You are here

Yosemite National Park Issues Massive Draft Plan Addressing Merced River And The Yosemite Valley


A reading frenzy was kicked off Tuesday when a massive draft plan for managing the wild and scenic Merced River through Yosemite National Park was released, a plan park officials hope will end years of litigation over visitor impacts on both the river and the Yosemite Valley.

Reaction to the voluminous document was muted, as groups with interests in the final plan said they needed time to digest the draft. So big was the plan that Yosemite officials created a 20-page summary guide to help interested parties understand what was in the full draft.

Greg Adair, whose group, Friends of the Yosemite Valley, twice took Yosemite officials all the way to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over previous iterations of the plan, said he hoped that within the roughly 2,500 pages the Park Service had carefully studied both the visitor experience and the Yosemite Valley's ecosystems in arriving at a daily carrying capacity for visitation.

“We really haven’t seen them do that" in the past," Mr. Adair said during a phone call. "Our concern would be to see if they’ve finally done that.”

A review of the park's preferred alternative shows it would set a daily visitation cap of 19,900 to the Yosemite Valley, roughly equal to current levels. Additionally, the preferred alternative calls for a 37 percent increase in campsites in the valley, a 5 percent increase in day-use parking areas in the valley, and a slight, 2 percent increase in valley lodging.

At the same time, the draft notes the preferred alternative would restore 203 acres of meadow and riparian areas, the Sugar Pine Bridge upstream of the Ahwahanee Bridge would be removed "to enhance the free-flowing condition" of the Merced River, and 34 campsites within 100 feet of the river in the North Pines, Backpackers, and Lower Pines campgrounds would be removed.

A recreational vehicle loop with 36 sites also would be built in the Upper Pines Campground under the preferred alternative. And the draft plan calls for continued use of "rafts, kayaks, paddle boards, inner tubes, and inflatable mattresses" on the Merced River through the valley. If day-use parking areas continued to be overwhelmed, the draft plan says a permit system could be instituted.

Yosemite officials were deluged Tuesday afternoon with calls from reporters seeking comment and not immediately available to discuss the plan. But in the 20-page summary guide, they talked about the preferred alternative's approach to restoring heavily used areas of the Yosemite Valley.

A 150-foot riparian buffer, measured from the ordinary high-water mark, would be protected and enhanced corridorwide. Eroded riverbanks would be repaired through restoration, and vulnerable riverbanks and riparian vegetation would be protected from trampling. Visitors would be directed to use resilient areas, such as low-angle sandbar beaches. Ditches in meadows would be filled, six miles of informal trails in meadows and riparian areas would be removed, and abandoned underground infrastructure would be removed. Informal roadside parking along meadows and associated fill material would be removed to restore meadow area and protect meadows from informal trailing. Cultural resources, such as archeological sites would be protected from irretrievable loss.

The Merced River was designated a "wild and scenic river" in 1987. As such, park officials must protect the Merced's outstanding remarkable values, its stream flows, and its water quality. Differing views over those points have long delayed an updated management plan for the Yosemite Valley, as groups that opposed the Park Service's proposals successfully battled the agency in the court system.

The gist of the litigation -- which claimed the Park Service was allowing inappropriate development to intrude upon the wild and scenic river corridor-- began shortly after Yosemite officials completed their first Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management plan in August 2000.

It was late in September 2009 when the Park Service and the Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government settled their differences over the Merced River Plan and agreed to stop sending their lawyers to court.

Emily Schrepf, the Central Valley program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, was cautiously optimistic Tuesday that the plan would succeed.

“A big part of the preferred alternative is to use a lot more public transportation, increased buses and shuttles, and an intelligent transportation system" to move visitors through the park in a less congested way than now is experienced, she said from her Fresno, Calif., office. “I think they’re really, really working to avoid any sort of limits that would turn people away."


“I think they’re really, really working to avoid any sort of limits that would turn people away."

In theory that's a laudable aim. In practice, in a place as tiny as Yosemite Valley so close to so many urban centers, it's not practical.

I went back to Yosemite summer before last for the first time in many years, and for the first time on a summer weekend that I can remember (I'd always gone in the off-season before, but there were other things dictating our schedule), and the person I heard on the incredibly overcrowded shuttlebus calling it Disneyland National Park had it right on the money. I hate the idea of having to have a reservation to even visit the Valley, but that's already being done in other national parks (Denali -- even in 1973, when I was there, if you didn't have a campground reservation in the park, you weren't allowed to drive your vehicle past a certain point), and limiting visitation may be the only thing that ultimately saves the Valley.

The problem with Yosemite is that it's too close to too many big cities, and people treat the Valley as their backyard, not as the way most other national parks (including Yellowstone) are and it should be. The only thing that's going to help is getting people to quit doing that.

The problem with Yosemite is that it's too close to too many big cities, and people treat the Valley as their backyard, not as the way most other national parks (including Yellowstone) are and it should be. The only thing that's going to help is getting people to quit doing that.

Having visited Yellowstone, there are visitors who do treat it in the same way even having travelled considerably longer distances. The main difference would be that the numbers are dispersed across a wider area rather than being packed into one narrow canyon.

You often get the same lack of respect at the Grand Canyon, and Zion Canyon packs most of its visitors into that small and narrow corridor. I visited Kolob Canyon, and it was a totally different experience.

Yellowstone is sort of my passion (I've written a novel set there, among other things), and I've visited there during every month between May and October in the last fourteen years (including almost the exact same time in August that I visited Yosemite). I wholeheartedly agree with you about the dispersal over a wider area helping in Yellowstone, but I still think Yosemite just gets trashed by people who've probably never been to another national park in their lives. Much worse than Yellowstone. I was absolutely appalled.

Good luck on on this issue. Difficult one to say the least.

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide