Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 28 of total 28 in this topic |
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 19, 2012 - 07:58pm PT
|
Everyone should really look at this and comment. The PDF of this workbook is at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mrpalternatives
-----------------------------------------------------
Yosemite National Park Announces the Preliminary Alternative Concepts Workbook is now Available on the Park’s Website
Workbook Designed to Help the Public Engage in Upcoming Public Meetings and Site Visits for the Merced River Plan
Yosemite National Park announces the availability of the Preliminary Alternative Concepts Workbook for the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan (MRP) on the park’s website today. Hard copies of the workbook will be available next week. The goal of the MRP is to provide visitor access and protect resources within the Merced River corridor. The document provides a look at the preliminary alternative concepts of the MRP. This is the first opportunity for the general public to see what the park has developed, incorporating scientific analysis and public comment. These preliminary alternatives will be refined and become a part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the MRP, which will be released in the fall. Copies of the workbook will also be provided to each individual attending the Workshops/Site Visits.
The public is highly encouraged to attend one of the upcoming Public Workshops, Site Visits, and Webinars where the draft alternatives will be analyzed and discussed. The meetings are a continuation of the park's outreach efforts from last fall in which the public was asked to provide input on what they would like to see included in the management alternatives evaluated in the DEIS. The MRP is a very important plan and will guide the future management of Yosemite within the Merced River corridor. These spring workshops are another chance for the public to review work in progress and provide input directly to park planners about a range of conceptual approaches to protecting river values and managing use within the corridor. The MRP will guide future decisions about transportation, camping, parking, lodging, employee housing and other administrative uses, restoration, and set user capacity – most notably within Yosemite Valley – and will establish the management strategy and actions for the next 20 years by modifying the General Management Plan.
The Workshop schedule is:
 Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Yosemite Valley Auditorium
Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Golden Gate Room, Fort Mason Center, San Francisco
Thursday, April 12, 2012, 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., El Portal Community Hall
Friday, April 13, 2012, 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Wawona Community Hall
Site Visits will provide an opportunity to discuss proposed actions “on-the-ground” at the locations where they may be implemented. They will be conducted in conjunction with the Workshops outlined above. Visitors are asked to wear comfortable walking shoes.
The Site Visit schedule is:
Wednesday, March 28, 2012, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., meet at the Yosemite Valley Auditorium
Thursday, April 12, 2012, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., meet at the El Portal Community Hall
Friday, April 13, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., meet at the Wawona Community Hall
There will also be two webinars conducted that will review the draft alternatives. These will be held on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., and on Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. People can participate in the webinars by logging into yose.webex.com.
The workbooks can be viewed at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mrpalternatives. For the latest information on the MRP and all park planning efforts, please visit www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/planning.htm.
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 20, 2012 - 11:11am PT
|
Please look at this and get INVOLVED!
It will change the way you access climbs and hang & stay in the Valley.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 12:48pm PT
|
Thanks for the heads up, CF. My address changed since I last sent in comments, and I'm sure any printed announcements are now in the dead letter office.
John
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 12:52pm PT
|
Sadly it means the end of 2 good bivys...sigh
|
|
spyork
Trad climber
Tunneling out of prison
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 01:00pm PT
|
I skimmed it very quickly. I saw the end of one bivy. I missed the second, Kev. The day use permit car access can be a big impact also, if I read it properly. Why does the park need 40 more RV sites?
Steve
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 01:37pm PT
|
I only got a chance to skim it very briefly, and I couldn't find climbing as either an important historical activity or a significant value of the river. I assume, or at least hope, that I just overlooked it, because if I didn't, I think we have a rather flawed report.
John
|
|
jsb
Trad climber
Bay area
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 02:27pm PT
|
I tried to read it, but found the document very hard to understand.
It has pretty pictures and diagrams, but I have no idea what it's trying to tell me.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 02:47pm PT
|
There are 5 conceptual plans/alternatives.
As I read it, 3 of those could impact Kevs favorite bivy (#1,2,& 3), the other 2 would not.
All considered, it would seem that Concept 4 or 5 is the most likely, combining some restoration with expanded campgrounds.
|
|
Urizen
Ice climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 02:49pm PT
|
The reason you can't understand it is that the Park "Service" doesn't want you to. Did you notice how hard copies (which are far easier to review and mark up) are only going to be "available" AFTER the first public meetings? And that they're not telling you how to get one?
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 05:13pm PT
|
Favorite Bivy- are you referring to Greenmeyer's Sandpit (shown as #1 on the inset maps)?
This is NOT the sandlot, AKA litterbox, that is "owned" by Caltrans and is another mile or so West on 140.
This gem of a bivy is not under NPS control. Since highway 140 is between it and the river, it shouldn't be going anywhere anytime soon because of river restoration plans.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 05:25pm PT
|
I would "occupy" if that bivy was in the crosshairs!
|
|
phylp
Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 07:09pm PT
|
The comparison charts on pp 26-27 are the most useful.
Five alternatives have been formulated, and are compared to existing parameters in the charts. you get to vote on the candidate that is the closest to your concept of what would be good for the Valley, or for your climbing experience (those two might not be the same thing in your view).
In some of the alternatives, day use numbers are increased, in others decreased. In some, parking spaces are increased, in others decreased. In some, campsites are removed quite dramatically. Etc.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 08:04pm PT
|
I did a search for the word "climb" and only came up with these references...
Meadows
• Informal trails in meadows: Remove informal trails in meadows where
they negatively impact native meadow species or fragment meadow habitat.
Delineate trails or install boardwalks, if necessary.
• Ditching in meadows: Fill ditches in meadows if they are not currently
serving operational needs.
• Potential meadow restoration: Return fire as an ecological process to 88
acres of conifer-dominated woodland to restore meadows.
• Bridalveil Meadow: Address headcuts in the stream on the west edge
of the meadow by planting willow cuttings in the impacted area, along
riverbank, and adjacent meadow. Remove encroaching conifer saplings.
• El Capitan Meadow:
°° Reroute the climber use trail on the north side of the meadow from
meadow habitat to appropriate upland route (a few yards to the east)
and rehabilitate the social trail through the meadow.
°° Replace existing culverts and install more culverts to improve water
flow at El Capitan Straight on Northside Drive.
°° Remove encroaching conifer saplings.
• Ahwahnee Meadow: Restore the former golf course and tennis courts to
meadow and oak woodland and reconnect currently disjunct portions of
Ahwahnee Meadow by removing the fill material associated with a former
roadbed and removing conifers.
Visitor Use and Capacity
Visitor Experiences and Activities: The existing spectrum of recreational
experiences range from solitude to social, resource-based to facilitiy-based.
Recreational opportunities include both primary and secondary river activities.
Primary activities are those that occur within the river such as swimming and
boating, while secondary activities are those that occur along the shore lands
such as hiking and camping. Current recreational activities include, day hiking,
camping, overnight backpacking, sightseeing and nature study, rock-climbing and
bouldering, fishing, picnicking, bicycling, river rafting and floating, horseback
riding, wading and swimming, ice skating, and artistic pursuits (photography,
painting, etc.), among others. New forms of recreational activities are considered
pursuant to the guidance found in NPS’s 2006 Management Policies.
|
|
Professor
Trad climber
Logan, UT
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 10:12pm PT
|
*Bump*
Anyone planning on attending any of the workshops / site visits? I'd be interested to hear how they are administered. Namely if they are really looking for feedback or just holding these events because they have to.
I agree that plans 1 and 2 are extreme. But I wonder if 5 is restoring all the areas that desperately need it. I'm thinking something between plan 3 and 4 would fit the bill nicely.
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 10:28pm PT
|
Although the litter box is not on the map I think it's safe to assume that
it'll be gone with those plans. Perhaps incorrectly I'm assuming that the sand will be relocated to some NPS storage lot and that no camping at that bivy will become something that might actually get enforced.
Mucci - hahahah occupy the sand lot...nice!
kev
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2012 - 11:33pm PT
|
The litterbox is safe from the NPS because it's not their land.
It's safe from the river ecologists since it's on the far side of the highway.
The Greenmeyer sandpit is actually part of the Merced river at that bend so several of the plans call for restoration to its natural condition.
If Caltrans wanted to remove the litterbox/ sandlot all they would have to do it park a few 6000 lb boulders at the entrances. Or use that giant resident loader to complete the berm alongside the highway (would take about 3 hours with that monster). And they wouldn't need a massive plan or public input to do it.
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2012 - 02:47pm PT
|
As stated there are 5 preliminary alternative concepts.
alternative 1 being the most drastic with the most services reduced and a day use permit system to get in the park during peak times to 5 being the least drastic but with "Phase in increasingly progressive management actions (parking and transportation fees, traffic diversions and other measures) as future demand begins to exceed parking supply."
|
|
Urizen
Ice climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2012 - 03:03pm PT
|
CF, I wish you'd explain why you consider Alternative 5 to be the least "drastic," since, in comparison with #3 or #4, it contemplates adding yet more parking, adding 50% more lodging, adding more drive-in camping, reducing restoration acreage, and accommodating a 17% increase in visitation. Looks pretty drastic to me.
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
el portal
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2012 - 01:20am PT
|
bump
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 03:18pm PT
|
these tables from the workbook summarize the various plans
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2012 - 03:40pm PT
|
pretty divergent strategies from 1 to 5
#1 - restore the most land, keep camping about the same, decrease the visitation, decrease parking, decrease lodging, continue to check permits at entrance stations.
#5 - restore less land, significantly increase camping,lodging,parking,use, institute parking fees and traffic diversions to accommodate demand
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 24, 2012 - 07:57pm PT
|
Been trying to compare all these figures they have in the chart and it was hard for me to read as they have all these pretty little symbols and extra info. Plus it was on 2 pages so trying to compare the current with alt 5 was hard. I am just concerned about the valley so i put mostly valley alts in a xls sheet so i could really compare them. pay attention to the highlighted words/numbers in red. i started to compare current #s with #s in the alternatives, very interesting, you will see those in red. i will update the other #s soon.
|
|
ryankelly
Trad climber
el portal
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 02:05am PT
|
bump
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012 - 11:38am PT
|
Reading a bit more into these options, my preference is #1 in terms of limiting visitation, but the day use permit will be a real bitch. So, I'm now thinking it's #3, the first option that does not require a day use permit and still limits visitation somewhat. The parking fees they have in mind will likely be a bummer as well, but I suspect easier to navigate than the need to make a reservation for the day use permit.
|
|
Drewid
Boulder climber
New Helvetia, CA
|
|
you know when they instituted the whole fee and reservation system on the half dome cables I thought it sucked but could live with it since the shoulder seasons are unrestricted. But the thought of a day use reservation system just to get into the Park really is starting to make me uncomfortable. lots of questions here, if you're a local who is used to cruising into the park whenever, this could really be a deal killer. How would this affect the annual pass holders, would we still be subject to the reservation system? Would it be as simple as calling a few days ahead? Will we be limited to a certain number of visits over a certain period of time? Feel bad for all the climbers and gypsies and nomads out on the road who make it to the park only to be turned around cuz they didn't make a reservation, f'in bs. How long before they close the gates at night and give all visitors mandatory lectures on reducing their contribution to GHG and charging various fees to climb different cliffs and installing surveillance cameras to make sure nobody sets foot off the pavement? Sorry to sound extremist here but you see we're losing our freedoms increment by increment and cumulatively it adds up. imho the pendulum has swung too far and the decision makers are mistaking park with preserve. With thoughtful planning and careful management, it is possible to conserve YNP's treasures for all w/o turning it into a preserve for a chosen few. Please kill alts. 1 and 2.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
To me, the real question is their methodology in deriving a "carrying capacity" for Yosemite Valley. That answer determines the options for dealing with the Valley. In a way, it reminds me of the old joke about how a good accountnant would answer the question "What's two plus two?" The answer: What do you want it to be?
My real discomfort is with a process that plans one of the nation's and world's greatest treasures by lawsuit. There are a lot of competing interests that should be at the table, but aren't in litigation. The calculation of the carrying capcity is designed to please the litigants, rather than all of those who care about the Park and the Valley.
I hope citizen input affects the process, but I'm not holding my breath. A thousand comments in this process probably aren't worth one page of one motion in the litigation pending before Judge Ishii in Fresno.
John
|
|
| Messages 1 - 28 of total 28 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!