[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PUBLIC IMPACT OF CLOSING AMENITIES AT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-895 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Daines, MT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Kevin Cramer, ND Joe Garcia, FL
Doug LaMalfa, CA Matt Cartwright, PA
Jason T. Smith, MO Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 9, 2013............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Mcclintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Asquith, Bob, Groveland, California.......................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Brown, Wendy, Yosemite For Everyone.......................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement of.......................... 6
Hoss, Peter T., Author and Founding Member, Yosemite For
Everyone................................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Jarvis, Jonathan B., Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Ouzounian, Brian, Co-Founder, Yosemite Valley Campers
Coalition.................................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Additional materials submitted for the record:
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress for the
State of California, Prepared statement of................. 4
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PUBLIC IMPACT OF CLOSING AMENITIES AT YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK
----------
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis,
Tipton, Costa, and Garcia.
Mr. Bishop. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum, so
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
is holding an oversight hearing today on the public impact of
closing amenities at Yosemite National Park.
Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
to include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business
today.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. Hearing no objections, that will be so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. With that, we are appreciative of the people
who have come many miles to be with us here today, appreciative
of having Director Jarvis with us at the same time. We are
going to be talking about the potential loss of our recreation
opportunities in Yosemite. Yosemite is actually the third
national park we developed, although the second one was given
back to the State of Michigan, where they are doing a marvelous
job in handling it. Sometimes I think Yosemite would be better
off in the State of California, because it was a State park
before we took it over full-time, anyway.
What we are talking about here today is, I think, a
microcosm of a lot of the issues that we will be facing. The
purpose of national parks: if they are not to be seen by
people, do they have some kind of a purpose? And yet, in
Yosemite, we have found what I think is pretty vivid evidence
of the efforts to try and exclude people from being there.
We were talking all the time about the need of having more
visitors going to our national parks. And yet, if we make our
parks not visitor-friendly, how can we expect ever to achieve
that particular goal? This Subcommittee has had hearings over a
variety of issues that deal with our Park Service. We have had
a problem in Herrera Beutler's district with the local park
manager who did things that were just stupid and hurt people,
hurt the community. We had Joe Heck in here with a bill, the
Park Service doing things that hurt a family, which can only be
described as stupid. We have had hearings about the parks on
the border, where the Border Patrol was inhibited by Park
Service policy.
This is another one in which we are looking at a policy
toward Yosemite National Park which is unusual. We are looking
at a policy to Yosemite National Park which occurred $200,000--
$200 million from the Federal Government after the great flood,
and the money was not spent, as Congress intended, to rebuild
and restructure Yosemite. It was done to actually go in the
opposite direction.
So, we will be looking here today and seeing if what the
Park Service is doing at Yosemite is clearly intended to
increase the visitation of the national parks. Or does it
actually decrease the visitation of our national parks? Have we
gone on a publicity binge after that horrific flood in Yosemite
that discourages people from even thinking they can get into
the park? And what are the impacts that it has had in other
areas?
So, I appreciate the park director being here. I hope he
will address, hopefully, a wide variety of issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Today we will hear testimony on the potential loss of amenities and
recreational opportunities in Yosemite National Park. Yosemite is one
of the most popular national parks and was originally set aside by
Abraham Lincoln. Yosemite has entertained millions of visitors since
that time and has been a critical component of the local economy.
I'm concerned that the direction the Park Service has taken with
the Merced River Plan unnecessarily punishes visitors through measures
designed to move Yosemite Valley to the direction of a wilderness area.
As I understand it, Yosemite is already 95 percent designated
wilderness. Yosemite Valley is a unique place, offering some of the
most impressive scenery in the world. But now we are told that you may
not be able to rent a raft, go on a horseback ride, or swim in a pool,
because it may not be consistent with the values of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River.
I understand this issue has been going on for many years, and the
courts have been heavily involved, but at some point common sense needs
to prevail. How on earth can renting a raft harm the Merced River? Why
are we protecting these rivers for if they cannot be enjoyed by the
Americans that are paying for their protection?
There is also a question of accountability. I'm aware the Merced
River flooded in 1997 and did substantial damage to park facilities and
infrastructure. Congress appropriated nearly $200 million to repair the
damage. However, the Park Service took advantage of the crisis to push
visitors out of the park. Popular campgrounds were not repaired;
instead they were permanently ripped out in the name of river setbacks
and riparian work. It may have taken some work, but the bathrooms that
were washed away could have been replaced as easily as they were
installed, campfires rings could have been constructed by Boy Scouts,
and the camp sites could have been cleared with some brooms. Instead,
the Park Service spent millions to tear these campsites out. The result
is fewer recreational opportunities for families and the Americans that
own and support national parks. That is no way to build a sustainable
park constituency for the future.
It seems to me that if someone is looking for an amenity free,
human-free experience, they already have the other 95 percent of
Yosemite to celebrate.
I'd like to thank our witnesses, particularly those who have
traveled across the country and Director Jarvis for accepting our
invitation to participate today.
______
Mr. Bishop. We also want to welcome not only Mr.
McClintock, who is the sponsor of the area in which we are
going, also Mr. Garamendi, who we are inviting to the panel--I
will give him a chance to give an opening statement--and Mr.
Costa, who is also sitting in today, and I appreciate him being
here, and he is from the same area. And I will recognize him
for an opening statement now, if we want to, and then I will
also recognize Mr. McClintock and Mr. Garamendi for statements,
if they would care to give those.
Mr. Costa?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
the members of the Subcommittee here for giving me the
opportunity and the honor to be a part of this morning's
Subcommittee hearing.
The importance of Yosemite National Park and the benefits
that it provides as an icon of America's national park system,
I think, is not to be understated. Wallace Stegner, I guess,
put it best in the definitive series that many of us saw that
Ken Burns did, that the national park systems reflect America
at its best, not its worst. It is America's best idea, I think,
hopefully, I got the quote correct.
So we all have a personal affinity, in one way or another,
if we grew up going with our parents to the parks. Both
Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Park are, I like to say, in
my back yard. Congressman McClintock has the honor of
representing it now, but others have represented it over the
years. And it is the stewardship that I think we all care
about, and that is, therefore, the importance of today's
hearing.
From the towering granite of Half Dome to the water of the
Nevada Falls and Vernal Falls, the giant sequoias of the
Mariposa Grove, all of this is encompassed in the experience
that people young and old alike, and everyone in between,
benefit from when you go to Yosemite National Park.
Next year, the national park system is celebrating the
150th anniversary of President Lincoln's initial effort to
protect the valley and the Mariposa Grove by signing the
Yosemite Grant Act. Think about it, 150 years ago. In 2015 we
are going to be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the
designation of the park itself. And, with any incredible
natural resource such as Yosemite, there is a fine line between
celebrating its splendor, protecting its beauty for future
generations, and, as the Chairman indicated, ensuring that
Americans--Americans--have access to that incredible, natural
wonderment of nature. And therein lies the conflict.
Like many, I have been going to Yosemite Park since I was a
kid. It is among the top five of visitations of all of our
national parks in the country. And it is exacerbated by the
fact that 3.9 million people that visited last year, 70
percent--more than 70 percent--come between Memorial Day and
Labor Day. So, when you have almost 4 million people, but over
70 percent visit it between Memorial Day and Labor Day, that
becomes a challenge. And it is further exacerbated by the fact
that 80 percent of the visitors to Yosemite go to the valley
floor.
Yosemite National Park is one of the largest parks in the
country. It is larger than the State of Rhode Island. But yet,
the valley floor, where you have Half Dome, El Capitan, the
falls, is 7 miles long and a mile in width. And there lies a
further part of the puzzle that we are trying to deal with here
this morning. There have been three efforts now that the
National Park Service has encompassed to try to come up with a
plan that reflects 21st century realities. And they have all
been met with various additions and protests.
What makes the Park Service, I think, job even more
difficult is the lawsuits that have ensued, in terms of their
ability to address these issues. I think what makes our park
system one of the finest in the world is the open access it
provides. The Yosemite plan that we are dealing with here today
continues that same level of access, but it also attempts to
address the challenges that I have just stated. Despite the
high level of outreach the Park Service has attempted, we all
know that no plan, including this plan, is perfect.
As a result of that fact, I must commend Director Jarvis,
who has put together a bipartisan group of Californians, and we
wrote to the Director about certain aspects of the draft plan.
To his credit, the Director has provided time for public input,
they have taken additional time to meet directly to discuss our
concerns. That interaction continues, and it must. However,
given the complexity of the process, I think Director Jarvis
and Superintendent Neubacher and the Yosemite team should be
commended for trying to navigate this path and thread the
needle, because that is what we are doing. We are not going to
make everybody happy.
The fact of the matter is that I think it is important to
maintain biking activity, horse riding activity. Ice skating in
the winter in the outdoors is one of the unique experiences of
Yosemite National Park. But yet, there is a lottery system of
people who compete to try to get a campsite along the Merced
River between Memorial Day and Labor Day, because the demand is
just so much greater than the available campsites.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the testimony
here by my colleagues and by the witnesses that are on the
panel. And I have a piece of legislation that I am going to
plug unashamedly. It would add 1,600 acres to the park, as
originally envisioned by John Muir. The inclusion of these
lands within Yosemite, I think, is critical to saving money for
local communities. It has strong bipartisan support by members
of the State legislature. And we can talk later about that
legislation.
And in addition, I would like to request unanimous consent
to submit a statement for the record by our colleague,
Congressman George Miller, who I know views Yosemite National
Park as one of his favorite places to visit. So without
objection, I would like to make that motion.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. I am thinking about it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information submitted for the record by Mr. Costa
follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable George Miller, a Representative in
Congress for the State of California
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit written testimony on the subject of the National
Park Service's (NPS) Merced River Plan in Yosemite National Park. For
many years, I have personally enjoyed the spectacular views and
incredible hikes throughout Yosemite National Park and I would like to
offer my perspective to the Subcommittee during its discussion of this
important issue.
I believe that the ability to enjoy recreational activities in
Yosemite Park is crucial not only for those that enjoy the park each
year, but for the continuing preservation of the park for years to
come. The Wild and Scenic River designation issued by Congress to the
Merced River gives the National Park Service the important task of
preserving the river's condition, as well as protecting and enhancing
the unique values that made it worthy of the designation.
The National Park Service's Merced River Plan is an important step
in the effort to protect the environmental quality of the Merced River
and Yosemite National Park. The current draft Merced River Plan
represents an attempt to reach a compromise between all interested
parties to ensure that the park's unique recreational opportunities
remain available while the environmental quality of the park is
maintained for the long term.
As with any plan of this nature, the Park Service has had to
carefully balance the interests of a wide range of stakeholders in
developing a Merced River Plan that will achieve a number of economic
and environmental goals. However, initial drafts of the Park Service's
preferred plan raised some concerns that it would unduly limit some
recreational activities that do not harm the Merced River. I was
pleased that Director Jarvis agreed to extend the public comment period
on the Plan after other Members of Congress and I expressed our
concerns about whether the Plan might limit access to recreational
activities in a letter sent to the agency.
These activities continue to be very important to families across
generations and help families and others introduce young children and
first time visitors to a total recreational/outdoor experience in
Yosemite. As the Park Service moves forward with enacting this Plan, I
hope that there will be a serious commitment made by NPS to retain
recreational activities that pose no harm to the Merced River but are
important to many who visit Yosemite, such as biking, ice skating, and
horseback riding. If this Committee and the Park Service work together
constructively on this process, I believe that there is room to modify
the proposed Plan to address the concerns of stakeholders who have been
concerned about the restrictions placed on recreational stakeholders in
the original preferred alternative.
As the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I fully
appreciate the need to protect unique natural resources, but it should
not be at the cost of recreational activities that do not pose a threat
and instead are a part of the cherished legacy of Yosemite National
Park. I hope that this Committee will work with the National Park
Service to complete a final Merced River Plan that accomplishes these
objectives. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
______
Mr. Costa. Thank you. And thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Chairman Bishop, members of the Committee, and invited witnesses--
thank you very much for holding this hearing today.
Yosemite National Park is an American icon. The towering granite of
Half Dome, the rushing water of Nevada Fall and Vernal Fall, and Groves
of giant sequoias in Mariposa Groves are literally the posters of
America's Greatest Idea.
Next year the national park is celebrating the 150th anniversary of
President Lincoln's initial effort to protect the valley and Mariposa
Grove by signing the Yosemite Grant Act. In 2015, we will celebrate the
150th anniversary of the designation of the park itself.
Like with any natural beauty, there is a fine line between
celebrating its splendor and protecting the beauty for future
generations. Sometimes we get that balance right and sometimes we have
to continue working on that through trial and error.
In the case of Yosemite, Yosemite Valley, and the Merced Wild and
Scenic River--the National Park Service has been between the proverbial
rock and a hard place. Reaching back to 1998, the effort to achieve
this delicate balance has been contested and decided in the courts.
Finally, in 2010, after two reviews by the 9th Circuit Court, the Park
Service and park advocates settled on a path forward.
The hearing today is looking at a working work product of that
settlement agreement. I think it is important that we keep in mind that
the process the Park Service undertook, and the parameters of their
analysis, was carefully negotiated as part of this settlement
agreement.
Part of what makes our park system the finest in the world is the
open access it affords Americans and those visiting America. The
Yosemite Valley plan still offers this access. The question before us
today is what is changing with amenities.
A bi-partisan group of Californians wrote to Director Jarvis and
raised issues we had with some aspects of the draft plan. We asked for
additional time for public input. To his credit, Director Jarvis
provided time for that public input then took the time to meet with us
to discuss our concerns.
I am encouraged by the direction the Park Service is going with the
plan. It still needs some work and some community members need greater
assurance that key amenities won't be lost. However, given the
complexity of the process and the issues, I think Director Jarvis,
Superintendent Neubacher, and the Yosemite team should be commended.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to also
comment on the need to make a modest and popular expansion of the park.
Thank you again and I look forward to your testimony.
______
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate Mr. Costa for being here, and his
comments. Because, after all, when one thinks of outdoor ice
skating, one thinks of California.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. That----
Mr. Costa. I think of Utah, as well.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to turn to Mr. Garamendi for his
statement, if I could, and then Mr. McClintock, I will have you
batting clean-up. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you. It is always a
privilege and, indeed, an honor to be in this Committee room
and to, in this case, be testifying on an extremely important
piece of work that has been done.
This plan really is the culmination of some 30 years of
effort to try to figure out how to, as Mr. Costa said, position
one of the greatest amenities in this world, Yosemite National
Park, for the 21st century and all the challenges that it has.
My first experience at this was at the age of 7, at a time when
there were probably no more than 12--actually, about 10
million--people living in California. Today there is 35
million. And the pressure on this park is extraordinary.
The Park Service, for these 30 years, has been trying to
balance two very, very important goals: the preservation of the
natural wonder of Yosemite Valley and Yosemite Park with the
public's access to those extraordinary natural wonders. This
effort, nearly completed, should be pushed forward.
There are undoubtedly conflicts. I was in many of those
conflicts in the mid-nineties when I was deputy secretary and
had specific responsibilities following the flood during that
period to try to figure out what to do. Legislation was passed,
a lot of money was appropriated. And I will tell you that money
was well spent on providing access and dealing with the
disposal of human waste in the valley: roads, sanitation
systems, and the like, plus many other things. Turned out to be
far more expensive than anticipated. I don't believe any of
that money was wasted.
Where are we today? We have got to push this thing forward.
We have to complete the process of planning, we have to
complete this particular effort. That has been an extraordinary
amount of work. It has been expensive. It has been a long-time,
and it has taken many, many public hearings, more than 60, and
I believe has resulted in a plan that is basically quite good.
It does balance the natural amenities of the park, particularly
the valley. It does provide a lot of access. It will meet the
needs of the natural environment and the ability of visitors to
see the valley floor.
It also promotes activities outside of the valley, which is
extremely important. It was mentioned, the giant sequoias, the
upper areas of the valley, which I have had the pleasure of
hiking and fishing, in the upper regions of the park. And by
providing access to those and encouraging people to go there,
it is very important. Also, it meets the needs of the
surrounding communities, which literally depend almost entirely
upon this park for their economic viability and livelihoods.
There are some issues that remain, and I think those can be
worked out. Horses in the valley. Yes, there will be horses in
the valley, both private and public access to the horses.
Bikes, a lot of conflict or questions about bikes. I mean we
are really down to minutia here when we are talking about where
the bike racks are going to be. But that is really where we are
here. I believe that there will be, at the end of this process,
the opportunity for people to rent bikes in the valley. They
may not be next to the river, but they will be there.
Rafting? There will be rafting. Whether there will be
commercial rafting in the valley or outside the valley remains
to be determined. But we are really down to something really
quite small overall. Ice skating. Yes, the ice skating rink
needs to move. It is outdated. And it needs to be replaced or
not at all. There is a quite good possibility that there will
be ice skating in the valley with the temporary rinks such as
we now find in almost every urban mall in America.
So, there are possibilities here to deal with the remaining
issues. And if we are down to just horses, bikes, rafting, and
ice skating, wow. A lot of progress has been made. I remember
when you couldn't even decide whether there would be buses in
the valley. But they are now in place. I want to commend the
Park Service for their efforts, for moving this thing along,
and for all the people that have spent a lot of time and a lot
of effort. And I really urge this Committee to allow the Park
Service to get on with it and to move this process forward, so
that we can have this finally completed in its current state,
knowing that there will be other questions for next
generations.
Thank you for the privilege of being with you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for
joining us. Let's conclude this last informal first panel of
members with Representative McClintock. If you would, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you for arranging this hearing in response to the public outcry
that has been raised against the proposals by the National Park
Service that would radically alter the purpose, nature, and use
of Yosemite National Park. The NPS proposal would remove long-
standing tourist facilities from Yosemite Valley, including
bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, gift shops,
horseback riding, the ice skating rink at Curry Village, the
arts center, the grocery store, swimming pools, and even the
valley's iconic and historic stone bridges. These facilities
date back generations, and they provide visitors with a wide
range of amenities to enhance their stay at and their enjoyment
of this world-renowned national park.
Now, the Park Service says this is necessary to comply with
a settlement agreement reached with the most radical and
nihilistic fringe of the environmental left. It seeks to use
the Wild and Scenic River designation of the Merced River as an
excuse to expel commercial enterprises and dramatically reduce
the recreational amenities available to park visitors.
Yet, as we will hear from renowned Yosemite historian Peter
Hoss, that agreement imposes no requirement on the Government
to do anything more than adopt a plan consistent with current
law. And current law is explicit: the 1864 act establishing the
park guarantees its use for public recreation and resort. The
1916 Organic Act creating the national parks explicitly
declares their purpose to be for the public enjoyment of the
public lands. And the Wild and Scenic River Act contemplated no
changes to the amenities at Yosemite. So says its author,
Democratic Congressman Tony Coelho. Yet the Park Service
insists that the law compels these radical changes. It does no
such thing.
And in a let-them-eat-cake moment, the Park Service assures
us that, although bicycle, raft, and horse rentals will be
banned, people are free to bring their own. Well, what a relief
that is going to be to a paralyzed teenager whose only access
to the park is from horseback. All you have to do is buy your
own horse and bring it to the park. Thanks a lot.
And since environmental protection is the stated
justification, I must ask. What is the environmental difference
between a rented bicycle and a privately owned bicycle? What is
the environmental difference between a rented raft and a
privately owned raft, except rafts--a rented raft is operated
under close supervision of experts. Why would the Park Service
demand the removal of the swimming pools at the Ahwahnee and
Yosemite lodges that have no impact on the Merced River, except
to give parents a safer place for their children to go swimming
than the river's treacherous waters?
Ninety-five percent of the park is already in wilderness.
Yet the overwhelming majority of park visitors come to that 5
percent where amenities are available for public recreation,
where they can rent a bike, where they can stop at the snack
shop to get ice cream cones for the kids, where they can pick
up souvenirs at the gift shop, where the family can cool off at
a lodge swimming pool. And it is precisely these pursuits that
the National Park Service would destroy.
We are assured that in some cases they will merely move
them to other locations in the park away from the valley floor.
Well, understand what that means. They will move the tourist
facilities away from the tourists. Wawona, for example, has
often been mentioned as an alternative site. Wawona is more
than 20 miles from Yosemite Valley. We are assured that the
plan will increase campsites and parking. Yet, as we will hear
from the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition, the plan actually
represents a radical reduction in parking and campsites
measured from pre-flood levels.
Congress appropriated millions of dollars to restore these
facilities. The money was spent, but the facilities were never
replaced. And the NPS would now lock in not only dramatically
lower numbers, but would diminish the desirability of the
campsites which remain. Now, much has been said of the
competition for campsites. Perhaps the reason for the shortage
is because the number of campsites has been reduced by nearly
half on the valley floor from pre-flood levels, and overnight
lodging by a third.
Yosemite National Park was set aside in 1864 by legislation
signed by Abraham Lincoln for the express purpose of ``public
use resort and recreation.'' For more than a century, this
measure was honored by the park stewards. But no more. This
plan would radically alter the visitor-friendly mission of the
park with the new elitist maxim, ``Look, but don't touch.
Visit, but don't enjoy.''
The public is crying out for congressional intervention,
Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for taking the first step toward
saving Yosemite National Park for the public use, resort, and
recreation that was promised to the American people nearly 150
years ago.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
I want to thank Chairman Bishop for arranging this hearing in
response to the public outcry against proposals by the National Park
Service that would radically alter the purpose, nature and use of
Yosemite National Park. The NPS proposal would remove long-standing
tourist facilities from Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and raft
rentals, snack facilities, gift shops, horseback riding, the ice-
skating rink at Curry Village, the art center, the grocery store,
swimming pools, and even the valley's iconic and historic stone
bridges. These facilities date back generations and provide visitors
with a wide range of amenities to enhance their stay at--and their
enjoyment of--this world-renowned national park.
The Park Service says this is necessary to comply with a settlement
agreement reached with the most radical and nihilistic fringe of the
environmental Left. It seeks to use the Wild and Scenic River
designation of the Merced River as an excuse to expel commercial
enterprises and dramatically reduce the recreational amenities
available to park visitors.
Yet as we will hear from Yosemite historian Peter Hoss that
agreement imposes no requirement on the Government to do anything more
than adopt a plan consistent with current law. And current law is
explicit: the 1864 act establishing the park guarantees its use for
public recreation and resort; the 1916 Organic Act creating national
parks explicitly declares their purpose to be the public enjoyment of
the public lands, and the Wild and Scenic River Act contemplated no
changes to the amenities at Yosemite--so says its author, Democratic
Congressman Tony Coelho. Yet the Park Service insists that the law
compels these radical changes. It does no such thing.
In a ``let them eat cake'' moment, the Park Service assures us that
although bicycle, raft and horse rentals will be banned, people are
free to bring their own. What a relief that will be to a paralyzed
teenager whose only access to the park is from horseback--all you have
to do is buy your own horse and bring it to the park!
And since environmental protection is the stated justification, I
must ask: what is the environmental difference between a rented bicycle
and a privately owned bicycle? What is the environmental difference
between a rented raft and a privately owned raft, except that the
rented raft is operated under the close supervisions of experts? Why
would the Park Service demand the removal of the swimming pools at the
Ahwanee and Yosemite Lodge that have no impact on the Merced River
except to give parents a safer place for their children to go swimming
than the River's treacherous waters?
Ninety five percent of the park is already in wilderness. Yet the
overwhelming majority of park visitors come to that 5 percent where
amenities are available for public recreation: where they can rent a
bike; where they can stop at the snack shop to get ice-cream cones for
the kids; where they can pick up souvenirs at the gift shop; where the
family can cool off at a lodge swimming pool. And it is precisely these
pursuits that the National Park Service would destroy.
We're assured that in some cases they will merely ``move'' them to
other locations in the park away from the Valley floor. Understand what
that means: they will move tourist facilities away from the tourists.
Wawona, for example has often been mentioned as an alternative site.
Wawona is more than 20 miles from Yosemite Valley!
We're assured that the plan will ``increase'' campsites and
parking. Yet as we will hear from the Yosemite Valley Campers
Coalition, the plan actually represents a radical reduction in parking
and campsites measured from pre-flood levels. Congress appropriated
millions of dollars to restore these facilities--the money was spent,
but the facilities were never replaced. And the NPS would now lock in
not only dramatically lower numbers, but would diminish the
desirability of the campsites which remain.
Yosemite National Park was set aside in 1864 by legislation signed
by Abraham Lincoln for the express purpose of ``public use, resort and
recreation.'' For more than a century, this mission was honored by the
park's stewards. But no more. This plan would radically alter the
visitor-friendly mission of the park with a new, elitist maxim: ``Look,
but don't touch; visit, but don't enjoy.'''
The public is crying out for Congressional intervention, and I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the first step toward saving
Yosemite National Park for the ``public use, resort and recreation''
promised to the American people nearly 150 years ago.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony. Those bells are
not for you. The House is in recess. I apologize.
With that, I appreciate the Members--and their comments--
that are here. Let me call up the first panel--or the second
panel, actually, up here. We are appreciative of having
Director Jon Jarvis of the National Park Service here with us;
Wendy Brown, who is the Chairman of Yosemite for Everyone;
Brian Ouzounian--I hope I said that properly--who is the
Yosemite Valley Campers Association Cofounder; and two
representatives who have come here from California--from
Mariposa, Peter Hoss, and from Groveland, Bob Asquith. I hope I
pronounced that one accurately, as well.
But if we could have you come to the panel as we are
getting situated, please take a seat there. And as we are
getting there, obviously, your written testimony has already
been received and is part of the record. This is the oral
testimony that is in addition to the written testimony you have
submitted. We would ask you to limit the testimony to the 5
minutes that we have available.
And you have the clock in front of you. For those who have
not been with us before, when the clock starts you have the
green light in front of you. As soon as you see the yellow
light come on you have got 1 minute to finish. And the red
light means what the red light means. Please quit, otherwise
Bryson will throw things at you. And he has got a good aim from
that position.
So, we appreciate you all being here. We will start with
Director Jarvis, and then just go down the row, if that is OK.
Director?
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the
management of Yosemite National Park, and specifically the
Merced Wild and Scenic River draft Comprehensive Management
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
As was mentioned, set aside by Abraham Lincoln in 1864 for
its exquisite natural and cultural resources, Yosemite National
Park is a crown jewel in the National Park System. The park,
set in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, includes a glacially
carved valley with granite cliffs, spectacular water falls, and
gigantic sequoia trees. It hosts over 4 million visitors
annually, who engage in many forms of recreation. The economic
importance of this national park is reflected in the nearly
$400 million in tourist-related dollars the park generates to
the regional and local economies of California.
The Merced River and Yosemite Valley corridor provides a
variety of opportunities to view the valley's magnificent
scenery and to travel along the river and interact directly
with it. The most common visitor activities in the valley
include scenic viewing, day hiking, wildlife viewing,
picnicking, creative arts, camping, ranger-led programs,
bicycling, floating, nature study, and rock climbing. Both day
use and overnight camping and lodging are available, and
campground sites in Yosemite are in very high demand, and often
filled to capacity.
The Merced River runs through the heart of Yosemite Valley.
In 1987 Congress and the President recognized the importance of
this free-flowing river, and designated 122 miles of it as a
Wild and Scenic River, 81 miles of which run through Yosemite
Valley, or Yosemite National Park. That act required that the
NPS issue a comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management Plan
in order to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable
values for which the river was designated.
The planning process we are here to discuss today is the
third management plan the NPS has prepared for the Merced Wild
and Scenic River within the park. In 2009 the NPS settled a
long-running lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the two prior
versions of the Merced River plans, one prepared in 2000 and a
second one in 2005. This third planning process, which began in
June of 2009, reflects the terms of the 2009 settlement
agreement. It represents a large amount of collaboration among
the public, research scientists, park partners, and park staff.
The alternatives included in this new draft Merced River Plan
bring forward the best science and stewardship to set
management direction for the river corridor for the next 20 to
30 years.
Yosemite Valley is narrow, with an area that is limited by
a river corridor in the center and the known hazard of rock
falls on either side. The river plan had to consider these
limits when analyzing space allocation for structures and
facilities. As a safety measure for those who visit and work in
Yosemite, structures, cabins, and campsites that have a high
risk of being affected by rock fall would be phased out or
relocated.
The draft preferred alternative was released for public
review and comment on January 8 of this year. Extensive public
outreach was conducted by the park, with over 60 public
meetings. The park received 30,000 comments during an extended
comment period. These comments will be thoroughly considered
and evaluated.
The great preponderance of attention during the comment
period focused on Yosemite Valley. In particular, many
expressed concern about the possible elimination of some
commercial recreation activities such as bike and raft rentals,
ice skating, horseback day rides, and swimming pools. In some
instances, these commercial services may be reasonably
relocated outside the river corridor, but remain in Yosemite
Valley or in other locations inside or outside of the park, and
available to park visitors. It is important to note that no
reductions are proposed in any alternative for the private use
of horses, bikes, or rafts.
From my years as the regional director in the Pacific West
region, I know that every planning process in Yosemite is
challenging, because people care so passionately about the
park. I also know that we share two goals. First, to ensure
that the public will continue to be able to enjoy the variety
of recreational opportunities that the river and its
surrounding areas offer. And second, to preserve the resources
of one of America's 203 Wild and Scenic Rivers, so it will be
there for our children and our grandchildren to appreciate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am glad to
respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park
Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the management of
Yosemite National Park and specifically, the Merced Wild and Scenic
River Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft MRP).
Set aside by Abraham Lincoln on June 30, 1864, for its exquisite
natural and cultural resources, Yosemite National Park is a crown jewel
of the National Park System. The park, set in the Sierra Nevada
mountain range, includes a glacially carved valley with granite cliffs,
spectacular waterfalls, and gigantic sequoia trees, and hosts over 4
million visitors annually who engage in many forms of recreation. Its
preservation is a testament to America's commitment ``to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein
. . . unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' The
importance of this magnificent national park is reflected in the nearly
$400 million in tourism-related dollars the park generates to the
regional and local economies of California. It is also reflected in the
intense interest in any planning process by the public.
The Merced River and Yosemite Valley corridor, within Yosemite
National Park, provides for a variety of opportunities to view the
valley's magnificent scenery and to travel along the river and interact
directly with it. The most common visitor activities in Yosemite Valley
include scenic viewing, day hiking, wildlife viewing, picnicking,
creative arts, camping, ranger-led programs, bicycling, floating,
nature study, and rock climbing. Both day-use and overnight camping and
lodging are available, and campground sites in Yosemite Valley are in
very high demand and often fill to capacity.
The Merced River runs through the heart of Yosemite Valley. In
1987, through the enactment of Pub. L. 100-149, Congress and the
President recognized the importance of this free-flowing river and
designated 122 miles of it as a Wild and Scenic River, 81 miles of
which course through Yosemite National Park. That act required that the
National Park Service (NPS) issue a Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River
Management Plan in order to protect and enhance the outstandingly
remarkable values for which the river was designated.
The planning process we are here to discuss today, the Draft MRP,
is the third management plan the NPS has prepared for the Merced Wild
and Scenic River within Yosemite National Park. In 2009, the NPS
settled a long-running lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the two
prior versions of the MRP (prepared in 2000 and 2005). Consistent with
the 2009 Settlement Agreement, the NPS is working on completing a new
comprehensive management plan for the Merced Wild and Scenic River.
This most recent planning process for the Draft MRP began with
public scoping on June 30, 2009, and reflects the terms of the 2009
Settlement Agreement. It represents a large amount of collaboration
among the public, research scientists, park partners and park staff.
The alternatives included in the Draft MRP bring forward the best
science and stewardship to set management direction for the river
corridor for the next 20-30 years.
The NPS must consider many factors in completing the MRP.
Interagency guidelines for implementing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
direct that, whenever feasible, major public use facilities are to be
located outside the river corridor. In addition, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in its March 2008 opinion, instructed
the park to ensure that the kinds and amounts of use allowed in the
corridor were consistent with the protection of outstandingly
remarkable values. It also stated that there was ``no authority for a
presumption that holding facility levels to those in existence in
1987'' was protective of outstandingly remarkable values or satisfied
the user capacity component of the Comprehensive Management Plan. The
Court of Appeals pointed to the existence of several commercial
activities and equated them with ``degradation.'' To address the
Court's concerns, park management needed to carefully evaluate all
facilities and services to determine the feasibility of locating them
outside of the river corridor.
Yosemite Valley is narrow with an area that is limited by a river
corridor in the center and the known hazard of rock falls on either
side. The Draft MRP had to consider these limits when analyzing space
allocation for structures and facilities. As a safety measure for those
who visit and work in Yosemite Valley, structures, cabins, and
campsites that have a high risk of being affected by rock-fall would be
phased out or relocated.
The draft preferred alternative, which was released for public
review and comment on January 8, 2013, represents a balance between
resource protection and providing for visitor use and access. Extensive
public outreach was conducted by the park that included 66 public
meetings, 20 press releases, 12 webinars, and a dedicated Web site. The
public comment period, which ended on April 30, 2013, was 112 days--52
days longer than required by NPS policy. During that period, the park
received nearly 30,000 public comments. Areas of interest raised by the
public include visitor use management in Yosemite Valley,
transportation, ecological restoration, camping, other recreational
opportunities, infrastructure and development (both visitor and
administrative), and user capacity.
The Draft MRP analyzes a wide range of alternatives. The range of
alternatives presented would improve the condition of sensitive meadows
and archeological resources, while retaining many of the historical
amenities and recreational experiences for visitors to Yosemite Valley.
The Draft MRP incorporates a robust monitoring program to evaluate the
success of restoration goals and adapt management actions accordingly.
Overall, the Draft MRP will:
Reaffirm the Merced Wild and Scenic River's boundaries and
segment classifications.
Identify the outstandingly remarkable values that are the
unique, rare, or exemplary river-related characteristics
that made the Merced River a Wild and Scenic River.
Document baseline conditions for the Merced River's
outstandingly remarkable values, water quality, and free-
flowing condition and identify the management actions
necessary to protect and enhance them.
Develop a program of ongoing studies and monitoring to
ensure management objectives are met.
Establish a user-capacity program that addresses the kinds
and amounts of use that the river corridor can sustain
while protecting and enhancing river values.
Revise Yosemite's 1980 General Management Plan to be
consistent with the 2013 MRP.
The Draft MRP's preferred alternative proposes to:
Preserve access to Yosemite Valley at current levels
(allowing peak visitation to reach roughly 20,000 people
per day) through private vehicles (primarily), transit, and
commercial tour bus access.
Increase camping availability by 174 new camp sites in
Yosemite Valley.
Maintain lodging availability at the present level.
Preserve an extraordinary array of recreation
opportunities including bicycling, rafting, private stock
use, hiking, climbing, and camping both within and outside
of the river corridor.
Restore more than 200 acres of meadow and riparian
habitat.
Outline a long-term program to reverse site-specific
impacts from past patterns of visitor use.
Remove and/or redesign facilities that are subject to
flooding and rock fall.
Substantially reduce traffic congestion and crowding
through organized and efficient parking for day-use
visitors and improvements to the circulation system within
Yosemite Valley. The improved circulation system would
address critical intersections with either a pedestrian
underpass or re-routed segments of roadways coupled with
traffic-calming design.
Maintain Yosemite's contribution to local and regional
economies.
We believe that the Draft MRP's preferred alternative would retain
the essence of Yosemite Valley while ensuring that the experiences
enjoyed by generations of families are sustained over time. Visitors
would continue to have access to Yosemite Valley by private vehicle
while enjoying increased public transit and expanded shuttle bus
service that leads to decreased traffic congestion. The heart of
Yosemite Valley would be reclaimed for visitor use and enjoyment,
creating a sense of arrival with the redesign of the primary day-use
parking area and the relocation of commercial and administrative
functions. Recommendations from professional traffic engineers would be
implemented to improve circulation, reduce congestion, and provide for
a higher quality visitor experience. We feel that these improvements
can be attained while increasing protection for the Wild and Scenic
River corridor.
While the Draft MRP encompasses 81 miles of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River within Yosemite National Park, the greatest preponderance
of attention and comments generated during the public comment period
were focused on Yosemite Valley. In particular, many expressed concern
about the possible elimination of some commercial recreation activities
such as bike and raft rentals, ice skating, horseback day-rides and
swimming pools. As Yosemite National Park proceeds to complete the
final MRP, all comments about recreational uses and other aspects of
the plan will be thoroughly considered and evaluated. In some
instances, these commercial services may be reasonably relocated
outside the river corridor but remain in Yosemite Valley, or in other
locations inside or outside of the park, and available to park
visitors. It is important to note that no reductions are proposed in
any alternative for the private use of horses, bikes, and rafts.
Due to the extensive nature of the comments and extraordinary
importance of Yosemite to the American public and the region, the park
is seeking a short extension of the court-ordered deadline to produce a
Record of Decision. We anticipate the publication of the final MRP in
the late fall of 2013. After the final MRP is released to the public,
the park will host a public meeting to present changes between the
draft and final plans.
From my years as the Regional Director for the Pacific West Region,
I know that every planning process in Yosemite is challenging because
people care so passionately about the park. I also know that we all
share two goals: First, to ensure that the public will continue to be
able to enjoy the variety of recreational opportunities that the river
and its surrounding areas offer; and second, to preserve the resources
of one of America's 203 Wild and Scenic Rivers so it will be there for
our children and grandchildren to appreciate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or the other members of the committee may
have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Director. I appreciate you being
here.
We will now turn to Wendy Brown, Yosemite for Everyone,
please. You have 5 minutes. And would you make sure you are on,
and that mic is pulled right up to your face, so we can hear
you?
STATEMENT OF WENDY BROWN, YOSEMITE FOR EVERYONE
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify on this most important matter. I am a founder of
Yosemite For Everyone. We are regular folks who believe in a
common-sense approach to preservation, where visitors' use is
balanced with protecting the environment.
We are concerned about the future of our local economy if
the Merced River Plan is implemented. It will eliminate most of
the traditional recreational activities, facilities, and
services that have been enjoyed for many years. What affects
Yosemite National Park affects the outlying communities in
regards to their economy.
I am appearing before you today to ask you to direct the
National Park Service to take these actions: develop a plan
that retains the activities they are proposing to eliminate
under any of the action alternatives; exclude Yosemite Valley
from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Chapter 5, page 21 of the Environmental Impact Statement
says, ``The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for existing
structures as of designation to remain.'' Private use of
horseback riding, rafting, and cycling will be allowed.
Yosemite draws visitors from all continents, none of whom can
bring their own bicycle, horse, or raft. The management
proposal is unfair to international visitors, much less
citizens from across the Nation who may visit once, only to
find they have no access beyond the roadway. Alternatives two
through six are focused on self-reliant, nature-based
experience. The plan discriminates against minorities, those of
modest means, the very young, the elderly, and the disabled.
For example, many visitors are unable to hike the trails,
due to disabilities. Many lack outdoor experience and have
concerns for their safety. And many visitors are unwilling to
venture out on their own. Most people coming to the park cannot
provide these services for themselves, the result being less
visitation due to lack of recreational activities. Visitor
services should remain, because their removal has no direct
benefit to outstanding river values, the activity is not
harmful to the river. Yet, in the proposed management plan,
somehow a raft brought in by a visitor is good, but a raft
rented by a visitor is bad. It is not required by the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and the public greatly values these
services.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has three designations:
wild, scenic, and recreational. The portion of the river that
runs through Yosemite is designated recreational. However, the
Park Service is treating it like it is wild by creating a river
corridor, and turning everything within the corridor back into
wilderness. Yosemite Valley is not, and never has been a
wilderness. Activities existed in the valley before the Merced
River was designated. It was not the original intent of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to remove almost all recreation and
services within the river corridor. It was put in place to
prevent developers from building dams on the river. The grant
of 1864 should take precedence over the 1987 designation of the
Merced River.
None of the activities slated for removal degrade the river
in any way. In chapter 7 of the Environmental Impact Statement,
a chart shows that the Curry Village raft rental, bike rental,
the Ahwahnee swimming pool, and the horseback day rides in
Yosemite Valley do not affect the river values, and there is no
required action or mitigation measures. In chapter 5, page 23,
``Protecting and Enhancing Free Flowing Condition,'' the Free
Flowing Condition of the Merced River is determined to be
absent of adverse effects, degradation, and management
concerns. The overall water quality of the river was
exceptionally high, with relatively few impacts caused by
development and visitor use.
The National Park Service is, on its own, taking the act
and turning it into something that Congress never intended for
either the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or Yosemite. The American
river, through our State capital, Sacramento, is a Wild and
Scenic River. Does this mean that the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act requires their bridges to be removed and their commercial
activities to be curtailed?
Parking and traffic congestion in Yosemite Valley is
another issue. Since 1980 and especially after the 1997 flood,
the Park Service incrementally removed parking places, creating
some of their own traffic problems. There were estimates of
3,000 to 6,000 fewer parking spaces. And they should be using
the pre-1997 flood numbers as a baseline to accurately gauge
what is added and what is being taken away. Limiting access to
fix a problem is not the answer.
The Merced River plan will also be detrimental to a vast
number of people. Many jobs will be threatened, not just in
Yosemite and the gateway communities, but to the Central Valley
and beyond. This will have negative economic impacts to other
businesses, as well as lessening local, State, and Federal
taxes. It felt like the Park Service had already made up their
minds and was just going through the motions, and the outreach
was feeble, at best. A large number of citizens are opposed to
the Merced River plan.
The Park Service has taken the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
too far. It will change the way visitors experience Yosemite.
Please take steps to ensure that traditional, time-honored
experiences will continue in Yosemite National Park for
generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wendy Brown, Yosemite For Everyone
I am here to provide information to the Committee on the public
impacts of closing amenities at Yosemite National Park. I am an
official representative of Mariposa, authorized by the community to
speak for them, and many more like us in and around Yosemite National
Park. I am a founder of Yosemite For Everyone. We are regular people
who have joined together who believe in a common sense approach to
preservation where visitor use is balanced with protecting the
environment. We are horsemen, past park employees, a builder, hikers,
campers, business owners, retired Yosemite Magistrates, and attorneys.
I am also a member in good standing in The Mariposa Mountain Riders,
Backcountry Horsemen of California, and the Mariposa County Arts
Council. I am an outdoor enthusiast, a horse owner, and stock user and
have a good understanding of our public lands and Yosemite National
Park. Through the years I have spent quality time with family and
friends in Yosemite. I have enjoyed personally most of the recreational
activities, camping, and amenities that the park offers. I am a cowboy
poet. I published my book of original cowboy poetry ``Mountain
Majesty'' in 2011. For over 38 years I have been employed at a family
owned and operated restaurant in downtown Mariposa. During my
employment I served visitors from all over the world that were coming
to visit Yosemite. I enjoy telling them of all the things they can see
and do in the park, what amenities are offered, and directions to get
where they want to go. Over the span of four decades the restaurant
struggled through many catastrophic events, such as floods, rock
slides, and wildfires that closed the ``all weather highway'' to
Yosemite for extended periods of time. All of this has put me in close
contact with the citizens of our small gateway community of Mariposa.
What affects Yosemite National Park absolutely affects the outlying
communities in regards to their economy, employment, and visitor
experience.
Our citizens, local merchants, and those employed by them are
concerned about their futures and the future of our community if any of
the proposed Alternatives, except the No Action Alternative 1, of the
Merced River Plan are implemented. Alternatives 2-6 will be remove and
eliminate almost all of the traditional, historical, recreation
activities, facilities and services that have been enjoyed by visitors
to the park for 150 years. I am appearing before you today to ask you
to direct the National Park Service to take these actions:
Develop a Plan that retains the activities they are
proposing to eliminate under any of the Action
Alternatives. Only the No Action Alternative 1 is
acceptable because it retains all of the activities.
Exclude Yosemite Valley from the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. This segment is recreational and allows these
activities to continue.
Chapter 5, page 21 of the Environmental Impact Statement Management
Standard states, ``the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for existing
structures as of designation to remain.''
impacts to visitors
People come from all over the Nation and all over the
world to visit this national treasure. Many of the
residents of California who visit Yosemite, do so annually
to enjoy traditional family oriented activities year after
year. All of the visitors have come to expect to continue
to be offered the activities that they have enjoyed for
many years. We are told that many of these activities will
still be allowed, such as horseback riding, rafting, and
cycling. This is only true if you own a horse, a bicycle,
or raft, and can bring the ``activity'' into the Park with
you. It appears it is not the activity itself that is
harmful to Yosemite, but only if it can be rented in the
park by visitors who are unable to see the Park from a
hiking trail or shuttle bus. This is nearly impossible for
most visitors as transporting these items from a long
distance away would be unreasonable, and difficult.
Yosemite is a World Heritage Site and draws visitors from
all continents, none of whom can bring their own bicycle or
horse. The management proposal is unfair to these
international visitors, much less citizens from across the
Nation who may visit Yosemite only once, only to find they
have no access beyond the roadway.
With 17,000 tourists using wranglers to pack them in every
year and 34,000 people who hire private rafting companies,
recreation will be severely limited. Many people will not
be able to have the ``Yosemite Experience'' if they can't
hike or walk. All of the Alternatives, except the No Action
alternative 1, are focused on ``self-reliant, nature based
experience.'' The Plan discriminates against minorities,
those of modest means, the very young, the elderly, and the
disabled. For example, many visitors are unable to hike the
trails due to disabilities. Many lack outdoor experience
and have concerns for their safety, and many visitors are
unwilling to venture out on their own. The availability of
stock outfitters encourages Park visitors to get out of
their cars, get close to nature and enjoy a once-in-a-
lifetime National Park experience. Seeing Yosemite on
horseback is an experience that cannot be replicated by
other means. For the vast majority of visitors, that
opportunity can be provided to them only through the
services of commercial guides. The same holds true for
bicycling, and river rafting. Bicycling in the National
Parks supports the National Park Service's Healthy Living
Initiative and offering bike rentals is a positive visitor
experience. Bicycling through Yosemite Valley is a unique
way to experience the scenery, and is an appropriate
alternative to driving cars, promoting the reduction of
vehicle congestion in the Valley. Providing handicap bike
rentals meets accessibility requirement for the National
Park Service. They also provide safety orientation and
trail map, helmet, helmet sanitation, daily inspection and
bike repair, fitting seats, assistance with child carriers,
wheelchairs, motorized scooters and recumbent bicycles.
Rafting also provides Yosemite's visitors with a quality
recreational experience directly connecting them to the
Wild and Scenic River and a unique way to view the majesty
of Yosemite Valley. Congress never intended to exclude
river use from the Merced, and in fact, recognized use of
the River as a ``value'' to be emphasized. Raft rentals are
only operated during safe river conditions. All
participants are provided with life vests and are given a
safety talk and river orientation prior to the trip. Most
people coming to the park cannot provide these services for
themselves, the result being, less visitation due to the
lack of recreational activities. The National Park Service
should retain visitor services because their removal seems
to have no direct benefit to the river values. The activity
is not said to be harmful to the river. Yet, in this
proposed ``river management plan'' somehow a raft brought
in by a visitor is good, but a raft rented by a visitor is
bad. It is not required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
and the public greatly values these services.
I have also received much concern from horsemen over stock
use in Yosemite National Park. Under the Preferred
Alternative, there would be no more pack trips into Merced
Lake, and bed space would be reduced. Alternative 2 even
suggests the removal of the whole camp and all the
infrastructure, and designated camping would be eliminated.
In other words it would be returned to wilderness. The Tuolumne
River Plan intends to reduce the bed space at Glen Aulin High Sierra
Camp as well. If the Park Service succeeds in doing this it will sever
a major historical trail system. At this time the camps are more or
less equal in capacity, which allows for the best hut-to-hut
experience. The system is historic, traditional, and many of the camps
are eligible for listing on the National Register. The High Sierra Camp
loop system is one of a kind in the Sierra, and is a unique experience
for Yosemite visitors. When ninety five percent of Yosemite was
designated as wilderness in 1984, the High Sierra Camp Loop System was
not included. The camps are not part of the designated wilderness, and
they all retain a buffer around them that is not wilderness. They are
havens in Yosemite National Park that enhance visitor comfort and
enjoyment, and should remain for present and future generations to
enjoy. Stock use is historical and is allowed by law in the Wilderness
Act. Wranglers on the trail provide extra eyes and ears for the Park
Service, and can be instrumental in search and rescue efforts. The
stock users I am affiliated with all practice the ``Leave No Trace''
principles, and believe in gentle use of the wilderness. The Park
Service should retain all commercial stock use within Yosemite National
Park.
the effect of the wild and scenic rivers act in yosemite valley
We are aware that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has three
designations, ``wild, scenic and recreational.'' The portion of the
Merced River that runs through Yosemite Valley is designated
``recreational.'' However the Park Service is treating it like it is
``wild'' by creating a river corridor and turning everything within the
corridor back into wilderness. Yosemite Valley is not and never has
been a wilderness, unless you go back to glacial times. The Native
Americans settled in Yosemite Valley thousands of years before the
White man saw it. Yosemite Valley was a developed area devoted to
recreation for over 100 years after being designated public property,
and 50 years after becoming a National Park. The Merced River Plan is
contradictory.
It does not meet the intent of the Grant signed by
President Lincoln and passed by Congress in 1864 that
states Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove were
``to be held, for public use, resort and recreation,
inalienable for all time.''
It also contradicts the Organic Act of 1916, that was
created by the National Park Service for the purpose of
promoting a system of national parks. We think that both of
these acts should take precedence over the Wild and Scenic
River Act. We would point out that these recreational
activities existed in the Valley before the Merced River
was designated ``wild and scenic.'' We also know that it
was not the original intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act to remove almost all recreation and services within the
river corridor. It was put in place to prevent developers
from building dams on the river.
It is also interesting to note that none of the activities slated
for removal degrade the river in any way.
In Chapter 7 of the Environmental Impact Statement, the
Facilities and Services chart shows that the Curry Village
Raft Rental, the Curry Village Ice Rink, the Curry Village
Bike Rental, the Horseback Day Rides in Yosemite Valley,
and the Ahwahnee Swimming Pool, do not affect the River
Values, and that there is no required action or mitigation
measures. We do not believe that the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act intended to take away something that was already there
if it was not causing degradation. Attached is a letter
from Former Congressman Tony Coelho to Director of the
National Park Service, Jon Jarvis that states, ``the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act was never intended to apply to the
Merced River within Yosemite National Park at all. The
Merced River within Yosemite National Park is protected and
regulated by the National Park Service and has never needed
an overlay of inconsistent and confusing regulation. The
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was intended to apply to the
Merced River outside the Park to the west.''
We also discovered in Chapter 5, page 23, Protecting and
Enhancing Free-flowing Condition that ``The free-flowing
condition of the Merced River is determined to be absent of
adverse effects, degradation and management concerns, and
that the overall water quality of the river was
exceptionally high, with relatively few impacts caused by
development and visitor use.'' There is no requirement in
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make a river that was
free-flowing at the time Congress designated it to somehow
``enhance'' it or make it even ``more free flowing'' by the
management plan. The National Park Service is, on its own,
taking the act and turning it into something Congress never
intended for either the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or
Yosemite. The American River through our State Capitol,
Sacramento, is a wild and scenic river. Does this mean that
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires their bridges to be
removed and their commercial activities to be curtailed?
The activities listed are only a few of the things slated
for removal. They also plan to eliminate the Ahwahnee
Tennis Courts, the historic Sugar Pine Bridge, Curry
Village Pizza Deck and Bar, retail stores, the Garage
Facility, the historic apple orchard, the Housekeeping camp
grocery store, the Yosemite Village Sport Shop, the Art
Activity Center, and overnight lodging in the Valley would
be reduced by 7.5 percent.
Nature Bridge, which connects youth to Yosemite in a
unique way is also threatened. Participants from
underserved populations who are in their programs have
greater reliance on equipment that is rented or provided by
Nature Bridge. It was John Muir's intention to welcome the
visitor to Yosemite to be educated and inspired.
Educational opportunities in Yosemite are very important,
as they will encourage visitors to take care of their Park.
Parking and traffic congestion in Yosemite Valley is
another issue that affects visitation to the Valley. Since
1980 and especially after the 1997 flood, the Park Service
incrementally removed parking places creating some of their
own traffic problems. There are estimates of 3,000 to 6,000
fewer parking spaces. The Park Service should be using the
pre-1997 flood numbers as a baseline to accurately gauge
what is added and what is being taken away. Limiting access
to fix a problem that the Park Service created is not the
answer.
economic impacts
The Merced River Plan will also be detrimental to a vast
number of people. It will eliminate many jobs, and many
livelihoods will be threatened, not just in Yosemite and
the gateway communities, but clear to the Central Valley
and beyond. This will create a ripple effect. The
businesses that supply them will suffer. This will have
negative economic effects to other businesses as well as
lessening local, State, and Federal tax revenues.
outreach
We also feel that the outreach to the visitors to Yosemite
National Park was inadequate. The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in January 2013. It is
a four thousand page document including exhibits that is
sandwiched between two other plans, The Tuolumne River Plan
and The Mariposa Grove Restoration Plan. This is much more
information than the average citizen can absorb and comment
intelligently on in the ninety days allowed. A bi-partisan
group of Congressmen concurred that an extension was
necessary, and requested that the National Park Service
extend the public comment period by 90 days. However, the
Park Service extended the comment period by only 12 days.
The public meetings where not published in a timely manner
to allow citizens to arrange for the time off from work to
attend them, and sometimes the times and dates were
incorrect.
They did not encompass an adequate cross section of visitors to the
Park. The meetings were held primarily in the gateway communities. The
only cities that were visited were San Francisco and Los Angeles. There
were no public hearings in the central valley, and the visitors from
out of State and Europe were completely ignored. I attended many of the
public hearings in our area and became painfully aware as time went on
that the Park Service really didn't want to hear what we had to say,
and provided less and less time for public questions and comments.
Attached is a letter to Superintendent Neubacher expressing our
frustration of being shut out of the process. It felt like the Park
Service had already made up their minds and was just going through the
motions. They are not hearing what the more than 3 million visitors a
year to Yosemite are saying.
In conclusion a very large number of citizens are opposed to the
Merced River Plan and all that it implies. We think the Park Service
has taken the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act way too far. It will
absolutely change the way visitors experience Yosemite. Please take
steps to insure that traditional, time honored experiences will
continue in Yosemite National Park for generations to come. On behalf
of Yosemite For Everyone, we thank you for your consideration.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony and being here.
We will now turn to Mr. Ouzounian. Is that correct?
Mr. Ouzounian. It is.
Mr. Bishop. Great. If we can once again pull one of the
microphones that is closest to you--or maybe do both of them,
you can do a stereo effect here.
Mr. Ouzounian. And 10 minutes?
Mr. Bishop. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Turn the timer over to you. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN OUZOUNIAN, CO-FOUNDER, YOSEMITE VALLEY
CAMPERS COALITION
Mr. Ouzounian. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I
greatly appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the MRP DEIS concerning the future of Yosemite. I am
here to represent and speak for millions upon millions of
Yosemite Valley campers, past, present, and future, in support
of access for affordable, family friendly, auto-based drive-in
camping in Yosemite Valley. I am part of four generations of
Yosemite Valley campers in my own family, who started camping
in the 1920s. I have been active in this effort for 33 years,
with various management and planning teams, traveling great
distances on my own dime and on my own time, to speak up on
behalf of those I represent.
Early on, about 1979, I was aghast to learn that we campers
were left--all but left out of the planning process for the
1980 GMP. However, I have observed a trend that is the same
poor planning continued with all the Park's planning, including
the MRPs over the last 13 years. All this leading to campers
being disenfranchised. This latest MRP project is even more
discouraging, as we were specifically told that this project
would be different, in that we would be partnering. This was
not to be true, as the alternatives that were studied did not
include our request, which was, among other things, the repair
of the 1997 flood-damaged campgrounds and the sites to their
original state.
With regards to planning process, sadly and true to past
ill form, the planners skewed the outcome of the process, as
they did not reach out to the very deep data base of campers to
involve them in the process and allow them to respond. The YNPS
has a reservation data base that would easily allow contacting
each one. However, they localized their outreach, provided
minimal demographic efforts, aside from local, regional
communities. In counting the participants at each venue in
total, this process has not reached the public scrutinies
commensurate of the weight of this study that carries national
precedence in its setting.
We recognize the venue in--well, let me skip that.
In our opinion, the YNPS intentionally refused to reach
camping respondents, knowing full well that it would invite
huge and passioned responses in favor of valley camping as a
priority that the planners did not want to face. Alternatively,
they could just flat out ignore repeated requests and
importance for access of affordable, family friendly, auto-
based camping, which is a remarkable, outstanding value.
To this body I say that and ask anyone who spends time in
Yosemite Valley and they will agree that what Olmstead stated
in his letter commissioning the park to the State was time well
spent, and it is therapeutic of body and mind.
To more fully illustrate to the planners what we wanted
graphically, I marked up a large-scale map, which--I brought
one, in case you want to ask me some questions and see it--so
that we could really see how it lays out on the valley floor.
These requests were denied. There were no park surveys of
visitors to support public demand and preferences. Every
opportunity was afforded the planners to walk and talk to
visitors, yet they chose not to do so. The public has to rely
on the park's charts and figures of their best guesses.
This is what the campers want: affordable, family friendly,
auto-based drive-in camping in Yosemite Valley, by first
repairing the flood-damaged campgrounds to include Lower Pines,
Upper River, Lower River, and group camping north of Tenaya
Creek. Do not remove any campgrounds--any campsites from North
Pines. This land, all of it, is campgrounds in need of repair
from the flood.
Second, we want the park to provide the same type of
affordable, family--auto-based campsites to meet the pre-1980
GMP levels: 872 drive-in sites, 58 walk-in sites, 14 group
sites. Post-flood, Congress gave the NPS $17 million to repair
the flood-damaged campgrounds, as reported by Mr. Hodep in his
report dated 3/26/1997----
Mr. Costa. Mr. Chairman? Could he repeat those numbers one
more time?
Mr. Bishop. Could you repeat the numbers? And we will give
him some additional time to conclude.
Mr. Ouzounian. Eight hundred and seventy-two drive-in
sites, 58 walk-ins, 14 group sites.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Ouzounian. The NPS failed to make repairs using that
money, and I am told that it was spent on other things and
there was no money left. This must be some kind of crime, is it
not? Camping along the Merced River is a very specific ORV,
unlike other sites inland, are the most sought-after sites in
the park. River sites as they were in pre-flood conditions need
to be repaired and re-installed. They are significant to the
visitor experience and resource-based appreciation. Riverside
campsites have always been the most sought-after in the valley,
just as it was with our Native Americans.
Campers enjoy the challenge of rustic living, as it
provides a common challenging method of fending for themselves,
and challenging of creativity, which lends itself to more
appreciation of the park's surroundings, other ORVs, and its
resources. Visitation via camping is natural to the precious
resources of Yosemite. Camping in the valley is more than a
recreational ORV. It is traditional, social, cultural, and to
some, a religious ORV in line with the Native Americans who
first camped in the valley. We believe that affordable, family
friendly, auto-based camping is an endangered activity in
Yosemite Valley. If this terrible plan is implemented, it will
set the same precedent for planners of every study undertaken
in our country under WRSA compliance.
The campgrounds to pre-1980 GNP levels are historical
landmarks. Just as the bridges, these certainly pre-date Camp
Four, known as the ``Climber's Camp.'' It was awarded
historical status after climbers filed a lawsuit via settlement
with the NPS to place it on the national registry. Does the
public have to sue our Government to get our campgrounds on the
historical registry? All campgrounds are historical, back to
the early 1900s.
It is apparent that the NPS believes that campers adversely
impact the river, as well as degrade it, even though they
cannot prove it. Is this via science or management discretion?
Yet, in fact, the ORV baseline condition report states to the
contrary, that it is the river flooding that carries adverse
impacts. Why does the NPS use untruths?
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Ouzounian, can I ask you to conclude very
quickly, please?
Mr. Ouzounian. Yes. With regard to making a campsite
reservation, the demand is so high and the supply so little
that it only takes 1 minute from the start of the reservation
opening for all the sites for the month to be swallowed up.
U.S. residents and taxpayers have to compete with the world via
Web site to pay to play. It is a technical race unequal to
anything imaginable. Reservation day is the worst day of the
year, because just the thought of failure to get a reservation
is very discouraging. You have to face your family and say,
``Not this time,'' and tears flow.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ouzounian follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Ouzounian, Co-Founder, Yosemite Valley
Campers Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate
this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the MRP DEIS
concerning the future of Yosemite. I am here to represent and speak for
millions upon millions of Yosemite Valley campers, past, present and
future in support of access for ``affordable family friendly auto based
drive-in camping'' in Yosemite Valley. I am part of four generations of
Yosemite Valley campers in my family who started camping in the 1920s.
I have been active in this effort for 33 years with various
management and planning teams traveling great distances on my own dime
and on my own time to speak up on behalf of those I represent. Early
on, about 1979, I was aghast I learned that we campers were all but
left out of the planning process for the 1980 General Management Plan
known as the 1980 GMP; however I have observed a trend that this same
poor planning continued with all the park's planning including the
MRP's over the last 13 years; all this leading to campers being
disenfranchised.
This latest MRP project is even more discouraging as we were
specifically told that this project would be different in that we would
be ``partnering.'' This was not to be true as the alternatives that
were studied did not include our request, which was, among other
things, the repair of the 1997 flood damage campgrounds and sites to
their original state.
With regards to the planning process, sadly and true to past ill-
form, the planners skewed the outcome and the process as they did not
reach out to the very deep data base or campers to involve them in the
process and allow them to respond. The YNPS has a reservation system
data base that would easily allow contacting each one. However, they
localized their outreach and provided minimal demographic efforts aside
from local regional communities. In counting the participants at each
venue and in total, this process has not reached the public scrutiny
commensurate of the weight this study carries and the national
precedent it sets. We requested a venue in Orange County so that
respondents in San Diego would have an opportunity but it was denied
and held in Los Angeles, 3 hours from San Diego plus traffic delays
during a weekday rush hour. Limiting the outreach to campers mitigates
input, which, judging by our petition, would be overwhelming in
opposition.
It is our opinion that the YNPS intentionally refused to reach
camping respondents knowing full well that it would invite huge and
impassioned responses in favor of valley camping as a priority that the
planners did not want to face. Alternatively, they just flat-out
ignored our repeated requests and the importance of access for
affordable family friendly auto based drive-in camping as an
Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV) and its resource based visitor
enjoyment.
In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Congress passed the
Yosemite Grant or 1864. The President commissioned the park to the
State or California via the famous architect Frederick Law Olmstead who
authored Yosemite and the Mariposa Grove: A Preliminary Report. 1865.
The basic intent for access to the park is true today as it was in 1865
with reference to pages xvi and xvii or the introduction and page 12 as
follows:
Page xvi and xvii states:
``He [Olmstead] describes the beneficial effect or natural scenery
upon the human mind, and claims that a republic owes this benefit to
its ordinary citizens.
If we analyze the operations of scenes of beauty upon the human
mind, and consider the intimate relation of the mind upon the
nervous system and the whole physical economy, the action and
reaction which constantly occurs between bodily and mental
conditions, the reinvigoration which results from such scenes
is readily comprehended.
He argues that British statesmen remain very active into old age
because they retreat regularly to their private parks or the mountains.
But in America, he believes, this invigorating contact with natural
scenery should be available to all citizens. Therefore, it is the duty
of a republican government to safeguard its most impressive scenic
areas for the use of its citizens . . . His first recommendation is
preservation: . . . His second recommendation is public access. Only
those travelers who were able to afford a lengthy trip by pack train
could visit the Yosemite Valley in Olmstead's day. [``As long as the
present arrangements continue,'' he wrote, Yosemite ``will remain,
practically, the property only or the rich.''].
To this body, I say that it is as true today as it was in 1864 that
the park is accessible only for the affluent that can ``pay to play.''
Olmstead makes mention that only the upper class, which mainly came
from Europe, could afford the expeditions and their huge costs to
access Yosemite. Well look what we have now. From nearly $118 a night
for a Camp Curry tent cabin to $1,148 a night for a suite at the
Ahwahnee Hotel. If you cannot camp, these are the real costs of
visitation as well as the limited access. How unfortunate that we have
lost our way to the original intent of this park.
Page 12 of Olmstead's book goes on to state the following:
``It is a scientific fact that the occasional contemplation of
natural scenes of an impressive character, particularly if this
contemplation occurs in connection with relief from ordinary cares,
change of air and change of habits, is favorable to the health and
vigor of men and especially to the health and vigor of their intellect
beyond any other conditions which can be offered them, that it not only
gives pleasure for the time being but increases the subsequent capacity
for happiness and the means of securing happiness. The want of such
occasional recreation where men and women are habitually pressed by
their business or household cares often results in a class or disorders
the characteristic quality of which is mental disability, sometimes
taking the sever forms of softening of the brain, paralysis, palsy,
monomania, or insanity, but more frequently of mental and nervous
excitability, moroseness, melancholy, or irascibility, incapacitating
the subject for the proper exercise of the intellectual and moral
forces. It is well established that were circumstances favor the use of
such means of recreation as have been indicated, the reverse of this is
true.''
To this body I say that ask anyone who spends time camping in
Yosemite Valley and they will agree with what Olmstead has stated. Time
spent here is therapeutic to the mind, body, and soul.
With regards to our petition, it was the urging of U.S. Senator
Dianne Feinstein, she being a camper, that moved us to start a petition
to gather support for repairing the flood damaged campgrounds as funded
by Congress. First we had 500 hand-gathered petitions going camp to
camp. Then we started an electronic petition with places for signers to
speak to their opinions. It can be viewed at our Web site. The opinions
expressed exemplified a message that is not of science or management
practices or flippant chats but of a love affair and legacy for the
park beyond what one person can say. There are about 2,000 signers and
maybe 1,000 testimonies. This has been submitted to the YNPS on more
than one occasion for their review and consideration. Unfortunately, no
alternative was studied or made the cut for the study as an
alternative. What must we campers do to be taken seriously! Almost all
planning meetings were attended and the information reiterated multiple
times in each session. Comments were mailed in and hand delivered.
Unfortunately, the plan does not take to heart these testimonies. In
fact, the plan breaks up the love affair and legacy that has been
passed on by generations or valley campers.
Additionally submitted to more fully illustrate to the planners
what we wanted graphically, I marked up large scale maps of the valley
in red ink, one for the planners and one for me to hold, which I have
here in case you wish to see it. It made very specific recommendations
and comments. These requests were denied.
There were no surveys of park visitors to support public demand and
preferences. Every opportunity was afforded the planers to walk and
talk to visitors yet they chose not to do so. The public has to rely
upon the park's charts and figures of their best guesses.
This is what we campers want: affordable family friendly auto based
drive-in camping in Yosemite Valley by first repairing the flood
damaged campgrounds to include Lower Pines, Upper River, Lower River,
and Group Campground, north of Tenaya creek. Do not remove any
campsites at North Pines Campground. This land is classified as damaged
campgrounds in need of repair (from the flood).
Second, we want the park to provide the same type of affordable
family friendly auto based drive-in campgrounds to meet the pre-1980
GMP levels, which are: 872 drive-in sites; 58 walk-in sites; and 14
group sites.
Post flood, Congress gave the YNPS $17 million to repair the flood
damaged campgrounds as reported by Mr. Hodap and his report dated 03-
26-1997. The YNPS failed to make the repairs and I am told that it was
spent on other things and there is no money left. This must be some
kind of a crime is it not?
Camping along the Merced River is a very specific ORV, unlike the
other sites inland, and are the most sought after sites in the park.
River sites as they were in pre-flood conditions need to be repaired
and more installed. There is no definitive damage caused by them. (Ref:
ORV Baseline Condition Assessment Report). They are significant in
visitor experience and resource appreciation. Riverside campsites have
always been the most sought after in the valley, just as it was with
our Native Americans.
Campers enjoy the challenge or rustic living as it provides a calm
and challenging method of fending for ourselves and a challenge of
creativity, which lends itself for more appreciation of the Park's
surroundings, other ORVs, and its resources. Visitation via camping is
natural to the precious resources Yosemite has to offer.
Camping in the valley is more than a recreational ORV; it is a
traditional, social, cultural, and to some, a religious ORV, in line
with the Native Americans who first camped in the valley. We believe
that affordable family friendly auto based drive-in camping is an
endangered activity in Yosemite Valley. If this terrible plan is
implemented, it will set the same precedent for planners of every study
undertaken in our country for the WSRA compliance with a false basis of
measurement.
The campgrounds, pre-1980 GMP, are historical landmarks just as the
bridges and these certainly predate Camp 4 now known as the ``Climbers
Camp.'' It was awarded historical status after the climbers filed a
lawsuit, via a settlement with the NPS, as a place on the Register of
Historical Places after a court battle. Does the public have to sue our
Government to get the other campgrounds on the historical registry? All
the campgrounds are historical back to the early 1900s.
Split-rail fencing along the Merced River at North Pines Campground
and all other campground locations have been installed to prohibit
public access to the River when, in fact, this is what the land was
granted for. Their installation compresses visitor access to river
banks at the fence ends creating an unnatural experience and unnatural
degradation.
It is apparent to us that the YNPS believes that campers adversely
impact the river as well as degrade it, even though they cannot prove
it; is this via science or management discretion? Yet, in fact, the ORV
Baseline Condition Report states to the contrary and that it is the
river flooding that carries adverse impacts. Why does the YNPS plan use
untruths?
Rafting on the Merced River in itself is an ORV and campers know
how to do it best. We want to use our personal watercraft to the
maximum extent possible WITHOUT PERMITS! It will self-regulate and it
does not create concentrated degradation as does concessions rafting.
Plus, there will not be the need for diesel buses to circulate the
Valley to pick rafters. There will not be the need for two rafting
diesel bus depots to ferry the rafters. (Note: we cannot have campfires
any longer due to airborne particulate pollution but we can have
circulating diesel buses for rafters?) lnfrastructure support to
maintain this activity would be eliminated such as raft repair, bus
repair, personnel support, etc. This would maintain a safer and more
pleasurable river environment, lessening the crowds in the river and
less haul-out damage to riverbanks. By scooting a few fallen trees
aside parallel to the flow of the river, this can and will facilitate
safer rafting as well as enhance the resources of the park and the
ORV's, which we have requested for decades.
Campers bring their own bikes, fend for their own repairs and have
done this for decades. Campers do their grocery shopping on their own
bikes as well as travel throughout the valley without the need for
their cars. Campers basically park, camp, and ride. We do not need bike
rentals but rather improved bicycle circulation paths throughout the
valley.
With regard to making a campsite reservation, the demand is so high
and the supply is so little that it only takes 1 minute from the start
of the reservation opening for all the sites for the month to he
swallowed up. U.S. residents and taxpayers have to compete with the
world via the web for sites we paid for. It is a technical race
unequalled to anything imaginable. Reservation day is the worst day of
the year because just the thought of failure to get a reservation is
very discouraging. You have to face your family and say ``not this
time!'' Tears flow.
The lack of a Group Campground has caused campsite density to swell
beyond the maximum of six (6) per site creating a diminished visitor
experience. Campgrounds are bulging at this abuse of the rules and the
staff and volunteers are not enforcing the rule. Nowhere in the YNPS
documents is the former Group Campground mentioned. Why not?
We DO NOT want more walk-in sites. They create blight via the
parking lots that must be created for the cars associated with them (as
does Camp 4's lot). They discriminate against the young, elderly and
the disabled. They are not accessible affordable family friendly auto
based drive-in camping. Few, if any, want to go camping by way of a
tour bus. The MRP is fooling the public by thinking it can replace
affordable family friendly auto based drive-in campsites with walk-in
sites.
Auto based camping is wise due to the regulated emissions on autos
versus the unregulated massive polluting diesel buses that now
transport visitors to the Park. Auto based visitation is more eco-
friendly. Besides, the roads in the Park are NOT engineered or designed
for buses but rather autos and light trucks. Using CNG buses is
precluded by the park not being able to establish CNG filling stations
for the busses. Moreover, the weight balance is upset as luggage needs
to be loaded beneath the passengers but CNG busses have their tanks and
mechanics below the passengers leaving luggage loading and storage to
the top of the vehicle that won't facilitate safe travel through the
roads as they would be top-heavy.
Of the 81 miles of Merced River, we campers want our ORV to be only
along a couple of miles. Can't there be a reasonable balance?
Every time there is a change in the park, campers bear the burden
of the change. What has been observed over the years is a systematic
elimination of access to affordable family friendly auto based drive-in
campsites. All six alternatives in this MRP DEIS are unacceptable and
contribute to this plan of elimination making it an endangered
activity.
Our way of camping in Yosemite Valley is nature-focused that is
regarded by millions of visitors as the ultimate family camping
experience that imbeds a life-long ethic of resource preservation for
all ages. Intergenerational relationships emerge and are strengthened.
The family is doing things it does not do at home, and without
electronics. In a world of growing obesity, camping is a natural form
of remedy. Springing from this experience in the valley is born the
future climbers, backpackers, hikers, and conservationists, regardless
of ethnicity or income level; an indiscriminate ORV. Where fixed roof
facilities need multiple auto or truck trips for daily support year
round, camping skills are developed for self-containment and comfort
that needs minimal infrastructure support and can be enjoyed at entry
level costs. Where fixed roof facilities are permanent year-round land
impositions, campgrounds are only seasonal allowing regeneration of the
land and many months of open space. (MPS 2006m) ``Camping brings the
visitor into a direct relationship with park resources and distances
the visitor from the commercial values of comfort and convenience and
the expression of social status, Thus, camping brings the visitor
closer to the very natural attributes for which national parks were set
aside and protected.''.
Harold Ickes (Secretary or the Interior, 1933-1945) was prophetic
in stating: ``I think the parks ought to be for people who love to camp
and hike . . . and have renewed communion with nature. I am afraid we
are getting gradually alienated from that ideal. We lie awake at night
wondering whether we are giving the customers all of the entertainment
and all of the modern improvements that they think they ought to have,
But let's keep away from that, because once we get started, there will
be no end.''
Mr. Chairman, this plan is NOT APPROVED in any way or alternative.
If the YNPS really wants to correct the plan, repair the flood damaged
campgrounds and sites to pre-flood (872 campsites) conditions and then
address the recommendations we have addressed in this presentation.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or other members of the Committee may have.
the following is a discussion about the number of campsites and the
trend
The 1980 GMP recognized the value or camping as a resource-focused
activity. It proposed reducing the number of campsites in the valley
from 872 to 756 of which there would be 684 ``family friendly'' auto
campsites, 58 walk-in sites, and 14 group campsites. In 1992, the
Concession Services Plan documented the existence of 7 campgrounds in
Yosemite Valley for a total or 817 campsites--it would seem that this
number would be the baseline for the number or campsites that existed
at the time the Merced River was designated Wild and Scenic in 1987;
however, it appears the Revised ORV Baseline Conditions Report is using
872 from 1980 as the baseline number. The flood of 1997 severely
affected the Upper and Lower River Campgrounds as well as the lower
portion of Lower Pines Campground (as well as the Group Campground
north of Tenaya Creek) reducing the number or available campsites to
466 in the DEIS: however, the Park's Report appears to be using 436
(The documents' numbers don't match such discrepancies raise doubts as
to the accuracy or any numbers used in the DEIS.) Doing the math, there
appears to have been a 43-50 percent decrease in camping opportunities
since the 1987 designation; and using the Report's numbers, there has
been nearly a 54 percent decrease in the number of ``family friendly''
auto based drive-in campsites since the 1987 designation.
Within one of the webinars (possibly Feb. 14th), it was
stated that camping was an ORV by Kathleen Morse. Regarding ORVs, the
1982 Guidelines 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'' (aka 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--though the primary emphasis still rests with the
esthetic, scenic historic, archaeological, and scientific features.
That being the case, there would seem to be no doubt that available
camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley are in desperate need of
protection and enhancement, especially considering the 54 percent loss
of ``family friendly'' auto based drive-in campsites.
Though the preferred alternative proposes to increase valley
campsites from the No-Action Alternative number of 466 to 640, the mix
of sites is suspect. Of that increase, 175 would be walk-in sites with
presumably large parking lots, 36 are RV sites (more like the old
``drive-in movie'' experience), and only 19 would be auto based drive-
in tent sites; the latter does very little to remedy the 54 percent
loss of the ``family friendly'' auto based campsites from the baseline
number at the time of the River's designation. It also flies in the
face of the more than $17 million awarded by Congress to repair and put
back the campsites that were lost in the 1997 flood.
The following chart attempts to track the erosion and
reconfiguration of camping in Yosemite Valley:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEIS existing 2013MRP
Pre-GMP GMP CSP ORV BCR * (Alt.5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 872 (859 *) 756 (743 *) 817 436 466 640 (642 *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes Revised ORV Baseline Conditions Assessment Report. The Report's 2012 number groups campgrounds
together rather than delineating individually. The final number is less than what is documented in the MRP
DEIS. The bolded totals are the official count per the Plan(s); the numbers in parens are the trackable ones.
The concession Services Plan (CSP) only lists total sites in Yosemite Valley rather than delineating
individually. The 1980 GMP authorizes 684 auto sites, 14 group sites, and 58 walk-in sites; there is no
mention of Backpackers campgrounds taking over Group campground; it just seems to have suddenly appeared.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Hoss?
STATEMENT OF PETER T. HOSS, AUTHOR
Mr. Hoss. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I hope
everybody can hear me. I am Peter Hoss. I am not a professional
historian. I am an attorney by profession. I am a native of
Yosemite. I have had lifelong experience in various aspects of
it, including legal matters, hiking, working for concessioners,
what not. I think I know the territory. I wrote a book called,
``Born in Yosemite,'' published in 2011. And in that book, I
addressed this litigation involving the Merced River in some
detail. And I followed it as it developed, researched it,
talked to the parties involved.
So, what I want to review for you is the history of why we
are here. I agree with Congressman McClintock that this
initiation was initiated by what could be characterized as the
extreme left of the environmental movement. It was never
supported by traditional environmental organizations such as
the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Conservation and
Parks Association. The biggest impediment in developing the
park has been this litigation. And I come to you with some
suggestions as to how you can get rid of it, and get rid of the
litigation and get on with managing the park.
Tony Coelho, who introduced this, had no intention of
applying the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to Yosemite. That was
his intention with the House of Representatives. When it came
to the Senate, they said, ``Well, let's incorporate it into the
existing draft plan,'' and that was intended to affect only the
future, not the past, not to have any effect on anything that
was in Yosemite. When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was put
in, the intention was to leave Yosemite as it was, and to limit
future development. That was the intention when it came in.
But it did require a plan, because the administrative
agency is the Park Service. They were required by the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act to initiate a plan. So they did: the YVP
plan. This group of local, extreme environmentalists challenged
the plan twice. When it eventually got up to the ninth circuit
court of appeals, the only requirement imposed by the ninth
circuit court of appeals was to ``assess user capacity.'' What
does that mean? It means how many people can look at a river
without degrading it. That is a question that almost belongs in
Alice in Wonderland more than it does in the Park Service.
The Park Service had a plan which the court rejected which
said this is a qualitative thing. You educate people how to
appreciate the river. Don't leave a trace. It is not a matter
of how many people look at it, it is a matter of how people
treat it. The court didn't agree with that. They said, ``No, we
have to have a number, and you have to impose a number.'' As a
practical matter, how can you do that when the number of people
looking at the river changes every minute? You can impose a
limit on the number of people who can be in Yosemite for day
use, and that has been done.
That is all the Park Service had to do. That is all they
had to do, and they could have incorporated it into their plan,
gone on with business. But they said, ``No, we don't want to do
that, we want a settlement. We want to settle with these
people, so they won't sue us again. So we are going to buy them
off by paying their attorneys,'' number one, $1 million of
taxpayers' money, which they were not obligated to pay, and
then they want a comprehensive master plan. They want to throw
out this other plan that has been done with all this work, do
it all over again, and throw a lot of their own ideas into it,
and we will throw a few of our own ideas into it, and that is
how this 2,500-page document came into existence.
Now, how can we get rid of this? You can vote no action on
this plan. The parties have no recourse for that, really. They
have their plan. The Park Service doesn't have to do what they
want to do with the plan.
So, I want to close this with a couple of statements from
noted environmentalists. And this is what Dave Brower said of--
and he is probably the most outspoken environmentalist of the
last century. This is what he said about Yosemite, and he has
had some experience in it: ``The periodic assault on Yosemite
guardians has gone on long enough. Gnats are being strained
concerning Yosemite management while we in California, as a
whole, swallow camels: the spoiling of waters offshore,
reckless destruction of forests, and the apparent preference in
gridlock over clean air. There were about 37 other visitors
when I first visited Yosemite in 1918. When I stopped working
there 20 years later, the count hit almost half-a-million. Last
year there were more than six times that many, and the valley
looked better and it was more enjoyable than it had been a
half-century earlier. The impact of visitors on the valley has
been lessened, and the impact of the valley on visitors has
been enhanced. Generous credit is deserved by Yosemite people,
government, and companies who have been masters of restoration.
Yosemite people deserve a toast, not a roast. If they annually
serve 3 million people and protect the park and the company
makes a lot of money, don't curse that. Profit is still
legal.''
Now, what I am asking you to do here is two things that
could be done to end this litigation and allow us to move on.
Mr. Bishop. You have got 15 seconds to say it.
Mr. Hoss. OK. Adopt no action on the plan.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Hoss. And exclude all recreational areas in the valley
from it, as was intended by Tony Coelho. Yosemite is not
broken, and does not need to be fixed by these drastic
measures. They aren't necessary. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoss follows:]
Prepare Statement of Peter T. Hoss, Author and Founding Member,
Yosemite For Everyone
I am Peter T. Hoss, a native of Yosemite, retired attorney, and
author of a book entitled ``Born in Yosemite'' published in 2011,
discussing 75 years of human history in Yosemite since 1934. I am a
founding member of a group known as Yosemite For Everyone, consisting
of persons with long experience in Yosemite from diverse backgrounds.
Among our founders are a retired superintendent, a retired ranger now
an attorney, a retired Federal Magistrate and his wife, the founder of
the Yosemite Renaissance art program, the retired 20 year CEO of the
principal Yosemite concessioner, and a long time resident and
representative of gateway communities and horse owner and backcountry
enthusiast.
The Mission Statement of Yosemite For Everyone (Exhibit 1) is to
protect the right of the general public to enjoy Yosemite, as provided
in the original grant to the general public in 1864 and the Organic Act
of 1916, creating National Parks. Yosemite For Everyone does not
consider our real opponent in this matter to be the National Park
Service (NPS), although we are critical of some of their actions. Our
real opponents are two local organizations based in Mariposa
California, who call themselves ``Friends of Yosemite Valley'' (FOYV)
and ``Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Government'' (MERG),
Their apparent mission is to remove or seriously limit visitation by
the general public to Yosemite Valley in order to ``restore'' Yosemite
Valley to a wilderness it never was. They have twice filed lawsuits to
overturn plans drafted by the NPS. In neither lawsuit were they joined
as plaintiffs by nationally recognized environmental organizations such
as the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society or the National Parks and
Conservation Association
In Chapters 18, 19 and 20 of my book, after research, I followed
and researched the history of the litigation by FOYV and MERG as it
developed. I discussed the litigation in detail with two
superintendents involved at important times and two of the plaintiffs.
The argument made by FOYV and MERG is based on the premise that the
more recently enacted Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) imposes new
regulations on the NPS when the rivers in question are in a National
Park already under regulation by the NPS. In some cases, as in Yosemite
Valley in particular, the regulations are contradictory.
Any attempt to impose guidelines under the WSRA intended for rivers
in a pristine undeveloped state on an river such as the Merced River in
Yosemite Valley which has been devoted to recreational use for almost
150 years will necessarily pose a dilemma for the agency charged with
managing the area for the enjoyment of visitors, in this case the NPS.
The WSRA recognizes this dilemma and has created a ``recreational''
designation for a river classified as wild and scenic. The Merced River
flowing through Yosemite Valley and other recreational areas in
Yosemite National Park has been properly recognized as
``recreational.'' Certain portions of the other major river which flows
through Yosemite National Park, the Tuolumne River, have also been
classified as recreational. A separate master plan for the Tuolumne
River is in process.
The joint resolution applying the WRSA to rivers flowing through
Yosemite National Park operates prospectively, not retroactively, and
pertains only to future development The NPS, driven by fear of future
lawsuits by FOYV and MERG, has violated this directive and has
attempted to apply WRSA guidelines to existing infrastructure, historic
bridges, and traditional recreational activities in place long before
the WSRA was enacted. The current Draft Plan goes too far in this
direction.
This adds up to a Draft Plan fatally flawed and grounded on the
false premise that WRSA guidelines supersede and nullify the terms of
the original grant of Yosemite for the enjoyment of the general public
and future generations, and the Organic Act of 1916, which reaffirms
this objective. This is certainly true when WSRA guidelines are applied
to areas classified as ``recreational'' areas. An overlay of
conflicting regulations will only lead to controversy and future
litigation, which may come from a different direction if the NPS
insists on forcing an unpopular Draft Plan on the general public.
We would like to point out two ways by which the NPS can resolve
this dilemma, avoid continuing litigation and move on to more urgent
matters requiring their attention. These measures can be taken under
the existing WSRA without changing the law. A change in the law would
be desirable but more difficult. We appear before you to urge you to
exercise your influence to encourage the NPS to take these steps, and
if the NPS refuses to respond, take these measures for them by amending
and clarifying the impact of WRSA on rivers within Yosemite and other
National Parks:
(1) The NPS is required by the National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA) to include a ``no action'' alternative in any master plan.
In this case this would mean that no new WSRA requirements are needed
or warranted. Infrastructure and traditional activities remain (see
exhibit 4 for a definition of the impact of the decision to elect ``no
action'' on this plan).
(2) Yosemite Valley and areas designated ``recreational'' should be
excluded from the current Draft Plan and any future plan in the same
manner as the existing Hetch Hetchy Dam on the Tuolumne River is
excluded from a plan for a river which is supposed to be free flowing
under the WSRA. What is there stays there. This action would permit the
NPS to complete a plan required by the WSRA as written by applying it
only to areas of the river which are truly wild and scenic and have
already been classified as wilderness by the NPS, comprising 95 percent
of Yosemite National Park.
We submit the following points in support of our position.
1. Tony Coehlo, who introduced the bill requesting the Merced River
to be designated under the WSRA in the House of Representatives, did
not intend it to be applied to Yosemite National Park at all (see
Exhibit 2), letter from former Congressman Tony Coehlo to Jon Jarvis)
His intention was modified by the Senate but only as applied to future
action (see Exhibit 3, letter from Peter T. Hoss to the Mariposa
Gazette).
2. At present there is no law or court order which obligates the
NPS to adopt any of the proposed alternatives other than ``no action.''
The governing document is a 2009 settlement agreement which superseded
the now vacated and dismissed action in the Federal District Court,
appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a complex 21 page
document with numerous exhibits (see exhibit 4; summary of the most
important provisions).
3. In the settlement agreement the NPS, in exchange for the
dismissal of the legal action, agreed to pay plaintiffs' attorneys
$1,025,000 of taxpayers' money which they were not ordered to pay, and
to undertake a new comprehensive master plan, which they were not
obligated to undertake. Attorneys for plaintiffs' recommended
``experts'' from outside Yosemite to draft the plan. (see exhibit 5, a
letter from Julia Olsen attorney for plaintiffs') This letter is full
of references to WSRA guidelines. Many of the recommendations from
plaintiffs' attorneys were inserted in the settlement agreement. The
plaintiffs, FOYV and MERG speak only for themselves, not the
unrepresented general public, who paid the bill for the plaintiffs'
attorneys and the comprehensive plan. (See exhibit 4) The NPS chose to
add details beyond anything requested by plaintiffs.
4. As far as we can determine Congress did not appropriate to the
funds to pay plaintiffs' attorneys or to pay for the cost of preparing
the comprehensive master plan. Congress did appropriate funds to repair
extensive 1997 flood damage to Yosemite Valley infrastructure. We
understand that an accounting of the flood repair funds has been
demanded by Congressman Tom McClintock. We believe this should be
pursued.
5. No actual degradation of the Merced River has been demonstrated.
The elimination of many traditional recreational activities which bear
no relationship to the protection of the river have been recommended
(bicycle rental, daily horseback rides, ice skating, raft trips,
swimming pools) with no compensating benefit to visitors. Wendy Brown
Berry will provide more details.
6. The undefined phrase ``restrict commercial activities'' appears
in proposed alternatives. It is clearly aimed at restricting
concessioners for charging fees for providing visitor services. If this
is not the case, why is it acceptable to bring one's own bike, raft or
horse but not to rent one? There is no logic behind this distinction.
Concessions from the private sector have served National Park visitors
since the inception of the NPS. They are regulated down to the price of
a candy bar by a whole separate body of law. Restrictions on visitor
service do not belong in this plan and should be stricken.
7. We are not able to cite numbers, but we are aware of
overwhelming objection to all alternatives other than ``no action''
from the general public. This large number of complaints induced
Congressman Tom McClintock to write a strong letter of protest against
the Draft Plan (exhibit 6)
conclusion
As above stated, we request that Congress exert its influence to
aid the NPS in closing the door on further litigation by adopting the
``no action'' alternative. The effect of a ``no action'' vote is
explained in (Exhibit 7) FOVY and MERG received what they bargained for
in the settlement, a comprehensive draft plan not required by law or
funded by Congress. They are certainly not entitled to dictate which of
five unacceptable alternatives the NPS must select. Moreover, they are
committed to a mediation procedure before they can sue (see exhibit 4).
Others displeased with the plan who have not been represented are not
committed to mediate before suing.
We also request that Congress exert its influence on the NPS to
exclude areas designated ``recreational'' within Yosemite National Park
from this draft plan or any future draft plan.
If the NPS does not avail itself of this opportunity to extricate
itself from the damned if you do, damned if don't dilemma in which it
finds itself, we request that Congress do the job for it by amending
and clarifying the WRSA as applied to rivers flowing through National
Parks. Also, if the Park Service refuses to follow the will of the
general public by adopting any alternative other than ``no action'' we
request that any such Draft Plan not be approved or funded by Congress.
There are many other undesirable features in this Draft Plan as
well as some which are helpful. However, they are all thrown together
in a 2,500 page document. The good cannot be separated from the bad, so
``no action'' is the only common sense solution. On behalf of Yosemite
For Everyone and a great silent majority who want to keep enjoying
Yosemite, I urge your serious and thoughtful consideration of these
suggestions.
[Exhibit 1)
yosemite for everyone--mission statement
Yosemite For Everyone is a group of dedicated individuals and
concerned citizens who have an intimate connection with Yosemite
National Park. They have all spent quality time in Yosemite, and have a
good understanding of the park's inner workings and infrastructure.
They believe in a common sense approach to preservation where visitor
use is balanced with protecting the environment. They support
recreational activities that have been traditionally and historically
enjoyed for 150 years, and think they should be preserved for visitor
enjoyment and comfort. They support the act signed by President Abraham
Lincoln in 1864 that states, ``the United States granted the Yosemite
Valley and the Mariposa Big Tree Grove to the State of California, to
be held, for public use, resort, and recreation, inalienable for all
time.'' They also support the Organic Act of 1916 which provides that
National Parks be preserved for the enjoyment of the public. They feel
that providing recreational activities and amenities will add, not
detract, from the Yosemite experience. And last, they walk in the path
of John Muir, who welcomed the visitor to Yosemite National Park to be
educated, inspired, and encouraged to ``Climb the mountains and get
their glad tidings.''
``Climb the mountains and get their glad tidings and Nature's
peace will flow into you and cares fall off like autumn
leaves,'' John Muir.
[Exhibit 2]
Letter From Tony Coelho, Retired Congressman From California
April 13, 2013
Mr. Jon Jarvis,
Director, National Park Service,
Washington, DC 20240.
Dear Mr. Jarvis:
I am Tony Coelho, retired Congressman from California. I am the
author of the legislation that included the Merced River in the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA).
I have been asked to clarify the legislative intent of this action.
The WSRA was never intended to apply to the Merced River within
Yosemite National Park at all. The Merced River within Yosemite
National Park is protected and regulated by the National Park Service
(NPS) and has never needed an overlay of inconsistent and confusing
regulation. The WRSA designation was intended to apply to the Merced
River outside the Park to the west.
The Merced River in Yosemite Valley has been recreational for
almost 150 years. Yosemite Valley has never been wilderness. Any plan
which proceeds under the WSRA should not change any infrastructure, or
ban any activities traditionally carried on in Yosemite Valley such as
bicycle rental, raft trips, daily horseback rides, or removal of the
ice rink or swimming pools, nor should it require removal of historic
bridges. I oppose any such measures. Yosemite Valley should be left as
it is under any Plan required by the WSRA, subject only to traditional
management by the NPS.
There is a simple and reasonable way to accomplish this. That is to
remove the Merced River within Yosemite Valley (which has been
designated recreational) from any Plan required by the WSRA in the same
manner the preexisting Hetch Hetchy Dam has been removed from the
Tuolumne River Plan. This will end litigation and acrimonious
controversy and allow Yosemite to be enjoyed by the public in the
traditional manner, as intended in the original grant and the Organic
Act of 1916 establishing National Parks.
I urge this action to allow the 3,000,000 visitors per year to
continue enjoying Yosemite.
Sincerely,
Tony Coelho
[Exhibit 3)
Letter From Peter T. Hoss to the Mariposa Gazette
To the Editor:
I am Peter T. Hoss, author of a book entitled ``Born in Yosemite''
and one of a the founders of a group of retired Yosemite insiders (Park
Service, concessioner Judicial, and Gateway tourist bureaus) calling
ourselves Yosemite For Everyone.
I feel compelled to respond to the assertion by Jan W. van
Wagtendonk that he knows better than Tony Coehlo what Tony Coelho
intended in introducing legislation to include the Merced River in the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The facts as I understand them are that
Tony Coehlo stated his intention when he introduced the bill in the
House of Representatives. His intention did not survive the Senate
version. The Senate added a section applying the WSRA to Yosemite by
amending the 1980 General Management Plan, using the language quoted by
Jan W. van Wagtendonk, which speaks to future development only and does
not require removal or relocation of anything existing or the cessation
of any recreational activities. The Draft Merced River Plan goes far
beyond the WSRA as written, and is an attempt to reconfigure Yosemite
Valley in accordance with WSRA guidelines, as if almost 150 years or
history and tradition have no importance.
What is important is to consider what Tony Coelho said about the
current Draft Merced River Plan follows: ``Any plan which proceeds
under the WSRA should not change infrastructure, or ban activities
carried on in Yosemite Valley, such as bicycle rental, raft trips,
daily horseback rides, or removal of the ice rink, or swimming pools,
nor should it require removal of historic bridges. Yosemite Valley
should be left as it is under any plan required under the WSRA, subject
only to traditional management by the NPS. There is a simple way of
accomplishing this. That is to remove the Merced River within Yosemite
Valley (which has been designated recreational) from the Plan required
by the WSRA in the same manner as the preexisting Hetch Hetchy Dam has
been removed from the Tuolumne River Plan. This will end litigation and
acrimonious controversy and allow Yosemite to be enjoyed by the public
in the traditional manner, as intended in the original grant and the
Organic Act of 1916 establishing National Parks. I urge this action to
allow 3 million visitors per year to continue enjoying Yosemite.''
The Organic Act of 1916 establishing Yosemite as a National Park
reaffirms the purpose of the original 1864 grant as follows ``. . . to
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
In my book ``Born in Yosemite'' at page 300 I record Jan W. van
Wagtendonk as quoted in ``Yosemite, the Embattled Wilderness'' by
Edmund Runte p. 221 as follows: ``A reasonable interpretation of the
Organic Act indicates that Congress intended that the Secretary of the
Interior protect natural conditions in parks, as an absolute duty, and
to only allow use consistent with that protection. It is questionable
whether the Park Service should determine public desires and attempt to
accommodate them.''
Jan W. van Wagtendonk is entitled to his opinion but he is not
entitled to rewrite the law.
In addition to adopting the suggestion of Tony Coelho the Park
Service should adopt the no action alternative. This means only that an
overlay of conflicting regulations is not necessary to ``protect'' a
river which in reality does not need protection. The Park Service has
more important problems to deal with and should be freed up to manage
Yosemite in the traditional manner without having to design a Plan
intended to avoid further litigation from the tiny minority which sued
them. Future litigation is likely to occur from another direction if
the proposed plan is forced on a general public overwhelmingly opposed
to it, which is the case as far as we can determine.
[Exhibit 4]
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 3 of 22
validity of the Yosemite Valley Plan by filing a Complaint of
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, 06-CV-01902 AWI.
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling
on appeal, affirming the district court in all respects and remanding
for further proceedings. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthome, 520
F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008);
WHEREAS, on July 7,2008, this Court entered the mandate of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Doc. 429,
formally remanding this case to the District Court for further
proceedings, consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Friends of
Yosemite Valley v. Kempthome, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008);
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder held
a telephonic conference call with the parties and their counsel (Doc.
430), during which the Court agreed to undertake a process for
mediation of the disputes between the Settling Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Settling Parties, with the assistance and through
the good offices of Magistrate Judge Snyder, have reached agreement to
settle and resolve this litigation according to the terms and
conditions as set forth below and enable the Defendants to comply with
their obligations under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable federal
environmental statutes;
NOW, THEREFORE, in the interests of the Settling Parties and the
public interest and to promote judicial economy, the Settling Parties
hereby stipulate and agree to the following terms in settlement of any
and all claims in the above-captioned litigation:
II. AGREEMENT
A. Purpose of the Settlement Agreement
This Agreement is executed solely for the purpose of
compromising and settling this litigation and nothing herein
shall be construed as a precedent in any other context. This
Agreement is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission
against interest or positions taken or of wrongdoing or
liability, by any of the Settling Parties with respect to any
fact or issue involved in any pending or future litigation.
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 4 of 22
B. Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan
1. Schedule. The National Park Service (NPS) agrees to complete a
new CMP for the Merced Wild and Scenic River and issue a
Record of Decision (ROD) for that new CMP by December 2012.
The Merced River CMP Milestones Calendar, attached as
Appendix A, and the following interim target dates will
guide the NPS in the preparation of the new CMP although
these target dates are not mandatory or binding deadlines:
a. Release Public Scoping Report--March 2010;
b. Publish and release Draft CMP and Environmental Impact
Statement December 2011;
c. Publish and release Final CMP and Environmental Impact
Statement November 2012; and
d. Issue Record of Decision--December 2012.
2. Procedures.
a. User Capacity Experts. In contemplation of this settlement
agreement, the NPS hired as primary consultants Bo Shelby,
Doug Whitaker, and David Cole, recognized experts in user
capacity, to work directly with the NPS's lead project
manager in developing the Merced River CMP. These experts
will be involved in the planning process from the
beginning, including but not limited to working with NPS
staff in: (1) defining the Merced River's outstandingly
remarkable values (ORVs) on which the CMP will be focused;
(2) participating in the interdisciplinary team meetings
and workshops in order to help frame the discussions that
take place so that user capacity is integrated throughout
the planning effort; (3) participating in the development
of a reasonable range of alternatives; (4) reviewing and
assessing the user-capacity-related environmental
consequences discussion of the draft and final
environmental impact
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 16 of
22
experiences in Yosemite National Park. Examples of repair work
required to correct accessibility deficiencies include:
reconfiguring existing facility paths of travel in
developed areas; modifications to restrooms and fixtures;
providing accessible routes, signage and information; and
installation of required hardware and equipment. As stated
above, for purposes of this Agreement, a ``developed area''
is defined as a location that contains multiple structures
and facilities to serve park visitors or park operations.
Examples of developed areas include campgrounds, Curry
Village, entrance stations, maintenance areas, and picnic
areas, but a developed area does not include an area where
the only development is a trail or an interpretive sign.
4. If the NPS proposes to take any action that is other than for
routine or intermittent operations, maintenance projects
and/or emergency responses within the river corridor as
outlined above, the Defendants will provide advance notice
to the Plaintiffs prior to implementation of the project
and, if necessary, the Settling Parties will comply with
the Dispute Resolution process with Magistrate Judge
Snyder, discussed below in Section G.3. To the extent that
the Settling Parties have a disagreement over particular
activities, they agree to make a good faith effort to
resolve the disagreement through the dispute resolution
process discussed in G.3., below.
F. Attorneys' Fees and Costs of Litigation
Upon approval by this Court of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs a total or ONE MILLION
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,025,000) in full and complete
satisfaction of any and all claims, demands, rights, and causes
of action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d), and/or any other statute and/or common law
theory, for all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by
Plaintiffs, individually and/or severally through the date of
this Settlement Agreement, in the above-captioned lawsuits. The
check will be made payable to ``Law Office of Sharon Duggan,
IOLTA'' by electronic transfer, within sixty (60) days of Court
approval. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted
as or constitute a commitment or
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 17 of
22
requirement that the Federal Defendants obligate or pay funds
in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341,
or any other law or regulation.
G. Dismissal of Litigation; Retention of Jurisdiction
1. Dismissal. The Settling Parties agree that the YVP case, Case
No. 06-CV-01902, will be dismissed.
2. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Settling Parties agree that the
Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purposes of
receiving periodic status reports from the Defendants and
overseeing, if necessary, the dispute resolution process
outlined in the following paragraph. The Court shall retain
jurisdiction for 120 days after the NPS signs the Record of
Decision for the new CMP. If the Plaintiffs file a
supplemental complaint challenging the new CMP and a motion
for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California within that time, the
parties agree to use the dispute resolution process in
G.3., below in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
NPS will agree to hold in abeyance any ground-disturbing
projects authorized by the CMP in the river corridor
following the filing of the supplemental complaint to
enable the Court to rule on any motion for a preliminary
injunction that the Plaintiffs file within that 120-day
period.
3. Dispute Resolution. The Settling Parties have agreed that, to
assist them in implementing the terms of this Settlement
Agreement and avoiding future disputes regarding
compliance, Magistrate Judge Snyder will continue her role
as a neutral mediator. In this capacity, and with her
consent and the Court's approval, Magistrate Judge Snyder
will work with both parties to resolve any future disputes,
disagreements, or misunderstandings that may arise during
the course of implementing this Settlement Agreement. Any
action at issue in the Dispute Resolution Process may not
proceed until the Dispute Resolution Process is completed.
Before invoking the dispute resolution process, however, a
party must undertake and exhaust the following steps:
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 18 of
22
a. a party first must notify all other parties in writing when a
dispute or concern arises and request an opportunity to
discuss the disputed issues or concerns;
b. all parties agree in good faith to make a concerted effort to
resolve the dispute or concern through direct negotiations
without the need for judicial intervention or mediation;
and
c. if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within a two-
week period of time following notification of the dispute,
or longer upon agreement of the parties, then, upon written
notice to all other parties, all parties agree to notify
the court-appointed mediator and work cooperatively with
the mediator to reach agreement. If the dispute is not
resolved through the mediation process within 60 days after
the first meeting with the mediator, in person or by
telephone, then either Settling Party reserves the right to
seek judicial review. All parties agree to make every
effort to make themselves available and to meet with the
mediator at the earliest opportunity, even if one or more
representatives of that party is not available. However,
mediation may proceed beyond this time period as long as
the parties and the mediator believe it is worthwhile.
H. Authority, Execution, and General Terms of Settlement Agreement
1. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. All executed
counterparts shall constitute one agreement, and each
counterpart shall be deemed an original.
2. The undersigned representatives and attorneys for each Settling
Party certify that they are fully authorized by the Party
or Parties whom they represent to enter into the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and legally to bind such Party
or Parties thereto.
3. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to deprive any
Federal official of authority to revise, amend, or
promulgate regulations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
deemed to limit the authority of the executive branch to
make recommendations to Congress on any particular piece of
legislation.
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 19 of
22
4. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to commit a Federal
agency or official to expend funds not appropriated by
Congress.
5. The Parties do not intend by this Agreement to confer any rights
or interests on any third-parties or non-parties to the
Agreement.
6. The terms set forth in this Agreement are intended by the
Parties as a final expression of agreement with respect to
such terms, and may not be contradicted by evidence of any
prior agreement or any contemporaneous oral statement. This
Agreement is a complete and exclusive statement of the
Parties' agreement which may not be explained or
supplemented by evidence of additional terms. This
Agreement may not be altered, modified, or superceded
except by written instrument signed by each of the Parties
or as otherwise provided by order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
7. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced
in accordance with, and pursuant to, the laws of the United
States of America.
8. The paragraph headings in this Agreement are for the convenience
of the Parties and are not intended to be given any
substantive effect in interpreting the Agreement.
9. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to constitute a
waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States.
10. The Parties acknowledge that each Party and/or its counsel have
reviewed and revised this Agreement and that no rule of
construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be
resolved against the drafting party shall be employed in
the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or
exhibits to this Agreement or any document executed and
delivered by the Parties in connection with this Agreement.
11. Confidentiality. The parties agree that all negotiations
leading up to this Agreement will remain confidential,
subject to the terms and conditions of the Confidentiality
Agreement and Order (Doc. 445) entered by the Court on
September 12,2008.
[Exhibit 5]
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477-6 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 1 of
2
Letter Submitted for the Record From Julia A. Olson
Wild Earth Advocates,
Eugene, OR 97405,
March 30, 2009.
Charles R. Shockey,
United States Department of Justice,
Environment and Natural Resources Division,
Natural Resources Section,
Sacramento, CA 95814-2322.
Re: Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Salazar, CV-F-00-6191 AWI DLB,
Project Manager Description.
Dear Mr. Shockey,
Plaintiffs provide this letter identifying the skills that they
believe are important to consider in selecting a new project manager
for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan,
pursuant to section B.2.c of the Settlement Agreement.
The new project manager should have previous experience with Wild
and Scenic River plans and in developing user capacities on Wild and
Scenic Rivers or an analogous program. She or he (``she'') should be
familiar with the outstandingly remarkable values (``ORVs''),
delineation processes, and methods of protecting and enhancing ORVs.
Ideally, she should be familiar with Yosemite's natural and cultural
resources. In the absence of direct experience working on a WSRA CMP,
the project manager should have experience working on at least one
significant land management plan, such as a Wilderness Plan, where
protecting natural resources was the primary goal.
She should be familiar with the Ninth Circuit and District Court
decisions on the prior CMPs and have a thorough understanding and
respect for WSRA as interpreted by the Secretarial Guidelines and the
Courts. She should easily grasp that her primary goals are to protect
and enhance river ORVs and establish user capacity consistent with that
directive.
She should have successful experience in natural resource
preservation and a demonstrated success and commitment to identifying
and preserving cultural and historic resources (e.g., Native American
history/culture, archeology, ethnography, etc.). She should have some
background experience or work in a relevant natural or cultural
resources field, beyond planning or NEPA compliance. Experience working
as a scientist
Case 1:00-cv-06191-AWI-DLB Document 477-6 Filed 09/29/2009 Page 2 of
2
or a natural resources conservationist or a strong background in
ecology would be preferred.
She should work well with consultants (specifically the user
capacity experts who will work on the CMP), be willing to listen to the
public, have respect for differing views, and be a good organizer of
personnel and making information available. She should have a high
level of respect for the public NEPA process and for meeting the
deadlines agreed to in the settlement agreement.
She should have an appreciation for how historical conflict between
the government and the public can create mistrust and needs to be
overcome with a commitment to restoring confidence. She should have
some direct experience and/or training with conflict resolution. She
should be creative in communicating with, involving and integrating
widespread participation and input from diverse perspectives (e.g.,
Native Americans, multi-generational campers, climbers, disabled,
backpackers/hikers, environmentalists, gateway residents, NPS/DNC
employees, park overnight lodgers, concessionaire/gateway hoteliers,
equestrians, anglers, etc.) with a focus on commonalities as opposed to
differences and an ability to view the public as offering a value-added
perspective rather than an adversary that has to be overcome.
She should not have an institutional bias in favor of the validity
of past NPS actions in Yosemite and will consider ideas from others,
including the Plaintiffs, with open-mindedness.
She will have a commitment to transparency in the planning process.
She should be comfortable with personal interaction between the public
and the NPS from the onset of plan preparation and with making herself
accessible to the public. She should be open to exploring and
implementing alternative technological options (such as on-line
interactive forums) for participation by the public who cannot
otherwise attend meetings because of distance or work responsibilities.
She should be someone who has a demonstrated love for experiencing
nature in an ecologically respectful way.
Thank you for taking into consideration this list of experiences
and qualities when making your hiring decision for the Merced CMP
project manager.
Sincerely,
Julia A. Olson,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.
[Exhibit 6]
Letter Submitted for the Record From The Honorable Tom McClintock
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2013.
Don Neubacker, Superintendent,
Attn: Merced River Plan,
P.O. Box 577,
Yosemite, CA 95389.
Dear Mr. Neubacher:
I am writing to provide comments on the National Park Service's
(NPS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Merced River
Comprehensive Management Plan. Yosemite National Park is a national
treasure that must be available for the American public to access and
enjoy in the same manner that Americans have for decades, The 1864 act
authorizing the original Yosemite land grant to the State of California
stated that the ``premises shall be held for public use, resort, and
recreation'' and ``shall be inalienable for all time.'' The draft plan
in question directly contravenes the authorization, and I am firmly
against NPS taking any action that would limit public access and
enjoyment of Yosemite.
Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect free-
flowing rivers from dams and other development. Congress did not intend
for NPS to use the act to justify limiting visitation, closing
facilities and eliminating or curtailing historic uses that pre-date
passage of the act and the Merced River designation under that act. In
designating the Merced River, Congress understood that Yosemite
National Park had a multitude of existing facilities that served river
users, that Yosemite was widely visited and that the Merced River was
extensively used for recreational pursuits by park visitors. See S.
Rep. No. 96 100th Cong. 1st Sess. 1987 (the river
is an ``outstanding and heavily used recreation resource in the areas
of easy accessibility'').
The Merced River's designation was based upon the river's value as
a popular recreation resource in a highly-visited national park that
was supported by the extensive facilities that existed at the time of
the river's designation. Congress could not have intended for NPS to
limit visitation or do away with the existing facilities and the
recreational activities that support the values that caused the Merced
River to be designated in the first place. Congress also did not intend
its designation to drive planning of the larger park and force the
closure of facilities that pre-date the act, enhance visitor
experiences, and are located outside of the Merced River.
It is equally troubling that NPS is proposing to close a number of
facilities within Yosemite Village and reduce recreational Activities
in the Yosemite Valley. NPS claims that camping will be increased to
640 campsites but that figure is still less than the 830 campsites that
existed before the 1997 flood. NPS is also proposing to close the Curry
Village ice skating rink, bike rental facilities, snack stands,
swimming pools, tennis courts, retail stores and horse stables and
stock use. These facilities are not located in the Merced River, do not
impede its flow, and many existed and historically served Yosemite
visitors for decades prior to Congress passing the Act.
It defies logic that NPS is proposing to close these facilities not
because they degrade the Merced River, but instead because in NPS's
eyes, these longstanding facilities do not benefit the river. What
about the benefits that the American public will lose under NPS's
proposal? NPS is also proposing to eliminate commercial rafting on the
river. Like the existing facilities, commercial rafting is a service
that was offered before the Merced River's designation under the act.
I am also concerned about the proposed destruction of the Sugar
Pine Bridge. This historic stone bridge was built in 1928 (40 years
before enactment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) and was entered
into the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. The National
Historic Preservation Act directs Federal agencies to preserve the
historic properties under their control and the legislation designating
the Merced River as Wild and Scenic does not require the bridge's
destruction. I do not believe that the Park Service may simply ignore
its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act to
protect the Sugar Pine Bridge and find no justification for robbing
Yosemite of this iconic landmark.
Finally, I am aware that NPS has received a number of requests for
an extension of the public comment period on the Merced River plan.
This is entirely understandable given that the plan and its exhibits
are over 4,000 pages long, and that the comment period overlaps with
the comment periods of two other major Yosemite Park plans. To ensure
that the public has an adequate opportunity to provide its input, I
concur that an extension is necessary, and therefore have requested
that NPS extend its public comment period on the Merced River Plan by
90 days to ensure full public opportunity to comment on this important
issue.
I submit these comments greatly troubled by the adverse and lasting
effects this would have on Yosemite and the many visitors who enjoy the
park.
Sincerely,
Tom McClintock.
[Exhibit 7)
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
overview
Alternative 1, also known as the ``No Action Alternative,'' is
required by NEPA implementing regulations and serves as a baseline from
which to compare the action alternatives. Alternative 1 represents
existing conditions in 2011, when the NPS completed research studies
intended to assess conditions of the Merced River, and the continuation
of current park management into the future. This alternative assumes
that current trends in the conditions of natural and cultural resources
and visitor experiences would continue, consistent with the management
activities that are ongoing under currently approved plans. Future
actions that would require additional planning and environmental
compliance could still occur, independent of the Merced River Plan/
DEIS, but they are not considered part of the No Action Alternative for
the purposes of conducting environmental compliance for the Merced
River Plan.
The overall management direction of Alternative 1 is based on
current guiding management documents. The 1980 General Management Plan
is the primary guiding document for park management, along with
subsequent park-wide management documents such as the Wilderness
Management Plan (1989), Concessions Services Plan (1992), Fire
Management Plan (2004, with operational updates in 2009), and the
Invasive Plant Management Plan (updated in 2010). In addition to
following park-specific management policy, the NPS would also continue
to comply with Federal laws, including the NPS Organic Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Clean Water Act, and all other Federal laws, directives, policies, and
executive orders pertaining to park management.
Under Alternative 1, the NPS would not adopt a comprehensive
management plan to protect and enhance river values and address user
capacity and land use in the corridor. The two prior versions of the
river plan would not be in effect, because the courts determined that
prior versions of the plan were invalid. Ecological restoration actions
would be limited to those that would only require a Categorical
Exclusion in compliance with NEPA, and those identified in the 2009
Settlement Agreement. The river corridor would be \1/4\ mile on either
side of the ordinary high-water mark because the WSRA provides for
these default boundaries in the absence of agency designated
boundaries. The segment classifications would be the same as those in
the 1982 National Rivers Inventory in which the river was designated
wild and scenic. There would no Section 7 Determination Process. The
ORVs, as articulated in Yosemite's 1996 Draft Yosemite Valley Housing
Plan, would continue to be protected and enhanced. There would be no
established limit to the number of visitors or vehicles that would be
allowed within the corridor. There would be no changes to existing
facilities, transportation systems or services.
Summary of Current Actions and Issues Affecting River Values
This section is intended to summarize (1) those actions that would
protect and enhance river values that are already underway, and (2)
issues that affect river values corridor wide. This section is not
intended to summarize all the current management of resources in the
river corridor; rather, it focuses on the actions that are directly
related to issues identified in chapter 5. This provides a baseline for
comparing the actions that might be taken under the action alternatives
(Alternatives 2-6) to protect and enhance river values.
The following conditions would continue throughout all segments of
the Merced River corridor under Alternative 1.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Asquith?
STATEMENT OF BOB ASQUITH, GROVELAND, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Asquith. Thank you for inviting me to talk. I
appreciate your time here today. I have been visiting Yosemite
with my family since the 1950s. Presently I live in one of the
gateway communities and visit the park 25 to 30 times a year
for the past 5 years. This is after retiring, spending 40 years
in the hubbub of Silicon Valley. I have participated as a
private citizen in Yosemite's planning processes during the
Tuolumne River plan for about 3 years, and most recently, for a
couple of years in the Merced River planning.
I have been to at least a dozen meetings. some of the
meetings have had more than 100 people attending them over this
period of time. They have all been very open meetings, and I
have been really impressed since the beginning meetings I went
to with the Tuolumne River plan about how open the Park Service
was, actually inviting people attending the meeting to play a
planner for an hour and see what you would do with the park.
Here are the challenges, what would you do?
I am also amazed by the science of the park. They have been
very thoughtful, and the Park Service has spent a lot of
effort, not only with their agency, but the USGS, in conducting
the science about the park and how to manage it.
My impression of the meetings, that they have been well
organized, they have been inclusive, they have listened to
everybody, and painstakingly recorded the comments of everybody
that was there, as well as their question.
I am impressed that there is a very complicated nature, a
juggling act, that takes place between the Organic Act, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Wilderness Act, the historic
buildings in the park. It is amazing, with all of that and the
court ruling, that they could even come up with a plan at all.
It seems there is too much competition.
One example that I have seen, as Director Jarvis mentioned,
is if you look at the Merced River flowing down the middle of
the valley for a minute, and look at a 1-year, 2-year, 5-year,
10-year flood plain. Before a few many years, you are off at
the size of the valley, and you have now included all of the
real estate in the valley. So then you start the science of the
rockfall analysis and start to come back from the walls of the
valley, and you have some rather limited real estate that you
have to deal with, and try to put all these amenities and all
these competing interests in. It is quite a juggling act.
Is the plan, as I read it, perfect? I doubt that. But it is
a pretty good place to start, and a pretty good place to begin
managing? I think so. I think there is a lot being made of
relatively small issues. You know, 2 years ago I was in the
Yosemite Valley, for example, and had watched when we had a
heavy rainfall in California. The Merced River tore a new gorge
in the valley, because the Sugar Pine Bridge constricted its
flow. That gorge was about 20 feet deep and about 20 feet
across, and it was pretty ugly stuff amidst what would have
been a rather beautiful area.
So, what I want to say in kind of conclusion is that as we
look at some of these amenities, and we are talking about we
need to move this and what do we do with that and so forth,
remember that a lot of the activity that doesn't take place, a
lot of the camping that doesn't take place, a lot of the
swimming and swimming pools that doesn't take place in the
valley will take place in the gateway communities. I live in
one. So, it is not lost forever. It is displaced into an area
that really uses it. Most of the gateway communities are in
poorer counties in California, so the business would be welcome
in those communities.
I, for one, think the Park Service has done a remarkable
job of navigating through these competing laws and issues, and
I think that this panel, this Committee, should look at the
plan and not make many changes to it.
And I have a yellow light. That is before the red light,
I'm finished.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Asquith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Asquith, Groveland, California
Good morning.
I thank this Committee for inviting me to testify about Yosemite
National Park, one of our great national treasures. Yosemite has become
a very personal treasure since I began traveling to Yosemite and
camping in its high country with my family since the 1950s. After
working 40 years in Silicon Valley both in technical and sales and
marketing positions, I retired to Groveland which is about a half an
hour drive from Yosemite National Park. Throughout these many years, I
have experienced many changes in the park.
I travel into Yosemite National Park several times a month and,
during the summer, several times a week. In fact, last Thursday--the
Fourth of July--I was hiking in a little used and quiet part of
Yosemite, enjoying its peace.
I am on the Board of Directors of Yosemite Gateway Partners. This
is a 501(c)(3) corporation that is a collaborative, non-advocacy
organization that is devoted to supporting communications between
Yosemite and its four gateway communities, specifically to,
``collaborate on and address issues of regional importance to create
sustainable cultural, natural and economic prosperity''.
From my personal perspective, there are number of key issues facing
the park and its management--none more important that creating a
comprehensive plan to manage conflicting goals. Some important issues
are traffic and congestion, development of accommodations, and
balancing visitor use with protecting park resources.
Shortly after I retired, I became involved with Yosemite's efforts
in planning for the Tuolumne River Management plan. I attended more
than 10 meetings for this plan over 3 years and was a welcome
participant in process. During that time, work on the Merced River
Management plan began. This followed a very similar process, beginning
with a number of public meetings. Key park personnel, who were very
open to suggestions and comments made by those attending, also attended
all that I attended.
From Merced River Plan scoping meetings through the most recent
presentations of the draft EIS, key Yosemite staff were present, many
times including Superintendent Neubacher; there was always a very open
atmosphere, acceptance of questions in public dialog and a willingness
to stay until the last question was answered.
I also have attended at least 12 Merced River presentations and
meetings. These include meetings at Yosemite Gateway partners, four a
year, for nearly 2 years, plus many more in Gateway communities.
In all cases, the park would start with a presentation of the
status of the planning process, their current thinking, then opening
the meeting to questions for all attendees. Each time, anyone who
wanted to speak was allowed to do so, was listened to, and his or her
comments recorded.
The planning process is a juggling challenge of competing goals and
interests. The Park has met this challenge in earnest. I believe they
have created a workable plan out of at least five separate Federal
statutes that often have competing goals.
As an example, if you assumed that the Merced River flowed directly
down the middle of Yosemite Valley, then you can map 1-year, 5-year,
25-year, and 100-year floodplains thereby using almost all of the real
estate in the Valley, right to the walls. If you then map the Rockfall
hazards of the Valley walls, you start moving the lines back from the
walls toward the Merced River, those zones cross each other in many
places. The question becomes what asset do you place in either the
floodplain or the rockfall hazard zone or both because they have
overlapped. In short, there is limited real estate for everything and
choices need to be made as to what to accommodate safely.
I am extremely impressed with the planning process the Park has
undertaken. Beginning with my first participation in the Tuolumne River
plan and continuing with the Merced River plan, the Park has found
multiple ways and forums for engaging people and helping with the
planning process by listening to their comments and suggestions and
incorporating them into this plan.
I applaud the Yosemite National Park planners and management for
developing a comprehensive, well thought out and vetted plan to manage
these great resources, while considering tens of thousands of public
comments over dozens of public meetings.
______
Mr. Bishop. You got 40 seconds; you want to just
filibuster?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. No, you can't, no. I thank you. I thank all of
the witnesses for their testimony, for coming here. We will now
turn to the Committee for questions.
Mr. McClintock, if you would like to go first.
Mr. McClintock. Former Congressman Tony Coelho is the
author of the act that designated the Merced as Wild and
Scenic. In a letter he vigorously opposes the plan. He
categorically states that the legislation never contemplated
the removal of existing amenities. What is your--and, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter that
in the record.
Mr. Bishop. No objection.
[The information submitted by Mr. McClintock for the record
can be found on page 31, Exhibit 2:]
Mr. McClintock. And ask Mr. Jarvis for his response.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, sir, for that question. I know that
has been something that has been boiling out there.
You know, we have to go with the plain language of the
statute. And regardless of what Mr. Coelho indicates in his
letter, the plain language of the statute does designate the
entire length of the river through Yosemite Valley, as well as
in Yosemite National Park. And so, unless there is a
modification to that law, we have to apply that law as written.
Mr. McClintock. Well, let me read exactly what he says.
``The WSRA was never intended to apply to the Merced River
within Yosemite National Park at all. The Merced River within
Yosemite National Park is protected and regulated by the
National Park Service and has never needed an overlay of
inconsistent and confusing regulation. The WSRA designation was
intended to apply to the Merced River outside the park to the
west.''
Ms. Brown--and one more question for Mr. Jarvis. Of the
public comments that were received--and I understand more than
30,000 have been received--what is the proportion in support of
the plan?
Mr. Jarvis. I was checking, because I didn't have that
number off the top of my head. The superintendent indicates
about 20,000 in support of the plan, of the 30,000.
Mr. McClintock. In support of----
Mr. Jarvis. Of the plan----
Mr. McClintock [continuing]. Alternative number five, or
any one of the alternatives?
Mr. Jarvis. Alternative five.
Mr. McClintock. All of alternative five?
Mr. Jarvis. Most of the components of alternative five.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Brown, we are told that the NPS has
done extensive public hearings on this proposal. You have
attended those hearings. What is your impression of them?
Ms. Brown. I disagree with that. I feel that the outreach
to the visitors to Yosemite Park was inadequate. The draft
Environmental Impact Statement was released in January of 2013.
It is a 4,000-page document including exhibits, and that is
sandwiched between two other plans, the Tuolumne River plan and
the Mariposa Grove restoration plan. This is much more
information than the average citizen can absorb and comment
intelligently on in 90 days.
The public meetings were not published in a timely manner
to allow citizens to arrange for time off from work to attend
them. And sometimes the times and dates were incorrect. I had
to call the Park Service more than once on those.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Ouzounian, what was your impression of
the hearings conducted by the National Park Service?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, I have been going to hearings for 33
years, and I have seen a trend--one of confined to a box with
court reporters that intimidate the respondents to where the
public does not want to participate. This was supposed to be a
special partnering, a friendlier environment, if you will. And
certainly, the face of it, the book cover of it, was very, very
friendly. However, the meat is in the decisions and the details
that we see, and that is where we are discouraged, where we had
lots of public comment to talk about----
Mr. McClintock. Are you, in effect, saying that they left
the impression the Park Service has already decided what it
wants to do, and is simply going through the motions?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, the reason for a poor count, which I
classify this exercise as a poor count of respondents, is that
because people don't believe the Park Service. They have been
to other planning meetings before, they don't see the results,
they keep close to their home base. I asked for something
between Oakhurst and San Diego and requested Orange County. We
got Los Angeles at rush hour.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Brown, you actually wrote a letter to
the superintendent, protesting the short shrift given to those
in opposition to the plan. What was the response you received
back?
Ms. Brown. I didn't receive any response back from that. It
just seemed, as time went on, the Park Service cared less and
less about what we had to say. The time allowed for public
comment and input was lessened, and more time was given to
social interaction at the meetings.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Ouzounian, you mentioned the dramatic
reduction in valley campsites relative to before the flood,
from 872 down to 466. That is a 46 percent reduction.
Alternative five would still lock in a 27 percent reduction
from the pre-flood levels, and it would lock in a 31 percent
reduction in overnight lodging. Is that contributing to the
competition for spaces?
Mr. Bishop. Let me give you 15 seconds to answer that. We
will have another round of questions, though.
Mr. Ouzounian. It is very difficult. The mix of the numbers
cannot be compared. We are talking about walk-in sites versus
affordable, family drive-in sites. You are either going to camp
via a bus, if alternative five is passed, a bus with a family
of four, five--how do you do that--or you are going to have to
make parking lots that are going to blight the park.
Like Camp Four, if you have ever been to Camp Four, there
is a huge parking lot so you can walk your gear in. It is a
terrible mismatch of----
Mr. Bishop. We will come back to that and allow you to have
a follow-up on that same question on the next round, as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much. I think we have some common
goals. That is that we want to be able to maintain access for
Americans to enjoy one of the great national parks in our
country.
This plan is frustrating, because it is the third proposal
over almost 20 years. I mean to put this in perspective. I know
you are talking about most recently the current comment period,
which some of us felt was too short and asked for an extension.
I would have liked the extension to have been longer. But the
fact is that, to put this in context, this has been ongoing for
over 20 years now, and this is the third proposal that the park
has come up with. I have issues with the current proposal that
is before us.
I hope this hearing today gives us the wherewithal before
it has produced the--Mr. Jarvis, update us right now on the
timeline. This fall you are going to--after this comment period
has taken place, you have taken that information, then what is
going to happen next?
Mr. Jarvis. We are in the comments analysis period right
now. The public comment period has closed. It was open for 4
months, it is now closed, with those 30,000 comments. We are
analyzing those comments, considering every one of them
seriously----
Mr. Costa. So the comments that these witnesses have made
and others have made, are all part of the record, and they are
all part of the consideration?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Costa. And what happens next?
Mr. Jarvis. Then next will be we hope to issue a final EIS,
and then----
Mr. Costa. And that would be at what time, November?
Mr. Jarvis. It would be late this year, in this fiscal
year. I mean in this calendar year of 2013. We want to----
Mr. Costa. And you are working under a court decision under
the ninth circuit----
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Costa [continuing]. Right?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. And we----
Mr. Costa. So do you agree with our other attorney friend,
Mr. Hoss, that you have those other two options,
notwithstanding the ninth circuit, which was, to quote him
precisely, ``No-action alternative,'' or the second option, to
eliminate the areas of recreation, which I suspect would take a
piece of legislation, my guess would be?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we have to consider the entire body of
law that applies to Yosemite National Park----
Mr. Costa. No, but what are your legal advisors telling
you? I just want to cut to the chase. Do you have a no-action
alternative? Do you----
Mr. Jarvis. There is a no-action alternative in here. And--
--
Mr. Costa. And then what would happen if you took that?
Mr. Jarvis. I think we would be challenged in court.
Mr. Costa. You would be sued again. You are trying to avoid
this 20-year marathon.
Mr. Jarvis. We are looking for a sustainable decision here.
Mr. Costa. OK. And the recreational suggestion, Mr. Hoss, I
think requires legislation to change that. I don't think they
can do that administratively.
Mr. Hoss. May I address the comment that another lawsuit
would result from the no-action alternative?
Mr. Costa. You could, but I have some other questions that
I want to ask. And I have been dealing with these issues for
decades. And you are an attorney, I am not. But I think
litigation is the bane of some people's existence.
Mr. Hoss. I----
Mr. Costa. So let's put it aside, OK?
Mr. Hoss. What----
Mr. Costa. I don't need that question answered. I am
concerned about the access, the drive-ins and such, which is
why I asked you to repeat the comments, Mr. Ouzounian.
After the 1997 flood, then Congressman Radanovich
attempted--and others supported his efforts--to provide
restoration. We had a certain amount of access. And this is, I
think, a real key, because not everybody is a hiker. And we
want to be able to have access for families. The 872 in the
camping sites, the 58 walk-in sites, and the 14 group sites, do
you view that as an addition or a subtraction?
Mr. Ouzounian. No, those are the totals.
Mr. Costa. No, no, I am talking to Mr. Jarvis, Director
Jarvis.
Mr. Jarvis. OK. Wasn't sure.
Mr. Costa. Is that an--I am sorry, I will get back to you.
Is that an addition or a subtraction, post-1997 flood?
Mr. Jarvis. The proposed alternative, alternative five, is
a reduction in pre-flood campsite numbers. Now, I am not sure
about those specific numbers. But the bottom line is that,
because of the flood plain and our deep concern about
rebuilding these kinds of sites and amenities in the flood
plain itself that would be subject to being flooded again----
Mr. Costa. So it is a cost--but, I mean, these are the most
cherished sites there. I mean I get calls to my office, the
people, they ask, ``Can you hold a site?'' I said, ``No, I
can't hold a site.''
But I mean the access, this lottery thing that he talked
about, 1-minute access, I get calls and complaints from--I mean
it is--I think you are in an impossible situation. Do the other
alternatives--and my time has run out--provide additional
access for those who don't have the ability to--who want to
have access to the river, whether it is for an evening or for a
4 or 5-day visit?
Mr. Bishop. Why don't we--I will let you think about that
one. We are going to have another round of questions. You can
hit that one afterwards.
Mr. Costa. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask a couple of questions here. Let me
finish follow-up on what Mr. Costa said, Director Jarvis.
You said that when you are talking about adding and
subtracting parking spaces, none of these are going to go back
to the pre-flood numbers. How much does it cost to create a
park campground and parking area? And even if it was flooded,
how much would it actually cost to restore those? I am not
asking a specific figure, but isn't that kind of a minimal
expense that would take place there?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, there are physical amenities that go in
for camping. I mean, absolutely. There are picnic tables and
restrooms and trails, and all of that is a physical asset that
is subject to loss. We certainly saw that during the flood. And
it is a poor investment, frankly, from a Federal investment
standpoint, to put these things back in an area that we know we
are going to lose. With that maintenance backlog of the
National Park Service, that is just a bad investment.
Mr. Bishop. How much did it cost you to dig them up and get
rid of them?
Mr. Jarvis. The flood took them out; we did not put them
back. So----
Mr. Bishop. The flood took out the parking areas, as well?
Mr. Jarvis. The goal here was to move as much of the
facilities that are fiscal investment out of the flood plain
and not into the rockfall zone. That is the challenge that has
been mentioned here and I would suggest that the park has gone
to heroic efforts to find locations in the valley that are
neither in the rockfall zone or in the flood zone to put new
campsites.
And so, alternative five actually proposes an additional
174 sites over current, but not back to pre-flood. We
couldn't----
Mr. Bishop. Oh----
Mr. Jarvis [continuing]. Find the----
Mr. Bishop. What was the pre-flood number?
Mr. Jarvis. Eight hundred and twenty-eight.
Mr. Bishop. So you are going from 828 to?
Mr. Jarvis. Six-forty.
Mr. Bishop. Six-forty. A significant drop. All right.
Can you tell me the purpose of destroying the Sugar Pine
Bridge?
Mr. Jarvis. The Sugar Pine Bridge is essentially a funnel
for the Merced River. It constricts it. Any time you constrict
a river like that during flood conditions, you accelerate its
speed, you cause it to create significant erosion downstream.
And so it is like turning a fire hose on. And the Sugar Pine
Bridge, in particular, is the one bridge in the valley that is
resulting in significant erosion to the banks downstream.
Mr. Bishop. Does that help adjust or control the flow of
the river?
Mr. Jarvis. No, it is not a flood control device.
Mr. Bishop. So the river wouldn't change its path if that
bridge was taken out? And if it would, what is the next site
that is in its path if the river were to change?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, there is--the Sugar Pine Bridge itself,
of all the bridges, is the most significant one of concern. And
it has been the subject of study to determine that if we were
to remove it, the river could function much more normally and
not scour the banks and the river bottom.
Mr. Bishop. Is there a chance it would change its
direction?
Mr. Jarvis. The river is a dynamic system, and it does move
through the valley and has moved through the valley,
historically.
Mr. Bishop. I know. We had one discussion once again where
some of your people were talking to the rivers and asking them
what they were going to do, too.
Ms. Brown, my time is running down. You said there was one
scenic river that runs through Sacramento.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. So if we were just to declare Sacramento as a
wilderness area, wouldn't that help a lot of us?
Ms. Brown. I don't think so.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, all right. Let me get back to a real
question. As you understand it, what is the purpose of that
Wild and Scenic River designation? And is that consistent, in
your mind, with what the Park Service is proposing?
Ms. Brown. No, I don't think it is consistent. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act is to keep it free flowing and wild. I would
remind you that Yosemite Valley is designated recreational, and
it should remain so.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Hoss, I will give you a chance of answering
the question that you wanted to answer with Mr. Costa, if you
can do it in 40 seconds.
Mr. Hoss. Well, Mr. Jarvis believes that if the no-action
alternative is involved, that will encourage litigation. I
disagree totally with that, because settlement agreement is
because the plaintiffs, and not the general public, they are
out of the loop completely in this settlement. But they got
what they bargained for. They have their comprehensive
management plan. They have their attorneys paid. They have no
right to dictate what the Park Service's alternatives are.
Now, the much more likelihood of litigation, if the other
alternatives are adopted, because there is no mediation process
in that.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you.
Mr. Hoss. Anyway----
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hoss. Yes, that is my answer.
Mr. Bishop. My time is concluded. We are going to another
round. Mr. McClintock--I am sorry, never get my--as old as I
am. It is a sad state. Mr. McClintock, please.
Mr. McClintock. That is your first senior moment. Thank you
for sharing it with all of us, Mr. Chairman.
Let me pick up, Mr. Hoss, where you left off. Were any of
the user groups involved in this settlement agreement?
Mr. Hoss. No. I mean----
Mr. McClintock. And how much----
Mr. Hoss. This is an agreement between this tiny group----
Mr. McClintock. And how much did the Park Service agree to
pay the litigants in this settlement?
Mr. Hoss. Over $1 million.
Mr. McClintock. Where did that money come from?
Mr. Hoss. I assume it came from what was supposed to be
prepared flood--who knows? It wasn't authorized.
Mr. McClintock. And Mr. Jarvis has said that he would not
favor the no-action alternative for fear of being sued by this
same group. You have just said, however, that he can expect
lawsuits regardless of what plan is determined. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hoss. That is the pattern that seems to have developed
here. People don't agree on what happens to Yosemite. I think
the worst thing that can happen is lawsuits. I am here to try
to suggest how we might be able to get rid of them. And I think
the best way is to adopt no action, let the Park Service go
back to managing the parks. The whole planning process just
encourages these lawsuits, because somebody is going to be
unhappy, no matter what they do.
Mr. McClintock. Doesn't the NPS position that ``We are
going to choose number five, because otherwise this particular
litigant is going to sue us,'' doesn't that put that particular
litigant in command of the entire policy with respect to the
National Park Service in Yosemite?
Mr. Hoss. That is exactly what I am objecting to. It does
do that. If you want to discourage litigation, the best way to
do it is to adopt no action, in my view, otherwise you are
letting the litigants drive what the Park Service does.
Mr. McClintock. Well, do you think that the NPS should
stand up and challenge the demands of this particular group, on
behalf of all of the users of the park?
Mr. Hoss. I believe so. I believe that is what the general
public wants, at least from what I have heard of what they
want. And they can go back to managing the park. They have the
authority to do that under all kinds of legislation. And they
won't be saddled with the possibility that somebody is going to
sue them if they don't----
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Ouzounian, should the campers be
included in this settlement? Shouldn't the campers be
represented by the NPS as much as it is representing the
litigants in this case?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, I would assume so. I still maintain
that your largest body of respondents to this plan are the
campers that haven't been reached. They scream for supply, they
scream for access, they scream for affordability. They want
their families to enjoy the most precious summer vacation a
kid, a grandpa, would ever want.
Now, I don't know how a no-action plan meets that goal.
Because if I had to trust today's Park Service with fulfilling
our desire, it is not going to be my money on that. I think it
is all going to just stay weeds.
Mr. McClintock. So, again, what you are saying is they have
already come to their decision, they are just coming up with
the excuses to implement it.
Mr. Ouzounian. After 33 years, sir, I believe that has been
the MO.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Jarvis just said that the NPS has gone
to ``heroic efforts'' to restore campgrounds destroyed by the
flood. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Ouzounian. With all due respect to that statement, my
toes are cringing. I watched firepits, I watched picnic tables
being heaped into piles at a cost. Congressman Radanovich asked
me to do a study. He said, ``Would you evaluate it, you being a
contractor? Would you evaluate the cost of repairing these
flood-damaged campgrounds versus putting new campgrounds in,''
like going up in the high country----
Mr. McClintock. After the flood, the then-superintendent of
Yosemite said that this was actually a good thing, because it
allowed for an unprecedented opportunity for positive change.
Have you seen positive change after the floods of 1997?
Mr. Ouzounian. No. Not only that, but BJ Griffin, without a
process--that was the superintendent, I believe, at the time--
took it upon herself to seize a bad moment in time for the park
and capitalize on it for some futuristic plan, which is what we
are talking about today.
Mr. McClintock. Which was to reduce the number of
campsites, the number of parking spaces, and, therefore, the
recreational opportunities afforded the public?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, correct, but under the guise of
transportation, taking out the roads and----
Mr. McClintock. Now, you said that Congress appropriated
$17 million to restore these campsites and parking places. But
you are also telling us that those campsites were not restored
and those parking places were not restored. What happened to
that money?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, according to staff at the Alternative
Workshop, it is gone. They don't know where it went, they
wouldn't tell me where it went. And I asked for an IG through
Senator Feinstein to come on and find out. I do not know the
results of his findings.
Mr. McClintock. What do you anticipate the camping
experience to be 10 years from now, if this plan is
implemented?
Mr. Ouzounian. It is like an endangered animal. It won't
exist. There is no profit in camping.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. I talked on my last round about the things that
we have in common, and I think one of those is trying to ensure
that the amenities continue for future generations to come.
Some of those amenities we have all talked about, having
experienced over the years, that we have enjoyed the national
park.
The horseback riding I am concerned about, not only as it
relates to days, but the potential precedent as it relates to
use throughout the park system, and not only in Yosemite, but
Kings Canyon. Last year there was an attempt to limit the
amount of packing on Kings Canyon. We addressed that.
But, Director Jarvis, there is concern among those who want
to get to the further places. Is there an intention, a plan
going on here with this NPS report to limit access of day use
of horses, as well as backpacking?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. We are strong supporters of--let me
just emphasize that I personally, as director, am a absolute
strong supporter of public use in our national parks. We have
established, as one of our centennial goals in 2016 of four
goals. One of them is connecting people to parks. We deeply
believe that everyone should----
Mr. Costa. All right, but just bottom line. I mean the
intent--but the proposal four here would limit day use for
horse activities.
Mr. Jarvis. Let me try to explain what the context of this
is, if I may. The point behind the proposal on stock use and
bicycle rentals is the physical facility that supports that
activity, is to remove that from the river corridor. So bike
rentals require space. They require staff. They require
storage. They require----
Mr. Costa. At The Ahwahnee Hotel, when I have rented bikes
from there, either we brought the bikes to the hotel, or we
went down to the lodge.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we are looking at the possibility here--
and I have talked to the superintended about, like we have
capital bike share here in Washington, something that is self-
operated--so what we are looking----
Mr. Costa. It is not your intention to take bikes or horses
out of the----
Mr. Jarvis. No, what we are looking at are the physical
facilities.
Mr. Costa. How about the rafting?
Mr. Jarvis. Same thing with rafting. The rafting would be--
to run commercial rafting in the valley, you have to store the
rafts----
Mr. Costa. What if Mr. McClintock and I forget to bring our
rafts?
Mr. Jarvis. There will be raft rentals right outside that
you can arrange, make a phone call, they will deliver a raft to
you. This is about storage of facilities inside the park.
Mr. Costa. All right. Mr. Asquith, you attended many of
these meetings, as you stated for the record. Did you think
that you felt intimidated, or that it was an attempt to be non-
inclusive, in terms of the numerous meetings that I have seen
here as part of the record that took place, and a lot of folks
showed up?
Mr. Asquith. Not at all. In fact, there were a lot of
different mechanisms the Park Service has used to be inclusive.
I recall one meeting that was attended by 130 people in
Yosemite Valley where there were different scenarios put on
large boards the size of the paintings here on the walls, and
people were given colored dots. If you think this is a bad
idea, go stick a red one on it. It is like your colored lights.
If you think this is an OK idea, put a yellow one on it, and a
really good one, put a green. So people were anonymous in
voting for things that they wanted to do, 130-some people, and
they had all the time to do it. They had an hour to go analyze,
read them, and pick it. So not at all were they intimidating.
Mr. Costa. And so what do you think is the biggest
challenge facing the park?
Mr. Asquith. Well----
Mr. Costa. Since you decided to move from Silicon Valley to
be right next to it.
Mr. Asquith. I think, honestly, the park is crowded during
the summer months.
Mr. Costa. Yes, I pointed that out to begin with.
Mr. Asquith. Well, and that is when everybody wants to
come.
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Asquith. So I, as a gateway resident----
Mr. Costa. Might change----
Mr. Asquith. No, I try to find parts of the park that
aren't crowded.
Mr. Costa. No, I invite people to come all the time. But I
say, ``If you can avoid between Memorial Day and Labor Day,
that is''----
Mr. Asquith. But the challenge for the Park Service is how
to manage that time, because that is the time a lot of--
particularly Americans, and in particular, Californians, are
able to----
Mr. Costa. Well, children are out of school and I mean, it
is----
Mr. Asquith. Exactly.
Mr. Costa. We understand the challenge.
Mr. Asquith. Well, and the other challenge, I think, is the
physical real estate. I have----
Mr. Costa. Nobody wants to go to an area that is 7 miles
long and about a mile wide.
Mr. Asquith. Well, it is----
Mr. Costa. Conflicting areas of the flood plain, I mean,
what a lot of people don't realize is those beautiful rocks
that you come to admire are always evolving. And I have been
there when you have these falls take place, and the crashing of
these rocks. So you have a narrow band there, because the
closer you are to those cliffs, I mean, the hazards--people
have lost their lives, and there have been serious injuries as
a result of that continuing erosion of the valley floor.
Mr. Asquith. They record one major rockfall a week in
Yosemite, and that----
Mr. Costa. On the valley floor.
Mr. Asquith. Yes, in the valley. So not catastrophic, but
one significant rockfall a week. So I would not like to be
camping in the place where the rockfall happens.
Mr. Costa. I wouldn't, either.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will give you a chance to ask
additional questions here, as well. Most of you have done a
good job of answering the questions I had ahead of time when
responding to everybody else here, so I only have a very, very
few last questions.
First of all, I would like to tell your people to come to
Utah. We actually welcome you and we would be happy having the
rest of you come up there. If Yosemite doesn't want you, come
up to Utah.
First question, though, Mr. Jarvis, the court decision, the
latest one with the ninth circuit--not necessarily one of the
greatest circuits we have, but the ninth circuit--was that
settlement done under your watch, or was it done prior to you?
Mr. Jarvis. That is a good question. That was while I was
regional director, not while I was director.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you, I appreciate that. One of
you mentioned that the idea of making this a Wild and Scenic
River was added in the Senate. I don't know who testified to
that. And that was--it was not done in the House version but in
the Senate addition?
Mr. Hoss. That is my understanding of the legislative
history which I have looked at, is that the proposal to the
House was Tony Coelho's, which excluded Yosemite Valley. The
Senate said, ``Well, there is a management plan already in
effect, 1980, which hasn't really been carried out. So let's
just tack that on as an amendment so that they can do a plan.''
They were required to do a plan.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Hoss. It was never intended to have any effect on
existing development in Yosemite. And there is a record to
support that, if anybody wants to challenge----
Mr. Bishop. That is another good reason why never to trust
anything that comes out of the Senate. And we have a couple of
major bills this month. Good memory to have there.
Mr. Hoss. An unintended consequence would be the way I
would characterize----
Mr. Bishop. The Senate is an unintended consequence, yes.
Mr. Hoss. Well----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Ouzounian, if I could ask you one last
question about the Upper and Lower River campgrounds, in your
opinion, would it be--I mean the Park Service has talked about
the cost of continuing repairing that. Would it be too costly
to repair and use those campgrounds?
Mr. Ouzounian. No. It would have been less costly had they
seized the opportunity, like, $20 to one, for repair, $20 for
new, under the Radanovich estimate I made at the time.
Now, marginally, it is still less, because the
infrastructure for the sewage system is still in place.
Mr. Bishop. Go back to the premise of this being made here
that it has a chance of being flooded again in the future, and
therefore you will be constantly repairing that.
Mr. Ouzounian. Gee, is that breaking news, sir? I mean I
don't mean to be indignant, but it has always flooded. Let me
ask you the basic question. Would you rather have fixed-roof
structures flood, or campgrounds with picnic tables and
barbeques to rearrange? I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it is
very obvious. Campgrounds have withstood the test of time
because they are flood-resistant.
Mr. Bishop. I get the point. I appreciate it.
Mr. Ouzounian. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. That is why I have already invited you to Utah.
I don't have any other questions of these witnesses.
Mr. McClintock, do you have a final few?
Mr. McClintock. Just a few more. Ms. Brown, a bipartisan
group of congressmen asked for an extension of the public
comment period. The Park Service said it couldn't possibly push
back the August deadline for a decision, and therefore could
only extend the comment period by 12 days.
Now, they are asking the deadline to be moved to December,
but not for public comment. What is your reaction to that?
Ms. Brown. Who has asked the----
Mr. McClintock. The Park Service.
Ms. Brown. For their decision?
Mr. McClintock. They have asked that the decision be moved
back to December.
Ms. Brown. I don't think that is fair, when we were only
given 12 days. They should not be allowed any kind of an
extension.
Mr. McClintock. Let me ask you this. The director says
that--in fact, Director Jarvis, let me ask you this question.
You said that you are bending over backwards to connect people
to the parks. But, for example, part of this plan is to take
out the snack shop. So, my question would be, where does a dad
go to get ice cream for the kids on hot summer's day?
Mr. Jarvis. There will be plenty of places still in the
valley that they can get a ice cream----
Mr. McClintock. How far from the existing facility?
Mr. Jarvis. There are nodes of snack shops and food
services throughout the valley, and we have a transportation--
--
Mr. McClintock. How far?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know that answer. I can get you that
data, if you like.
Mr. McClintock. Well, a 30-minute, 30-second walk? A 1-
minute walk? How far?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know the answer to that. I mean
everything is reasonable----
Mr. McClintock. How about the grocery store? That is going.
So where does a family go to get the extra charcoal briquettes
for the barbeque?
Mr. Jarvis. A grocery store is staying.
Mr. McClintock. One of them is going. Mr. Hoss?
Mr. Hoss. I believe that the housekeeping camp grocery
store is going. Now, let me talk about the effect of that.
People stay at the housekeeping camp. They need food and
supplies. There is a store at Camp Curry. If you close the
housekeeping camp facility, then the people get in their cars
to drive to Camp Curry to buy the groceries, and they increase
traffic congestion. That is asinine, in my opinion.
Mr. McClintock. Is that also going to happen to the
relocation of the bike rentals, the horseback rentals, and so
forth?
Mr. Hoss. The facilities where people buy things should be
spread out over the valley, instead of concentrating them all
in one place. You concentrate them all in one place----
Mr. McClintock. Well, and how far will----
Mr. Hoss [continuing]. You get traffic congestion.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, and how far will people have to go if
they want to rent a raft?
Mr. Hoss. Well, I am not sure where they propose to
relocate these facilities.
Mr. McClintock. When I was there I was told Wawona is going
to be the location----
Mr. Hoss. Well, that would be 20 miles, at least an hour's
drive. And to rent a raft in Wawona and drive 20 miles makes
certainly no sense to me. There are certainly places in the
valley, if they want to get them out of the river corridor,
they could do that without taking them to Wawona.
Mr. McClintock. Well, they are taking out the swimming
pools. Where are kids going to go swimming in the summer----
Mr. Hoss. The only time you can comfortably swim in the
river is about 2 months in the summer. It is too cold or too
dangerous----
Mr. McClintock. But they are taking out the swimming pool.
So where are the kids going to go?
Mr. Hoss. Well, they don't have any place to swim.
Mr. McClintock. Except the river.
Mr. Hoss. Yes. Well, the river, you can't swim in the river
for a great deal of the time.
Mr. McClintock. Not safely, anyway.
Mr. Hoss. That is right. So the river is no substitute for
swimming pools.
Mr. McClintock. Well, again, under this proposal it sounds
like it is going to have to be. Mr. Ouzounian?
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, I'm in favor of swimming pools, I
don't see how they damage the river. But in this whole
environmental concept, I would much rather the kids play in the
swimming pool than play in the river. Just think of the
logistics. I mean they have showers----
Mr. McClintock. That choice is about to be taken away from
them.
Mr. Ouzounian. Well, so then when it is 95 degrees outside,
guess where people are going to go? It is the same deal at Half
Dome. I have got to do it. They are going to go to the river.
Now, on a high-swift day, that could be very problematic and
dangerous. But they are going to want to go in the river when
it is 95 degrees.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Brown, how long has the Sugar Pine
Bridge been there?
Ms. Brown. I don't know the answer to that question, but I
would be happy to find out.
Mr. McClintock. Does it date back to the 1920s, I think
1927 or 1928?
Ms. Brown. The 1920s? That sounds correct.
Mr. McClintock. Isn't it on the register of historic sites?
Ms. Brown. Yes, it is, and----
Mr. McClintock. And suddenly it is a great threat to the
flow of the river, according to the Director, after all of
these years.
Ms. Brown. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. What would removal of that bridge do to
visitor access?
Ms. Brown. To visitor access?
Mr. McClintock. Yes.
Ms. Brown. Well, they plan on putting big wood back into
the river, as well. I don't think that is a good idea, because
it will keep the visitors from getting to the river.
Mr. McClintock. Can you give us some sense of community
sentiment on this plan? I conducted a telephone conference with
the folks that live in the adjoining communities, the gateway
communities, the local folks. More than 25,000 people joined
the call. More than 80 percent--in fact, substantially more
than 80 percent were against this plan. So the local community
sentiment, to me, seems to be very negative on it. What is your
impression?
Ms. Brown. I believe you are correct in that. My husband
and I were in on that call and listened in. The majority of the
people that called in were against the plan, and there were
very, very few that were for it.
Mr. McClintock. We actually did a keyed poll during that
poll.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. And it was more than 80 percent in
opposition.
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Ouzounian. Sir, one thing that bridge supports is a
road, and we have an issue of public egress if there is a
tragedy some of the rockfalls. You take out that bridge, you
take out the road. In fact, that is the case for all of the
bridges.
There is also a thing called engineering standards that can
be implemented to mitigate the problem that Director Jarvis has
talked about. No one is talking about engineering. Why is that
off the table? You can engineer the bank reconstruction and
help that river.
Mr. McClintock. Just one quick question, if the Chairman
will indulge me. Ms. Brown and Mr. Hoss, what is the impact
going to be on tourism to all of the communities that depend on
that Yosemite-bound tourism for their business?
Mr. Hoss. Well, Ms. Brown should address that. I am not
actually a resident of Mariposa; she is.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Ms.----
Ms. Brown. Yes, I have lived there for 42 years, and it
will affect the local economies. If the recreational activities
are eliminated, there will be less visitation. And our outlying
gateway communities will suffer.
Mr. McClintock. In fact, after the flood, visitation to the
park dropped by about 25 percent, and didn't return to pre-
flood levels until very recently. Is that correct?
Ms. Brown. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. And----
Ms. Brown. We have all experienced that in our local
gateway communities.
Mr. McClintock. Would that, in part, be due to the fact
that the number of campsites and parking spaces were
dramatically reduced?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Hoss. May I make one comment? Something that hasn't
been brought up here yet. You have almost 150 years of
recreational use. You have no real degradation of the river in
that time. That is because of good management, to a great
extent, but there is no actual degradation of the river. This
is an issue that just comes up because of the enactment of
something that was never intended to apply in the first place.
There are other more important problems that the Park Service
needs to deal with, than worrying about the degradation of the
river.
And I have to disagree categorically that the visitor
services degrade the river. The visitor services are what the
park is for, and what it should be preserved for.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. McClintock, I----
Mr. McClintock. Thank you so much for your indulgence.
Mr. Bishop. I only have one real question, one sarcastic
question and a statement left. Do you want to finish?
Mr. McClintock. I just wanted to thank you for arranging
this hearing today. I believe that we are at a significant
crossroads in the purposes to which the national parks will be
put, and whether we are going to continue to honor the promise
that has been honored to the American people for the past 150
years that public lands, in particularly Yosemite, will be
there for the public use, resort, and recreation for all time,
or whether it will be turned to a radically different purpose
that is, at its core, exclusionary and elitist.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me ask a
legitimate question.
Ms. Brown, you said they were wanting to put big wood into
the river. I don't understand what that means.
Ms. Brown. Yes. They have plans to do some biotechnical
engineering along the river banks. They are going to remove the
riprap, which up to now has worked just fine to retain the
banks and hold the river back from taking out the roads. They
want to remove that riprap. It is already working. They want to
replace it with plants. I have camped by rivers. I know what
rivers can do. And they can create oxbows. The banks will move,
especially if the bridges were removed.
Mr. Bishop. So the vegetation is what you meant by big
wood.
Ms. Brown. No.
Mr. Bishop. No.
Ms. Brown. They will put in vegetation and then they will
put big wood back into the river to make it more natural.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I don't know if--thank you.
Mr. Ouzounian. Landscaping.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. You explained it, and I am as dumb as I was
before.
Let me ask the sarcastic one to the Director, if I could.
In one of your other areas, on a Wild and Scenic recreation
area, river, you have banned any activity that involves
paddles. I am assuming you are going to allow people to paddle
in this river.
Mr. Jarvis. Oh, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Good. If you do it in the other one, I would be
even happier, too, at the same time.
Let me do the last one. I think this is maybe a shout out
to the professionals. One of the things that I feel frustrated
by here is much of what we are going through as a result, once
again, of court litigation and the concept of suing and
settling. The idea that the court should be a driver of policy
that deals with our public lands is really a fairly recent
paradigm shift. It goes back maybe five, six decades, at the
most. And it is a paradigm shift.
It didn't happen originally, the reason that we give so
much precedence to this process right now is simply in the way
we address our issues and the way we handle ourselves. It
doesn't have to be that way. And it seems like every 70 years
we do have paradigm shifts about public lands, how they are
used, how they will be maintained. It is about time to look at
this phenomenon of the role the courts play in coming up with
policy toward our lands. And it is about time for another
paradigm shift. And I feel that is--not only it is coming, but
it is long overdue.
Unless there is any last thing you want to say, Mr.
McClintock, I want to thank the panel. Many of you have flown a
great distance to be here. Well, all of you have flown a great
distance to be here. Mr. Jarvis, we appreciate you taking the
time to join us on this particular panel. I appreciate what you
are doing within the Park Service and for all your testimony.
If there is anything additionally you would like to add to
the testimony, put it in writing, we will accept it. There may
be some questions from Members--obviously not here, but there
will be questions from other Members that could be sent to you.
If there are, we would ask you to respond to those in a timely
manner.
With that, I have the last thing I need to say formally.
Wish I knew what it was. Which I have to--oh, I am supposed to
thank you for being here. I think I already did that. And ask
you to answer questions. I think I already did that. So,
without objection, we stand in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]