Yosemite Once Again a Battleground

Mariposa congressman wants to change Clinton-era plan

by Glen Martin
San Francisco Chronicle - July 27, 2003

If Yosemite Valley has ever looked lovelier than it has in the past year, it was probably during the tenure of John Muir.

Recent restoration programs have rehabilitated trampled meadows, transformed former campgrounds into sun-dappled woodlands and reconfigured eroded, unsightly trails.

But some portions of the valley's ambitious face-lift could fall flat because of a renewed battle over two competing visions for the park's future.

One, dictated by a management plan passed during the Clinton administration and now in effect, promotes ecological restoration and rigorous protection of the valley's wild splendor.

The other, exemplified by a bill introduced this month by Rep. George Radanovich, emphasizes easy access to the valley in order to avail the "Yosemite experience" to the greatest possible number of average citizens.

Those two sets of values seemed cast in exceptionally high relief on a recent weekday, as hordes of fervent recreationists teemed on, over and around the valley's natural wonders.

Flotillas of rafters drifted down the pellucid Merced River. Bicyclists packed the pathways that wend past the meadows and through the groves of ponderosa pine and black oak. Phalanxes of day hikers jostled each other on the trails to the valley's signature waterfalls, which are still pumping after a wet winter and late snowmelt.

They came from all over the world to see this fabled landscape, and few were immune to its magic.

"It's really an incomparable place," said Peter White, a Briton walking on the Mist Trail to Vernal Falls. "There's really nothing like this in Europe."

Until this month, the valley's future seemed solidly predicated on a plan that emphasized reducing traffic and the development "footprint."

Approved at the end of the Clinton administration, the Yosemite Valley Plan was adopted after several years of study and about 10,000 public comments.

Under the plan, large portions of forest and meadowland would be restored, hundreds of campsites would be retired, parking spaces would be slashed from 1, 500 to fewer than 600 and an ambitious public transportation system would be instituted.

About 15 projects authorized by the plan are already under way, and the effects are dramatic.

Formerly dog-eared meadows are now luxuriant with native bunchgrasses and perennials.

Milkweed -- a handsome indigenous plant that is the sole food of monarch butterfly larvae -- is especially abundant. The rare butterflies now swarm the milkweed stands in the morning and early afternoon, laying their eggs on the broad, light-green leaves.

Two erstwhile campgrounds -- which once supported a total of 350 campsites and were inundated by a 1997 flood on the Merced River -- have been utterly transformed. What were formerly two of the busiest places in the valley are now peaceful riparian woodland.

Work is proceeding apace on a multitude of other projects, including the replacement of the valley's old diesel buses with new low-pollution shuttle vehicles.

But Radanovich's bill, introduced July 14, would overturn much of the valley plan.

Radanovich, the Mariposa Republican who chairs the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Land, wants to rebuild about 150 campsites in the old river campgrounds, increase parking spaces in the valley and quash the shuttle project.

In a dig at the Sierra Club, Radanovich's bill also calls for the demolition of the LeConte Memorial Lodge, a historic building that the conservation group occupies under a special use permit from the National Park Service.

Initially, it looked like the bill didn't have much of a chance because the Bush administration supported the valley plan.

But during the past week, administration officials have drifted from four-square support of the plan to ambiguity.

"We have not taken a final position on (the Radanovich bill)," said Craig Manson, assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior.

"The administration has not repudiated the valley plan, but we talk to Congressman Radanovich and his staff on an almost daily basis. We are willing to work with him and other interests. We want cooperative solutions."

During a tour of the park Tuesday, Interior Deputy Secretary Steven Griles also indicated some sympathy for the Radanovich bill.

"We stand by the valley plan, but within that context, there are needs for additional camping," said Griles. "Not everyone can afford the Ahwahnee (an expensive hotel in the valley). We want to work with all interested parties, including Congressman Radanovich."

Those reactions have alarmed environmentalists.

"I think Radanovich genuinely cares about the park, but he's misguided about the best way to protect it," said Courtney Cuff, the Pacific regional director of the National Parks Conservation Association.

"Radanovich's bill would basically gut the valley plan," Cuff said. "The plan isn't perfect, but it's very good. It's what we have, and we should move forward on it."

The public comments demonstrated that the plan is "the direction people want to go," said Cuff.

"It doesn't take away campsites from the park -- it just moves them out of the valley," she said. "It actually increases the total number of campsites in the park while simultaneously improving the valley experience for everyone."

Jay Watson, the Western regional director of the Wilderness Society, condemned the reaction of the Bush administration to the bill.

"The administration's previous stance on the valley plan was the one bright spot in an otherwise abysmal environmental record," Watson said. "By not overtly opposing a hostile bill, they may have put the valley at risk."

But Geoff Embler, a spokesman for Radanovich, said the bill merely addresses some shortcomings in the plan.

"It doesn't tear apart the whole plan -- it just identifies some specific problems," Embler said.

By heavily restricting cars and parking, Embler said, the plan makes it difficult for people to visit the valley.

"The congressman strongly believes the National Park Service has a dual role in preserving the environment and ensuring the parks are accessible to the public," Embler said. "Neither should take precedence. It's no good having a park if people can't enjoy it."

Embler said Radanovich, who has often camped in Yosemite, wants to make sure affordable camping remains an option in the valley.

"The National Parks Service has in fact said it would be feasible to restore 144 of the campsites (at the Merced River Campgrounds) in an environmentally sound fashion," Embler said. "(Radanovich) wants to preserve a 150-foot buffer strip along the river and keep out concrete pads. It would be very low impact."

Among the bill's supporters is Peggy Mosley, the owner of the Groveland Hotel in the hamlet of Groveland, just west of the park on Highway 120.

"I depend on park visitors for my business," Mosley said, "and the simple fact is that people resist taking public transportation to the valley. Families in particular need their cars -- to pack their gear in, to get easily from one place to the other. The buses take too long and are far too inconvenient, especially if you have kids."

As for camping, Mosley said, "Camping in the valley is the defining Yosemite experience. Sleeping by the river, with the moon shining on the granite walls and the stars overhead -- that's why people go there. Without that, they would just as soon go somewhere else."

But an informal poll of hikers and campers on the valley floor and adjacent trails indicated that plenty of people are willing to come to the valley, regardless of impediments.

Of 10 people interviewed, all said they favored less development and traffic in the valley, and that they are willing to take public transportation to get there.

"We're staying outside the park,and we're using the shuttle bus to come to the valley for day use," said Jay Hollick of Berkeley, who hiked the trail below Vernal Falls with his 4-year-old son, Jason.

"The valley plan is working really well," said Hollick. "It would be wasteful of time and taxpayer money to overturn it. We come here for the natural beauty, not convenience -- there's too much development in the valley as it is."