Environmentalism at Yosemite

Protecting a park from overuse is a sound thing to do–when overuse is defined in relation to historical trends–especially important when it takes away historical amenities from those who are its prime users, as this article from the Sacramento Bee describes.

An excerpt.

WASHINGTON — Conservative lawmakers used harsh rhetoric Tuesday to denounce a Yosemite National Park plan that they say would exclude park visitors.

In a House of Representatives hearing dominated by critics of the plan, the Republican congressman who represents the world-famous park warned that it would be harder to buy ice cream, get groceries or find a swimming pool in Yosemite Valley under a plan he associated with the “most radical and nihilistic fringe of the environmental left.”

Along with others, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., wants the park service to backpedal on proposals to remove some of the valley’s visitor amenities.

“The park service insists the law compels these radical changes, and yet the law does no such thing,” McClintock said, adding later that “the local community sentiment seems to be to be very negative toward that plan.”

Under what’s called the Merced River Plan, the National Park Service spells out how to preserve the waterway as it flows through Yosemite, including the heavily visited 7-mile-long, 1-mile-wide Yosemite Valley. The $235 million undertaking would restore green areas, remove traffic, create additional trails and in general reduce congestion.

But in the 100-minute hearing Tuesday of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, there were pronounced feelings from all sides, and every indication that the controversy could keep percolating for a long time.

“The great thing about Yosemite,” National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said, “is there are very strong opinions about everything.”

The park service is entangled in its third effort to write a Merced River Plan, and it’s under a court order to complete its work by July 31. Park service officials hope that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will grant an extension until the end of the year, so the agency can fully analyze some 30,000 public comments.

Jarvis said that about 20,000 of the comments were generally supportive of the proposed plan. McClintock, on the other hand, said that about 80 percent of some 25,000 participants in a recent telephone town hall meeting, convened by robo-calls from his congressional office to constituents, expressed opposition.

The park service’s draft plan, released in January, encompassed 81 miles of the Merced River that flow through Yosemite and are protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A lot would remain roughly the same. The 2,337 Yosemite Valley day-use parking spaces, for instance, would increase to 2,448. Valley camping sites would increase to 726 from 565, which is still less than was available before a 1997 Merced River flood.

Most of the public attention, though, has focused on the proposal to remove two bicycle rental centers, two swimming pools, a snack bar, an ice rink and several other facilities.

About David H Lukenbill

I am a native of Sacramento, as are my wife and daughter. I am a consultant to nonprofit organizations, and have a Bachelor of Science degree in Organizational Behavior and a Master of Public Administration degree, both from the University of San Francisco. We live along the American River with two cats and all the wild critters we can feed. I am the founding president of the American River Parkway Preservation Society and currently serve as the CFO and Senior Policy Director. I also volunteer as the President of The Lampstand Foundation, a nonprofit organization I founded in 2003.
This entry was posted in Environmentalism, History, Parks. Bookmark the permalink.