Congressional Testimony on Radanovich bill

Committee on Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
1333 Longworth House Office Building
Hon. George P. Radanovich, Chairman
Hon. Donna M. Christensen, Ranking Member

Fax: 202 226 2301

Please enter this written testimony into the Congressional Record as a part of the hearing on H.R. 2715 and distribute it to the Members of the Subcommittee.

Testimony by Friends of Yosemite Valley for the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, concerning H.R. 2715, "To provide for necessary improvements to facilities at Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes." 108 Congress, 1st Session.

The Friends of Yosemite Valley opposes H.R. 2715.

Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, & Public Lands:

We ask Congress to consider the following discussion and requests. It has been shown time and again that the vast majority of the citizens of the United States of America wish to preserve, protect, and restore Yosemite Valley and Yosemite National Park. They wish to enjoy its intrinsic gifts, and visit it in a manner which will preserve it for future generations. We recognize Yosemite as a special and precious part of our natural and cultural common heritage and legacy.

Unfortunately, the Yosemite Valley Plan does not protect that heritage or its legacy, nor does this bill. Despite public relations campaigns to the contrary, the Yosemite Valley Plan is overwhelmingly a development plan, not a restoration plan. It's price tag of over 441,000,000 of taxpayers dollars attests to that. It's long lists of construction and pavement projects attest to that.

The Yosemite Valley Plan was not based on a protective Merced River Plan, to the contrary, the Merced River Plan which should have protected the values of the River, instead formed the basis for even more development and pavement in Yosemite Valley and elsewhere in Yosemite National Park (see the Yosemite Valley Plan itself for details.)

It often happens when people perceive problems, in trying to solve those problems, we end up creating new and even worse problems. This is what both the Yosemite Valley Plan and H.R. 2715 do.

Regarding location of Park facilities outside the boundaries of Yosemite National Park (Park): While it is often preferable to locate facilities outside the Park, it is neither necessary nor proper for the taxpayers of the United States to be paying to subsidize private for-profit companies to build and run the facilities outside the Park called for in this bill.

FIRSTLY, the heart of the problem is the continuing commercialization of Yosemite National Park through taxpayers' subsidies to a private monopoly concessionaire. This directly creates an incompatibility of goals. A private for-profit company is motivated to increase profits -- by increasing the numbers of visitors, charging higher prices, and selling more goods. There is a difference between the National Park Service providing modest, clean, and safe accommodations for visitors who come to enjoy the intrinsic values of the Park, and a for-profit private concessionaire to whom visitors are customers to entice into the Park in order to spend money. While this situation was set up in Yosemite many years ago, it is no longer sustainable. The reasons for its inception are no longer valid -- to entice moneyed and influential visitors who would support the idea of keeping this land as a common heritage to preserve for present and future generations of visitors, ie, a National Park. That was a century ago.The public no longer needs to be convinced of the value of preserving Yosemite -- the public understands it.

Yosemite today is marketed as a tourist destination not only by the concessionaire but by the National Park Service -- eg the Park Service sent public employees on a junket to a large tourist convention in China -- which only serves to draw more tourists for a cursory visit to the park spending a chunk of money, in-and-out of the Park to buy food, use the bathroom, take a few souvenir photos, purchase gifts at the gift shop, and leave, all within approximately 2 - 3 hours. What have they gotten out of the visit, and at what cost to Yosemite? Don't we want people to be able to enjoy the Park for its intrinsic values, but not to destroy it for commercial values?

The amount of employees necessary to live in Yosemite Valley is driven by the amount and type of concessions. Lodging in Yosemite creates the need for more employees than does camping. Restaurants and sports bars, a golf course with a pro shop, ice cream parlors, souvenir shops and boutiques create the need for more employees than do a basic grocery store and modest snack bars. Are we providing for a national park or a resort? It is perhaps informative to note that the Yosemite concessionaire has announced its recent name change from Yosemite Concession Services Corporation to DNC Parks & Resorts [our emphasis] at Yosemite, Inc

. SECONDLY, Yosemite National Park is no longer in the midst of wilderness with no nearby cities or accommodations. Now the areas around Yosemite National Park contain communities, and a private sector which can develop, build, and run necessary housing, be it for purchase or rental, for Yosemite National Park and concessionaire employees. Lodging already exists in abundance in the gateway communities and has increased greatly since 1997. New Lodging is not needed in the Park, nor is it necessary for taxpayers to subsidize housing for employees of a private company.

Public subsidizing of private companies in the Park or outside the Park puts the small local businesses, including lodges, at a disadvantage and puts them at risk of failure, as it provides an unfair uncompetitive boost to selected larger non-local commercial entities. It also creates incentives for large buildouts of small-town communities which may compromise the character, uniqueness, and quality of life, valued by the local community. More buildings and businesses based on corporations with faraway headquarters who amass their profits in the local communities, but move them out does not in and of itself necessarily bring benefits to the local economy. Whereas small businesses with owners who live in the community contribute more economically and serve to enhance their own community in a variety of ways, some unquantifiable.

THIRDLY, that which cannot be replaced in the surrounding communities or in other areas of Yosemite are modest campsites which enable visitors to camp in Yosemite Valley. Replacing these campsites by constructing new campsites in other areas of Yosemite National Park merely creates new and spreading impacts in other areas -- this is a classic case of sprawl. Moving and/or spreading impacts is neither a benefit nor an improvement.

Therefore, Friends of Yosemite Valley, as it has since 1997, asks Congress to seriously consider removal of some or most of the Yosemite Valley Lodge complex, and replace it with campsites; rather than building new, more costly lodging at Yosemite Lodge, as is called for in the expensive construction plan known as the Yosemite Valley Plan. Will we maintain a National Park accessible to the average family, or turn Yosemite into an exclusive resort with spectacular views, shutting out the average family?

The National Park Service closed 40% of Yosemite Valley campsites to the public in 1997 after the flood. The campsites were not "destroyed" by the flood. A flood does not destroy campsites, it washes over campsites. A few of the older picnic tables were destroyed, most were merely turned over. A few bear boxes were washed into the River, but most were fine, just needed some sand removal. Campground bathrooms were flooded and overflowed; however, this latter could have been prevented with inexpensive valves.

The closure of these campsites was never presented to the public for comment, but rather was presented as a fait accompli by the National Park Service in the Draft and final Yosemite Valley Plan. It is informative to observe what has happened to Lower River and Upper River campsites since 1997, the ones in question in this bill. A wonderful revegetation has and is taking place at Lower River due to nature's work and the beneficial benign neglect of the Park Service. Young dogwoods and oaks, bunch grasses and wildflowers are proliferating. Yosemite's wildlife is returning to the area. The remaining pathways are serving as bike paths, used by visitors to enjoy the peaceful revegetated area. The flood-created a new white sand beach in this area where the visitors enjoy strolling and sitting near the River. The Park's most attractive, but unused in the last 5 1/2 years, amphitheater is in this area. (It is walking distance and easily accessed from existing lodging and campgrounds.) This amphitheater is slated to be destroyed, while a new amphitheater which can never authentically replace it, is slated to be built at North Pines. North Pines campground is one of the most pleasant campgrounds in Yosemite Valley, it is also slated to be removed!

During the last 5 1/2 years, the Upper River campsite has been used as a dump by the National Park Service; however, in spite of this a natural revegetation is taking place.

NOTE: Most of the claimed restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan is due to the 40% reductions in campsites in Yosemite Valley which were closed BEFORE even scoping for the Yosemite Valley Plan. Take that away, and there is very little restoration in the Yosemite Valley Plan -- as we said, it is mainly a construction and pavement plan.

CAMP 6:
The National Park Service (NPS) expanded and graded the Camp 6 area into a parking lot before the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan was even put out for public comment. In fact the NPS started this expansion and grading during the scoping period for the Merced River Plan. The Camp 6 area was subsequently identified by the NPS in the Yosemite Valley Plan to be a highly sensitive area. We note that the VIP (Valley Implementation Plan), which preceded and was replaced by the Yosemite Valley Plan, called for this sensitive area in the Merced River's floodplain to be either revegetated or turned into a picnic area -- not a parking lot with its attendant run-off of toxic fluids into the Merced Wild and Scenic River.

This Camp 6 parking lot has further disrupted traffic circulation in Yosemite Valley and created an incredibly dangerous intersection. It will further degrade rather than improve the view from Glacier Point with the reflection of sun on the windshields of the automobiles and buses, not to mention a new giant parking lot on which to look down. Yet this bill appears to call for even more or sooner expansion of Camp 6 parking lot, a parking lot which should have never been instituted in the first place.

LECONTE LODGE:
The LeConte Memorial Lodge was built by the Sierra Club in 1904 in order to commemorate not only the person of Joseph LeConte, but also his principles. The LeConte Lodge represents one of the most important values of Yosemite as a National Park -- the opportunity for visitors to enrich their experience of Yosemite through free, public, volunteer-led interpretive programs of nature, art, music, science, and history for adults, children, and families.

The LeConte Lodge is reaching its centennial. It is owned by the National Park Service and thus the American people. It is managed by the Sierra Club on a volunteer basis as a public building which provides access to the public to programs which explain and educate about the values of Yosemite National Park. Around 15,000 Yosemite visitors participate yearly in the programs. It commemorates Joseph LeConte, an eminent Professor of Geology at the University of Berkeley, who not only studied Yosemite's geology; but was devoted to and in awe of Yosemite Valley. He led his geology students on pilgrimages to Yosemite to inspire them in the sciences. When he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he came to Yosemite to die, but drew sustenance from Yosemite and lived on for another decade or two.

If LeConte Lodge is to be considered for removal from Yosemite Valley or the Park, then certainly the proliferation of non-historic concession buildings which have already been replaced numerous times over by similar services in the gateway communities, should not only also be removed; but would be a priority to be removed long before LeConte Lodge -- which has many higher priority Park values as discussed above. Also, as stated above, let's start by removing the buildings with no historic or interpretive or natural values, and whose services already exist in the gateway communities, such as the Yosemite Lodge complex which could and should be replaced by a more suitable and needed campground to serve average, low income, and other families who enjoy and want access to Yosemite Valley campsites.

This would also be a huge savings to American taxpayers instead of the tens of millions of dollars it would cost to build those new, unneeded, Yosemite Lodge buildings as per the Yosemite Valley Plan. The buildings, would provide a subsidy to a private corporation via the American taxpayer, and be paid for mostly by average American families, who will not even be able to afford to stay in them.

STAGING AREAS AND YARTS:
While it is unclear to us what H.R. 2715 intends regarding staging areas, YARTS, and buses, we will make a few comments on this. More development requires more employees who require more housing, which requires more parking spaces, and more traveling, and more automobile or bus trips. The more upscale the concessions, the more employees required to service those concessions, and trucks to transport the souvenir and consumer goods into Yosemite and the waste out.

There are many common sense, low tech solutions to the perception of traffic "congestion" in Yosemite Valley. We will not enumerate them here. We have turned these in as specific written comments and suggestions numerous times to the NPS during many public comment periods, so the NPS has them in their records.

Adding more buses to the already heavy mix of air pollutants generated by traffic, Yosemite Valley diesel generators, wood burning fireplaces, ongoing, and mostly unnecessary, Yosemite construction under the Yosemite Valley Plan for years to come, and more buses which look to be diesel or diesel hybrid for the foreseeable future, means more pollution, not less, more degradation of the visitor experience, not less. And less opportunities for quiet contemplation, spontaneous explorations of paths, and chance encounters of wildlife. If the solution to the perception of automobile "congestion" is diesel (or hybrid-diesel) pollution, bus noise, visual intrusion, probably more costs associated with busing in the future, the amplified experience of crowding from being forced into large buses, yet more pavement both in Yosemite Valley and in other areas of the Park for "staging" areas, and more buses traveling the highways and rural roads into and through the gateway communities and into Yosemite. Such a scenario speaks against the further development, crowding, and pavement, which is embodied in the Yosemite Valley plan, and which we oppose.

Effective public transportation requires a certain mass of people. Yosemite does not have the critical mass required. In order to have that many people, it would vastly degrade the Park and probably the gateway communities. The Yosemite Valley Plan throws out the visitor use levels for developed areas presented in the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan, yet replaces those numbers with NO NUMBERS. It provides for unlimited growth. A formula for degradation.

We appreciate that Congressman Radanovich has taken a fresh look at some aspects of the Yosemite Valley Plan, and reopened the discussion. The Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan needs to be reopened, the Yosemite Valley Plan needs to be based on a protective Merced River Plan, reevaluated to provide for real protection for Yosemite National Park, and for equitable access.

We thank Congressman Radanovich and the Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, & Public Lands for giving us this opportunity to comment,

Joyce M Eden, on behalf of Friends of Yosemite Valley

Home | About FoYV | Issues | Press | Legal | References | Links | Contacts | Get Involved