Campers, residents lambaste NPS's revised Merced River plan

Mariposa Gazette
by Karen Dusek
Wednesday, September 1, 2004

A series of public meetings and hearings intended to elicit input on Yosemite National Park's Revised Merced River Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) concluded Aug. 19 in Mariposa. Two other meetings were held earlier in the week in Oakland and El Portal.

Nine of about 25 people attending the meeting testified before Park officials. Prior to the hearing, some criticized the National Park Service (NPS) for not offering more meetings throughout the state and for inadequate notification and publicity of the events. A few questioned why testimony was limited to three minutes per person when a total of two hours had been allotted for the public hearing portion of the meeting. They were told that limitations were set during previous hearings due to the large number of people who wanted to present testimony and that it would not be fair to allow some speakers more time than others. Any comments beyond the allotted time could be presented in writing, a Park representative said.

The Merced was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1987 and a comprehensive management plan and final environmental impact statement was submitted by the NPS, which manages the 81 miles of the river that flow through Yosemite, in 2000. The plan was challenged in U.S. District Court by Friends of Yosemite Valley (FoYV) and Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (MERG), who charged that it failed "to protect and enhance the natural values of the Merced River."

Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found the plan invalid because it did not adequately address user capacity in the Park, nor properly define the river boundaries in El Portal.

The court ordered the park service to prepare a new or revised plan and supplemental environmental impact statement that addresses those two deficiencies by July 2005.

Many of the speakers who offered comments at the meeting asked Park officials to consider increasing the number of camp sites and parking spaces in the valley.

"The Park needs to be accessible to a wide range of people," said Steve Welch, a resident of Bass Lake and manager of a resort business. "If accessibility is not affordable and convenient, visitorship will decrease."

Welch said that he supports restoring the river campgrounds in the valley that were destroyed during the 1997 flood and increasing the number of day use parking spaces "to at least 2,000."

Nancy Sikes, executive director of the Tuolumne County Visitors Bureau commented that she is in favor of Rep. George Radanovich's proposal to restore the valley campgrounds and expand parking "to at least 1,200 sites."

Fish Camp resident Max Stauffer urged officials to "consider a common sense approach to Park management that isn't overly restrictive," while Brian Ouzounian, a member of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition from Santa Monica, called campers "a disenfranchised group" that "are not part of the plan and haven't been part of the plan." He suggested that a lack of notices about the meeting on campground bulletin boards indicated that the NPS is "afraid of campers if they were all notified."

Lou Aceto of Oakhurst asked officials to consider a question that had once been posed to him: "If you could start over, what would you put in Yosemite?" and a representative from Senator Dianne Feinstein's Fresno office observed that the senator is "an avid camper" and hopes the park service "will consider all aspects" when developing the plan. After the hearing, she said that the senator has not yet taken a position on the plan.

Joyce Eden, co-director of FoYV, also expressed concern that low-cost campsites may be replaced with expensive hotel rooms that the average family cannot afford. Following the hearing, Eden, who attended all three meetings, which she described as "poorly attended," added that, while she appreciates the park service's efforts to seek public input, she believes the public scoping period should be extended since many interested parties did not receive notification until the process was well underway. (The park service responded by extending the public comment period to Sept. 10.) She further emphasized the importance of producing a "protective" plan that will be viable for the next 20 years.

"We are in a paroxysm of Park projects," Eden said. "Unbelievable amounts of money are pouring into the Park, and the Park is constructing, bulldozing, paving. All of the projects were planned without a valid river plan in place. The Park needs to step back and develop a protective river plan, then look at the projects against the plan to see whether they are valid or not."

"Providing amenities in Yosemite that people can get in urban/suburban towns degrades Yosemite. It is a special place that needs and deserves protection. It's not just another resort with great views," Eden concluded.

Written comments postmarked no later than mid-night, Sept. 10, may be mailed to : Superintendent, Attn: Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, CA 95389. Comments may also be submitted by fax to 209-379-1294 or e-mail to Yose_Planning@nps.gov.

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