials all the way to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over previous iterations of the plan, said he hoped that within the roughly 2,500 pages the Park Service had carefully studied both the visitor experience and the Yosemite Valley's ecosystems in arriving at a daily carrying capacity for visitation.

“We really haven’t seen them do that" in the past," Mr. Adair said during a phone call. "Our concern would be to see if they’ve finally done that.”

A review of the park's preferred alternative shows it would set a daily visitation cap of 19,900 to the Yosemite Valley, roughly equal to current levels. Additionally, the preferred alternative calls for a 37 percent increase in campsites in the valley, a 5 percent increase in day-use parking areas in the valley, and a slight, 2 percent increase in valley lodging.

At the same time, the draft notes the preferred alternative would restore 203 acres of meadow and riparian areas, the Sugar Pine Bridge upstream of the Ahwahanee Bridge would be removed "to enhance the free-flowing condition" of the Merced River, and 34 campsites within 100 feet of the river in the North Pines, Backpackers, and Lower Pines campgrounds would be removed.

A recreational vehicle loop with 36 sites also would be built in the Upper Pines Campground under the preferred alternative. And the draft plan calls for continued use of "rafts, kayaks, paddle boards, inner tubes, and inflatable mattresses" on the Merced River through the valley. If day-use parking areas continued to be overwhelmed, the draft plan says a permit system could be instituted.

Yosemite officials were deluged Tuesday afternoon with calls from reporters seeking comment and not immediately available to discuss the plan. But in the 20-page summary guide, they talked about the preferred alternative's approach to restoring heavily used areas of the Yosemite Valley.

A 150-foot riparian buffer, measured from the ordinary high-water mark, would be protected and enhanced corridorwide. Eroded riverbanks would be repaired through restoration, and vulnerable riverbanks and riparian vegetation would be protected from trampling. Visitors would be directed to use resilient areas, such as low-angle sandbar beaches. Ditches in meadows would be filled, six miles of informal trails in meadows and riparian areas would be removed, and abandoned underground infrastructure would be removed. Informal roadside parking along meadows and associated fill material would be removed to restore meadow area and protect meadows from informal trailing. Cultural resources, such as archeological sites would be protected from irretrievable loss.

The Merced River was designated a "wild and scenic river" in 1987. As such, park officials must protect the Merced's outstanding remarkable values, its stream flows, and its water quality. Differing views over those points have long delayed an updated management plan for the Yosemite Valley, as groups that opposed the Park Service's proposals successfully battled the agency in the court system.

The gist of the litigation -- which claimed the Park Service was allowing inappropriate development to intrude upon the wild and scenic river corridor-- began shortly after Yosemite officials completed their first Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management plan in August 2000.

It was late in September 2009 when the Park Service and the Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government settled their differences over the Merced River Plan and agreed to stop sending their lawyers to court.

Emily Schrepf, the Central Valley program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, was cautiously optimistic Tuesday that the plan would succeed.

“A big part of the preferred alternative is to use a lot more public transportation, increased buses and shuttles, and an intelligent transportation system" to move visitors through the park in a less congested way than now is experienced, she said from her Fresno, Calif., office. “I think they’re really, really working to avoid any sort of limits that would turn people away."

Support National Parks Traveler

Your support for the National Parks Traveler comes at a time when news organizations are finding it hard, if not impossible, to stay in business. Traveler's work is vital. For nearly two decades we've provided essential coverage of national parks and protected areas. With the Trump administration’s determination to downsize the federal government, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s approach to public lands focused on energy exploration, it’s clear the Traveler will have much to cover in the months and years ahead. We know of no other news organization that provides such broad coverage of national parks and protected areas on a daily basis. Your support is greatly appreciated.

 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

“I think they’re really, really working to avoid any sort of limits that would turn people away."

In theory that's a laudable aim. In practice, in a place as tiny as Yosemite Valley so close to so many urban centers, it's not practical.

I went back to Yosemite summer before last for the first time in many years, and for the first time on a summer weekend that I can remember (I'd always gone in the off-season before, but there were other things dictating our schedule), and the person I heard on the incredibly overcrowded shuttlebus calling it Disneyland National Park had it right on the money. I hate the idea of having to have a reservation to even visit the Valley, but that's already being done in other national parks (Denali -- even in 1973, when I was there, if you didn't have a campground reservation in the park, you weren't allowed to drive your vehicle past a certain point), and limiting visitation may be the only thing that ultimately saves the Valley.

The problem with Yosemite is that it's too close to too many big cities, and people treat the Valley as their backyard, not as the way most other national parks (including Yellowstone) are and it should be. The only thing that's going to help is getting people to quit doing that.


Megaera:
The problem with Yosemite is that it's too close to too many big cities, and people treat the Valley as their backyard, not as the way most other national parks (including Yellowstone) are and it should be. The only thing that's going to help is getting people to quit doing that.

Having visited Yellowstone, there are visitors who do treat it in the same way even having travelled considerably longer distances. The main difference would be that the numbers are dispersed across a wider area rather than being packed into one narrow canyon.

You often get the same lack of respect at the Grand Canyon, and Zion Canyon packs most of its visitors into that small and narrow corridor. I visited Kolob Canyon, and it was a totally different experience.


Yellowstone is sort of my passion (I've written a novel set there, among other things), and I've visited there during every month between May and October in the last fourteen years (including almost the exact same time in August that I visited Yosemite). I wholeheartedly agree with you about the dispersal over a wider area helping in Yellowstone, but I still think Yosemite just gets trashed by people who've probably never been to another national park in their lives. Much worse than Yellowstone. I was absolutely appalled.


Good luck on on this issue. Difficult one to say the least.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Your urgent support helps the National Parks Traveler increase awareness of the wonders and issues confronting national parks and protected areas.

Support Our Mission

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.