Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 78 of total 78 in this topic |
Bargainhunter
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 27, 2017 - 02:06pm PT
|
Posted from Yosemite NPS:
Are you in Yosemite this week?
Yosemite National Park invites the public to participate in a walk-through of the planned Camp 4 expansion. The walk-through will outline the planned facilities, locations, and design concepts for the new space.
Join Yosemite's Project Manager at the Camp 4 kiosk this Thursday, Sept. 28th at 3:30pm for an on-site tour. Ask questions and learn opportunities to be involved moving forward.
Camp 4 is listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its nationally significant role in the development of rock climbing.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2017 - 02:26pm PT
|
The key is to retain its primary use by climbers. If too many amenities are added, the risk is it becomes an overflow site for people who would otherwise want to stay in the more territorial bounded campsites in the valley. So keeping it communal with group sites seems key. as well as the walk-in booking system. Perhaps enlarge some sites so up to 8 could stay in each site. More movable picnic tables seems like it would useful, too. Get rid of those horrible concrete barriers and perhaps put in some nice benches to mark the borders when border delineation is necessary. Some landscape architecture, in other words.
A big improvement would be a place, perhaps off toward the boulders on the right as you walk into camp, where people could wait in line all night without being in the lights right next to the road, as waiting in line all night is often the only way to get a site in the busy times. Or perhaps a full time staffer to pass out numbers for the following day, with some numbers being assured a site, then a limited number of "wait list" numbers in case of no-shows (they do this in the morning sometimes, but then it still requires hours of waiting in line). Sometimes there are hundred people waiting, it seems, when it is clear that there will be no chance for the last 50 (who have to wait anyway, to be sure). There has got to be a better system for walk-in that doesn't require burning a day or even two of a climber's trip.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 12:50am PT
|
Good words, Kevin. Definitely room for a few more sites to the north without interfering with the bouldering circuit, but I think the western boundary is now off limits as it is a traditional area.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 02:06pm PT
|
Good point.
It sucks how other people are always posting to say that it sucks how other people are always posting to say that it sucks.
But in the big picture, women suck more for it than men like me do, and other people suck more for it than I do. That's just the way I roll.
For me, I don't care. I'm not that attached to maintaining its historical setup, and I'm not so attached to my identity as a climber and my memories of camp 4 as a climber that I think it should be the way it used to be. But if that's the way you roll, cool.
Do what's best for humans now. Climber humans, hiker humans, tourist humans, whoever those humans might be. Heck, even women humans.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 02:38pm PT
|
Kevin, you walked into that one...so Camp 4.
But you are correct in asssesssing the weirdness of the juxtaposition of the two threads on our front page.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 05:35pm PT
|
My bad.
Kudos to you on the righteousness of sharing your thoughts about camp 4 modifications to a thread that's announcing a meeting where you can go to share your thoughts about camp 4 modifications. And for pointing out how other people suck for pointing out how other people suck. Aren't you great?
It's crazy of those other humans that they didn't use their time as wisely as you did. Maybe some of them even sucked so badly that they actually went to the meeting and shared their thoughts with Yosemite NPS.
But you be you.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 05:43pm PT
|
Maybe some of them even went to the meeting.
What's wrong with you?
The meeting is tonight and maybe YOU should go instead of constantly mumbling on the internet ...
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 05:47pm PT
|
My bad. If he's your buddy he's my buddy too. MAGA!
The meeting that's announced as being at 3:30 today in this thread (that we're posting to at 5:50) is tonight?
Oh you know how those stoopid humans are. They get all these crazy ideas that a meeting announced as 3:30 is at 3:30, and that other people suck for doing the same things that they do.
But what're ya gonna do? Post about it to the internet, or something? Stoopid humans. They suck.
I do appreciate that all you awesome humans are just awesome perceivers of the truth.
But are we, really?
From where I sit, it doesn't seem like we're quite as awesome as we tell ourselves we are, or that other people are quite as stoopid as we tell ourselves they are.
|
|
originalpmac
Mountain climber
Timbers of Fennario
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2017 - 10:37pm PT
|
Hell, I feel bad for bumping the thread. I personally don't want to see it change. Just thought there was interesting conversations in there. I love that place, as much as an ectended period of time in there can where on you.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2017 - 05:37pm PT
|
Whats wrong with you?
It's a good question. It's a question I ask myself. Sure, I'd appreciate your help with it.
From your deep first hand experience of being a human, and understanding of the human condition, what's wrong with me?
How are your kids, that you love more than yourself, doing? How are your transracially adopted kids doing? How are your mentally ill kids doing? How are you doing?
Please do share with me, from your deep first hand experience of other people being stoopid humans, what's wrong with me.
I like what I see of you. You be you. You be a stoooid human, the way that you're a stoopid human. I don't have a problem with that.
But maybe there are other ways of being a stoopid human than just the ones you approve of.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2017 - 05:47pm PT
|
As to those butt ugly cement logs - wouldn't small granite boulders be more aesthetic and appropriate?
Yes.
|
|
ron gomez
Trad climber
fallbrook,ca
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2017 - 06:34pm PT
|
Good input by Kevin and John. Hope it doesn't get "modernized" as it is a historical place. Noted how much work already being done in the parking area and I hope the grand plan isn't already in work with "input" only a part of the formal plan. Werner, perhaps you might have a bit more insight? Haven't stayed in years, but last time was there with The Bird and he got booted from the SAR site when we went to check it out, that was a bummer. Camp 4 was always a great place to be, hope it returns to it's former feel.
Peace
Rbord, is boring
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2017 - 03:36pm PT
|
Double the number of campsites expanding down Valley and add a second bathroom building with better utility sinks.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2017 - 03:49pm PT
|
Or take out the lodge and put it there😎😎
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2017 - 03:52pm PT
|
Put the kiosk on top of a V1 boulder so only climbers can register for a site.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
I don’t know if the dirt is cleaner but I was there early enough to have actually have seen grass where there is now only dirt.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I was at the meeting at the behest of Eric Bissel (the current climbing ranger) and I have to say I'm very confused at the outcome.
The operating assumptions were reported to have come from the Merced River Plan, which you can find here:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/getinvolved/upload/MRP_ROD_package_Full_web.pdf
and the Camp 4 relevant items:
Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 Campgrounds – Added infrastructure in the vicinity of the Camp 4 Historic Site and within the Yosemite Valley Historic District will result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. Removal of employee housing, both non-contributing and contributing, would result in long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. Retaining the current number of lodging units will have no impact, while construction of a new parking area and employee housing within the Yosemite Valley Historic District will result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts.
not clear what this means except to try to estimate the impacts of various actions.
in TABLE 3: CATEGORY 3 ACTIONS – IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION AND/OR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT TO BE DETERMINED
item 13:

Historic Property:
Yosemite Valley archeological site (CA-MRP-0059); Camp 4 Historic Site; Identified but not yet evaluated historic properties with religious and cultural
significance to American Indians.
Action code/Project Name/Project Description:
ONA-2-004/Expand the Camp 4 Camp- ground Eastward by adding 35 new walk-in campsites/Camp 4 expanded eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in sites. Retain 35 walk-in campsites at Camp 4.
Assessment of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Adverse Effects:
ssessment of effect to be determined for archeological district that may result from construction of new campsites within vicinity of archeological site (CA-MRP-0059). The NPS and American Indian tribes and groups will continue to collaborate on resources management and historic preservation activities guided by existing cooperative agreements to ensure that adverse effects to historic properties with traditional religious and cultural
significance can be avoided.
The American Indian tribes were not notified about the meeting.
The plan that was shown had 25 new sites in Camp 4, with a "comfort station."
I can't seem to find the actual NPS project documentation on line, but the landscape architect who designed this plan can be found here:
http://www.johnnorthmoreroberts.com/portfolio-items/yosemite-lodge-camp-4/
and the plan view is the 5th image of the five thumbnail images.
What was surprising, and what was said to be slated for completion in November, was the parking lot, which was not a part of the Camp 4 expansion.
I couldn't find this project at the NPS Federal Lands Transportation Program website.
The YNP representative didn't know any of the details of the parking and referred to the National Highway Grant funds, and not a part of the MRP (Merced River Plan).
However, in the notation in the 4th alternative (there are 5 alternative plans) seems to roughly correspond to what we heard.
https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/upload/mrp-deis-maps-alt4.pdf
this parking includes parking for 15 tour buses, and 20 RV sites.
I don't know which of the alternatives were adopted for the MRP, nor do I know where to find the project specifics for implementing that plan. But right now, it seems to make major changes to Camp 4.
Oh, and the comfort station includes showers...
I think YNP has been less than forthcoming on what the actual plans for this area are.

|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
And Dr Ed delves into the relevant data, mysterious as it is....
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
Just leave it alone, nobody in their right mind would ever trust the NPS to do anything beside grow beacon. . .
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the "final" Merced River Plan can be found here:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/getinvolved/mrp_finalplan.htm
the alternative that was chosen was Alternative 5 "Enhanced Visitor Experiences and Essential Riverbank Restoration," the map is found here:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/upload/mrp-deis-maps-alt5.pdf
as well as the description of the alternative.
The parking around the Lodge is described:
West of Yosemite Lodge Parking Area
Under the Selected Action, the NPS would redevelop an area west of Yosemite Lodge that was previously a site for employee dormitories until the structures were demolished due to flood damage. Currently, the site accommodates tour bus parking. Under the Selected Action, the NPS will redevelop the parking area to provide parking spaces for 300 day-use visitors and 22 buses (Figure 3). Additional pedestrian pathways and utility corridors would connect the parking area to trails, destinations, and other visitor services.
Construction activities at the West of Yosemite Lodge Parking Area would impact approximately 1.13 acres of riverine intermittent wetlands that carry flows during and after storm events. These intermittent wetlands are likely to sustain adverse impacts during redevelopment of the parking area.
Wetland Compensation:
In accordance with the Wetland Statement of Findings for the 2014 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan construct new wetland habitat for the following projects:
Riverine Intermittent Wetland. Wetland loss (1.51 total acres) will result from redevelopment of West of Yosemite Lodge Parking (1.13 acres) and redesign of the Yosemite Village Day-use Parking Area (0.38 acre). Wetland restoration compensation will total 1.51 acres. Compensation for 1.51 acres of riverine intermittent wetland impacts will take place near the proposed Upper and Lower River Campground area.
West of Yosemite Lodge Parking Area
Riverine intermittent (1.13 acres impacted) – These wetlands carry flows from Yosemite Valley cliffs toward the Merced River during and after storm events, when sheet flows channelize into culverts under Northside Drive. They may carry runoff into the delineation area and lose their defined channel in the delineation area, causing the runoff to spread as sheet flow and percolate into soils. Some drainages are interrupted by culverts placed under abandoned roadbeds or by demolition materials that fill portions of the channel. These drainages often have a non-soil substrate that is saturated and/or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season. Very little wetland vegetation is found in these areas because of the intermittent nature of the flows within the drainage channels. These riverine intermittent wetlands are altered by past demolition activity and roadside culvert cleaning, and are low-functioning. Demolition debris such as ground asphalt spills into the wetlands in several areas.
Riverine Habitats
Biotic Functions. Intermittent channels provide a seasonal water source for wildlife and invertebrates. Because the unconsolidated shore habitats lack vegetation and usually lack water, they may not provide significant habitat or food sources for wildlife.
Hydrologic Functions. Intermittent channels are periodic water sources and therefore provide less function; however, they nevertheless contribute streamflow maintenance, water supply, erosion control, sediment retention, water purification, and detrital export to downstream systems.
Cultural Values. Because Native Americans are known to have focused some activities along streams, riverine habitats may provide archaeological value. Visitors to the park enjoy the Merced River and engage in activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, and photography. The seasonal water flow and seasonal lack of vegetation in the intermittent channels limit the aesthetic value of these habitats.
Research/Scientific Values. The riverine habitats may provide opportunities for research in groundwater-vegetation relationships and in the effectiveness of riparian habitat restoration techniques.
Economic Values. For the reasons listed above, the riverine habitats could provide significant economic value for flood protection, biological resources (in particular fisheries), and tourism.
ONA-2-004, "Expand the Camp 4 Camp- ground Eastward by adding 35 new walk-in campsites"
Camp 4 expanded eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in sites. Retain 35 walk-in campsites at Camp 4.
Assessment of effect to be determined for archeological district that may result from construction of new campsites within vicinity of archeological site (CA-MRP- 0059). The NPS and American Indian tribes and groups will continue to collaborate on resources management and historic preservation activities guided by existing cooperative agreements to ensure that adverse effects to istoric properties with traditional religious and cultural significance can be avoided.
TRAN-2-005, "Yosemite Lodge: pedestrian / vehicle conflicts on Northside Drive"
A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort (EA/Section 106 Determination) will evaluate a range of alternatives to address the pedestrian / vehicle conflicts on Northside Drive between the Yosemite Lodge Area and the Lower Yosemite Fall Area. The final preferred alternative will include design guidelines to ensure that archeological impacts are avoided or minimized; the alignment of the crossing keeps pedestrians on the pathways and reduces the temptation to cross the road on- grade; the safety of pedestrians is maximized; and visual impacts are minimized.
Identification, evaluation and assessment of effects to be determined for district and Yosemite Lodge that may result from addressing the pedestrian / vehicle conflicts within the vicinity of archeological resources (CA-MRP-0240/303/H). The NPS and American Indian tribes and groups will continue to collaborate on resources management and historic preservation activities guided adverse effects to historic properties with traditional religious and cultural significance can be avoided.
TRAN-2-008, "West of Yosemite Lodge: Yosemite Lodge Parking Area"
Yosemite Lodge Day-use Parking Area re-developed to provide additional 300 day-use parking spaces. This parking area will also accommodate 22 tour buses.
Identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects to be determined for historic district and Yosemite Lodge that may result from redevelopment and ground disturbance within and in vicinity of archeological sites (CA-MRP-0305H and CA-MRP- 0748/765/H). The NPS and American Indian tribes and groups will continue to collaborate on resources management and historic preservation activities guided by existing cooperative agreements to ensure that adverse effects to historic properties with traditional religious and cultural significance can be avoided.
TRAN-2-016, TRAN-2-017, "Camp 4 Campground: Expanded parking and shuttle bus stop"
Establish a new 41-space parking lot for Camp 4 campground on Northside Drive. Construct a shuttle bus stop near Camp 4.
The NPS and American Indian tribes and groups will continue to collaborate on resources management and historic preservation activities guided by existing cooperative agreements to ensure that adverse effects to historic properties with traditional religious and cultural significance can be avoided.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the appendices for the MRP have a bit more information regarding the various perceived needs and alternatives,
http://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/upload/mrp-deis-ada-appendices-web.pdf
On Appendix A we find under Yosemite Valley Transportation, GMP=General Management Plan, CSP=Concessions Service Plan [?], this contrasts the previous MRP to the current one:
Facility/Service/Activity: Valley Shuttle
GMP: New bus service at El Portal, Crane Flat and Wawona
CSP: Improve operation, expand service
Amendment to GMP/CSP: Expand shuttle system to West Valley and Wawona. Construct shuttle bus stops at Camp 4 and El Capitan Meadow
Facility/Service/Activity: Muir Tree and Sunnyside (Camp 4) Walk-In Campgrounds
GMP: 58 sites
CSP:
Amendment to GMP/CSP: Muir Tree not mentioned. 70 walk-in sites (add 35 sites)
Appendix B
Wahhoga Indian Cultural Center
In keeping with Yosemite’s General Management Plan, the National Park Service entered into an agreement with the American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Inc. (also known as The Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation) in 1997 to work together in establishing an Indian Cultural Center at Wahhoga, the site of the last historically occupied Indian village in Yosemite Valley (just west of the Camp 4 walk-in campground). The center will provide a location for traditionally associated American Indian peoples to practice traditional cultural activities and ceremonies, as well as teach traditional lifeways. The center will be available to the public and provide a unique opportunity for visitor awareness of local Native American cultures. Through this understanding of local culture and traditions, guests will gain a greater understanding of the park’s natural and cultural resources and their significance to the cultural systems of traditionally associated American Indians. The project has been designed to include both traditional and modern structures. The traditional structures planned for the site include a ceremonial roundhouse, one sweatlodge, and numerous cedar bark umachas (conical houses), and a sun shelter and demonstration area. A historic cabin would be relocated to the site. A community building and small parking area would comprise the modern buildings and structures.
Construction on traditional structures began in 2009; there is no current estimated date for project completion.
Appendix J
ONA-2-004 - Expansion of Camp 4 eastward to provide 35 walk-in sites
TRAN-2-017 and TRAN-2-016 - Construction of a Shuttle Bus stop near Camp 4, and the establishment of a new parking lots for Camp 4 campground
TRAN-2-016 - In place of the old gas station, establish a new 41-space parking lot for Camp 4 campground. Additionally, construct a new 25- space overflow parking lot on the south side of Northside Drive.
Appendix K
ONA-2-004
Project Name: Camp 4 Campground Eastward Expansion
Issue Statement: Public comment indicated a desire to have more camping opportunities in Yosemite Valley. The rock-fall hazard study identified 8 campsites at Camp 4 that are within the rock-fall hazard zone.
Common To All: Camp 4 expanded eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in sites. Retain 35 walk-in campsites at Camp 4 (8 sites relocated out of the rock-fall hazard zone but remain within the Camp 4 footprint).
Alternative 5: (CTA) Camp 4 expanded eastward to provide 35 additional walk-in sites. Retain 35 walk-in campsites at Camp 4.
TRAN-2-016
Project Name: Camp 4 Parking
Issue Statement: The Camp 4 parking lot is inadequately sized for overnight parking and trailhead parking. Also, the demand for day-use parking in the area exceeds the supply.
Common To All: In place of the old gas station, establish a new 41-space parking lot for Camp 4 campground.
Alternative 5: (CTA) In place of the old gas station, establish a new 41-space parking lot for Camp 4 campground.
TRAN-2-017
Project Name: Camp 4 Shuttle Stop
Issue Statement: amp 4 Shuttle Stop for El Capitan shuttle is not a formal, appropriately designed shuttle stop.
Common To All: Construct a shuttle bus stop near Camp 4.
Alternative 5: CTA) Construct a shuttle bus stop near Camp 4.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The current new parking has 130 spaces, which is equal to the 89 existing parking places and the proposed additional 41 spaces that is talked about regarding the old gas station...
So contrary to the NPS representative's statement last week that the parking construction is not a part of the MRP, it seems to be very much a part of the MRP.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Does anyone know the contractor's name who is doing the parking area?
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
The showers idea sounds like a step toward familyizing camp 4. I have a family but believe Camp 4 should remain the province of climbers who are there to climb and have less need for a shower at their campsite. More sinks for dishes is what is needed. The last camp 4 plumbing upgrade, back in the 80’s was a disaster for after dinner clusterfuks—we used to have two buildings, one on each end of camp, each with a sink and toilets. The upgrade consolidated the two into one central one which was immediately too busy compared to having two locales. Having to wash dishes right at the entrance to the bathrooms is also a really bad idea.
But overall, it looks less like an expansion, but really a new campground in the Swan Slab area—that seems ok to me as long as they also retain the historical Camp 4 for the long term and most important keep the sites as walk-in sites. The death of Camp 4 as we know it would be if they put it into the dysfunctional Yosemite reservation system, in my opinion.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the detailed justifications are in the FY17 budget (we just entered FY18)
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY17-NPS-Greenbook-for-website.pdf
Project Title: Construct a 300 Space Parking Area West of Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 Parking
Project Number: PMIS-196917B
Unit/Facility Name: Yosemite National Park
Project Description:
This is the final component of a multi-phased project.
This component is the last phase and will construct the 300-space visitor parking area for day use west of Yosemite Lodge and will construct a new 41-space parking area at the west end of Camp 4, a walk-in campground. During this final phase the parking facilities will be completed including finish grading, surface stabilization, parking area delineation and storm water management.
Previous components of this project were included in prior President’s Budget Request; pre-design was completed in FY 2014, and final design was completed in FY 2015, for a total of $886,987. The asphalt removal, rough grading site preparation, the construction of the new access driveway and the parking area improvements to the existing parking lots were submitted in the FY 2016 President’s Budget Request for a total of $1,879,964.
Scope of Benefits (SB):
The Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan was completed when the Record of Decision was executed in February, 2014 which directs the park in the consolidation and expansion of parking areas in several places outside the river corridor in order to better accommodate current visitation levels and to replace roadside parking that has been eliminated in Yosemite Valley. Transportation models identified the need for more parking spaces, and Yosemite Lodge already serves as a hub of the park’s shuttle system. The site is a previously disturbed area. In addition to serving 300 privately-owned vehicles for day-use visitors, the facility will be used for daily parking of regional transit buses, recreational and other oversized vehicles.
The Camp 4 parking expansions would be built to satisfy latent demand and in conjunction with the future expansion of the walk-in campground. The number of visitor parking vehicles routinely exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area. Visitors are currently directed to park across Northside Drive, the busiest road segment in Yosemite Valley, in the former lodge annex. Forty-one spaces would be added to accommodate more campers at Camp 4.
The project benefits include: 1) consolidation and contained expansion of parking areas outside the river corridor; 2) roadside parking eliminated in Yosemite Valley; 3) parking areas related directly to carrying capacity limits and better visitor use management; 4) additional parking provided for the Camp 4 walk-in campground; 5) minimization of conflict between pedestrians and automobiles; 6) a smooth transition from the use of private automobiles to the park's free shuttle system; and 7) improved visitor experience, recreational use and protection of river values by designating parking facilities where they are better integrated with transportation services in the existing built environment.
Investment Strategy (IS):
Initial design work was supported by the Federal Lands Transportation Program, a value of approximately $475,000; those funds are outside this project description.
This component allows the National Park Service construct the new parking area west of Yosemite Lodge and at the west end of Camp 4 walk-in campground. The parking spaces were removed from non-planned, undeveloped and inappropriate locations and replaced with the new parking area spaces. The Yosemite Lodge day-use and Camp 4 parking areas will provide 341 much-needed parking spaces to replace hundreds of informal parking spaces being removed from the roadways and edges of meadows and other scenic locations or sensitive resource areas. If no action is taken, hundreds of vehicles would continue to circulate on park roads, and park along road edges adding to congestion and impeding other visitors from accessing east Yosemite Valley in peak periods.
The site is currently used for temporary activities including transit bus daytime parking and materials storage. The site does not include natural or cultural resources that can be readily appreciated by park visitors.
Consequences of Failure to Act (CFA):
In 2006, following earlier planning efforts and litigation, the United States Eastern California District Court ordered the National Park Service to prepare a legally-valid comprehensive management plan for the Merced Wild and Scenic River. The project is key to addressing that requirement and resolving several issues raised in litigation. If the project is not completed in a timely manner, the National Park Service could be held in contempt or be otherwise found liable for failing to make a good-faith effort to implement the plan and protect the river values that were defined in the Merced River Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
The Yosemite Lodge day-use and Camp 4 parking areas will provide 341 much-needed parking spaces to replace hundreds of informal parking spaces being removed from the roadways and edges of meadows and other scenic locations or sensitive resource areas. If no action is taken, hundreds of vehicles would continue to circulate on park roads, and park along road edges adding to congestion and impeding other visitors from accessing east Yosemite Valley in peak periods.
The site is currently used for temporary activities including transit bus daytime parking and materials storage. The site does not include natural or cultural resources that can be readily appreciated by park visitors.
Project Title: Construct Comfort Station West of Yosemite Lodge For New Day Use Parking Area
Project Number: PMIS-222754A
Unit/Facility Name: Yosemite National Park
Project Description:
Construct one new visitor comfort station at the west end of the Yosemite Lodge within the Yosemite Valley area of the park in a previously disturbed area. The proposed new comfort station will help accommodate the visitor needs associated with an adjacent shuttle bus stop and a new 300-car overflow parking area, both of which will be constructed as part of other projects.
The square footage and design features of the comfort station are to include up to 7 urinals, 22 toilets, and 13 sinks split between the men’s and women’s sides; and also will contain a family restroom with 2 toilets and 2 sinks. Each side will include at least one accessible toilet and sink. The building will feature up to 3 drinking fountains with water bottle filling capability and will be approximately 1,000 square feet in total size. The construction will be completed on-site with sustainable materials, possibly recycled, and is to include water conservation methods, energy-efficient interior lighting, and shielded, downward exterior lighting to enhance night skies. 50 to 100 linear feet of new sewer lines will be connected from the restroom to an existing sewer line that lies in the area. The sidewalks and walkways in the immediate vicinity of the comfort station and connecting to the overflow parking lot and the adjacent shuttle bus stop and visitor orientation gathering node will total approximately 5,000 square feet. All design work will be completed in accordance with the park’s design guidelines for Yosemite Valley, Division 1 Specifications for Construction, Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standards regulations and other standards.
Scope of Benefits (SB):
This new facility will serve 2,500 to 4,000 visitors daily. It will offer direct visitor contact with energy-efficient and water conserving amenities which provide the platform for education and awareness of National Park Service goals related to sustainability and global climate change. The new parking area design will greatly enhance visitor experience by providing a seamless “sense of arrival” featuring inviting pathways to draw newly-arrived visitors toward the existing shuttle stop and visitor services, such as Yosemite Lodge, as well as a view of Yosemite Falls. Because this is associated with a new parking area, there are no existing restroom facilities in this area. The nearest restroom is approximately ¼ mile away near the existing climbers’ camp, however this requires crossing the main road corridor (Northside Drive) and it is a substantial walking distance from the main parking area and main shuttle stop.
Investment Strategy (IS):
Anticipated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this new restroom could be up to $24,400 annually. The existing O&M cost is $0, as there is not currently a facility in this location. The annual costs to lease a building is cost prohibitive, because portable structures are subject to more utility concerns, such as sewer spills, and visitor damage and only last for a few years before major renovation is required. This makes the permanent structure a much more feasible, lower maintenance proposal. The park prepared a proposal for a modular unit and found cost would be upwards of $40,000 a year; it potentially could have to be replaced every one to two years. The maintenance of a modular unit will be up to $24,400 annually also. The rental would not alleviate the need for a restroom at this site due to the proximity of the shuttle bus stop and 300-car parking lot.
Consequences of Failure to Act (CFA):
The lack of restrooms in this area of Yosemite National Park is widely known and expressed by visitor complaints and 30-minute wait lines at the nearest climbers’ camp comfort station, ¼ mile away. Comfort stations provide perhaps the single most essential service to park visitors and are fundamentally important in providing for public sanitation, preventing disease and protecting water quality. If adequately-sized and located facilities are not made available, visitors will continue to relieve themselves in adjacent forested and wetland areas out of desperation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I need to get two big canteen mobile kitchens to serve these parking lots.
I'll become millionaire ...... :-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
from the FY15 budget:
Project Title: Construct a 300 Day-Use Parking Area and New Comfort Station West of Yosemite Lodge and Camp 4 Parking
Project Number: PMIS-196917C, D
Unit/Facility Name: Yosemite National Park
Project Description:
This project involves the construction of 300 space day-use visitor parking area west of Yosemite Lodge, a new 1,000 square foot comfort station associated with that day-use parking area, and a new 41 space parking area at the west end of Camp 4. The area identified for redevelopment for 300 visitor parking spaces is a previously disturbed site once known as the Yosemite Lodge Annex, an area that is now used for overflow bus parking, miscellaneous maintenance functions and storage. Parking will be added to Camp 4 to accommodate those visitors using the walk-in campground. New parking and the comfort station will be outside the Merced River corridor.
Work will be completed in two phases: Phase 1 of this project would begin in FY2016 with asphalt removal, rough grading site preparation, construction of the new access driveways and improvement of the parking areas at the former Yosemite Lodge Annex. Parking spaces would also be added to existing lots, and at Camp 4. During Phase 2 work in FY 2017, parking facilities would be completed including finish grading, surface stabilization, parking area delineation, and storm water management. The new 1,000 square foot comfort station will be constructed during phase 2.
Complete pre-design and final design in FY2015.
Justifications
The Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan (MRP) will be completed when the Record of Decision is executed in July 2013. Transportation models were developed as part of the planning process and identified needs for more designated parking areas. Thus, the MRP proposed consolidation and expansion of parking areas outside the river corridor to accommodate current visitation levels and to replace roadside parking that has been eliminated in the Yosemite Village area. The drivers of inbound buses, recreational vehicles and automobiles would be directed to park in this facility, necessitating the construction of a new restroom facility. The parking area at Yosemite Lodge would be built in conjunction with restoration actions that would restore disturbed areas and move facilities out of the floodplain.
The Camp 4 parking area would be built to satisfy latent demand and in conjunction with the future expansion of the walk-in campground. The number of visitor parking vehicles routinely exceeds the capacity of the existing parking area. Visitors are directed to park across the road, at the former lodge annex. 41 spaces would ultimately be added to accommodate self-sufficient camping in Yosemite Valley, and would replace campsites relocated from the rockfall hazard zone.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
All of the governmentese aside, the expansion planning was done by the usual office-dwellers who have never camped. Expansion of 25 campsites, each of which to accommodate 6 persons increases the burden on the already substandard sanitation facilities. I seem to recall that the new ladies bathroom will have 3 toilets, and the men's will have 2 plus a urinal. That, plus the showers. Since I've been coming to Yose for the period since 1965, the toilets are never 100 % functional. In other planning, the word REDUNDANCY comes up frequently. This plan is totally inadequate. I suspect the meeting, such as it was, was simply some bureaucratic eyewash to fill in a blank on some forms somewhere.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
It was an interesting meeting last Thursday. With a bit of effort, climbers if not the climbing community were reasonably represented.
Thanks to Ed for ferreting out all that information.
About 25 attended. Just before the meeting started, a giant dust cloud approached from the west. Foreshadowing? No, just the big rockfall.
Attendees included the park planner (Brad, a landscape architect), the interim (?) deputy superintendent, Ed Hartouni, Rodger Raubach, Ken Boche, Lisa, Pinky & Lori (camp rangers), Leo Burk, Jeff Elfont, Eric Bissell (climbing ranger), Linda (Ed's friend), Ron Kauk, four or five from the local First People, Jerry Greenleaf, Roger Brown, and others. We tried to ensure that there was a reasonable representation of climbers, especially those with some history and knowledge of Yosemite and Camp 4. Essentially, to show that we were quite interested and wanted to be more involved.
The presence of the deputy superintendent - someone fairly important, anyway - suggests that this wasn't just a "tick the public consultation box" planning meeting.
Brad showed us his plan of the proposed expansion, and it was discussed in some detail. Both the First Peoples and climbers seem not to have earlier known of the plan, at least not its specifics.
As both he and Ed pointed out, the plan in general has been long in the making, going back to the master plan of about 1980, the various lawsuits, and the eventual Merced River plan. Not to mention the lawsuit that led to protection of Camp 4 as a historic site. The plan isn't inconsistent with what has been discussed for years.
Later we did introductions.
It wasn't clear what role the Yosemite Climbing Association, the Access Fund, the American Alpine Club, and perhaps other groups have had and are having in this process. There seemed a consensus that there is a need in the process for a coordinated approach by climber organizations, and communications between NPS, climbers, and climber organizations, as to what is going to happen.
The project seems to have four phases, which will unfold over the next few years.
1. Road, parking lot, water and sewers. This is supposed to be finished by mid-November, and is based on a federal highways grant, apparently with add-ons.
2. Comfort station for new area. This will include two F and two M showers, something like five or six 'stalls' for each sex, and two 'cleaning' rooms.
3. Building the new part of Camp 4 - 25 sites.
4. Renovating the historic Camp 4, including replacing the ghastly toilets with another comfort station. (I wouldn't be surprised if this led to a reduction from 36 sites, but hopefully the work can be done in the off season.)
Some thoughts regarding this:
 Climbers often act as though Camp 4 is "their" campground. It doesn't appear that this has ever entirely been the case, whether it was 'tourists' in the lowlands in the 1960s, hippies in the 1970s, or the Latino families from greater Los Angeles who largely now inhabit it in the summer months. We'll always share the campground, and need to keep this in mind. Getting those city families out camping is as much part of the future of parks as are climbers.
Rodger rightly pointed out that two of the proposed comfort stations won't be enough for (36 + 25) x 6 = 366 nominal inhabitants, bearing in mind that renovation of the existing campground may somewhat reduce its size. (The new comfort station in historic Camp 4 will be downhill, apparently due to rockfall hazard - although Columbia Boulder seems to form a reasonable barrier.) What might work would be one comfort station as described (or a bit larger) in each of halves of the campground, with a toilet block in the middle near the parking, for walkers, Falls trail hikers, and climbers. With a separate 'stall' for the rangers, who also are grossed out by the existing toilets.
Token operated showers seem an excellent idea to me.
Given rockfall hazard assessment, I doubt that the camp will be expanded north or west.
The usage of Camp 4 might form an interesting master's thesis in sociology. However, overall females and males each comprise about 50% of the population. Even if there are somewhat more males than females in Camp 4 during climbing season (April 1 - June 15, September 1 - October 31), modern design for toilet facilities suggests that there be significantly more for females than males. And then there is the LBGTQ etc etc population to consider, not to mention access for small persons, persons with disabilities, etc.
The current anarchic parking lot sometimes holds up to 160-180 vehicles, according to a reliable source. The new one will take up much the same footprint, with half paved and half gravel. It is planned to have 120 spaces. Overflow parking across the road - expanding from 36 to 61 sites seems certain to require more room for vehicles.
It appears that there will be overflow parking across the road from historic Camp 4, but it will also be for bus parking. Not sure what that implies.
(My pet idea.) A hedge between the campground and the road, to reduce noise and provide a bit of privacy. Perhaps something about 2 m high, of native plants with lots of pointy bits. This could also be used to manage road crossing by pedestrians, currently the most exciting part of every climber's day.
I like Kevin and John's idea of using rocks to delineate campsites.
No thoughts regarding reservations and such, apart from observing that space should always be found somewhere for campers who arrive on foot or bicycle. As Ron K pointed out, John Muir is an icon, but did a fair amount of things in Yosemite that would now get him arrested.
Whatever they build must be robust, and assume that it will be abused.
The next time significant changes to Camp 4 are considered may be far away.
The devil will very much be in the details, as the project proceeds.
Hopefully they can find room for some historical nostalgia - maybe a Bachar ladder, and of course an exhibit of the different ways of hanging food away from the bears.
Camp 4 has always been in flux, in terms of location, facilities and use.
As John Eleazarian has pointed out, a larger issue is that there are now about 50% as many campsites in the valley as there were 40 years ago, notwithstanding increased traffic. The closure of the Upper and Lower River campgrounds after the 1996 - 97 floods eliminated a lot. Unless us humans manage to commit suicide through our own stupidity, human activity and thus need for camping in the valley seems likely to continue if not increase.
Whether it is possible to retain the spirit and culture of Camp 4, in the face of the various pressures, is a question that's hard to answer. Luckily, as Jim Donini and others point out, there's lots of room still in the world for spontaneity, you just have to work a bit more for it.
All in all an interesting afternoon - Facelift is always good for that sort of thing. Perhaps the Yosemite Climbing Association, the Access Fund, the American Alpine Club and the other usual suspects can now coordinate their efforts regarding this, both as to position, and the need for communications. Given the importance of Yosemite and Camp 4, even international organizations might lend a hand, and add perspective.
|
|
Gunkie
Trad climber
Valles Marineris
|
|
...expand Camp 4 to the east ending around the Uberfall in the Gunks.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
Yes Thank You for the over-view, it seems there is - good intent -
Lets take the No-Access funds advice . . .yeah, they are hiring
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
Current state of C-4 is such that any self-respecting health department inspector would find it unfit for human habitation. The restroom facilities are marginal at best. Need a few more bear-proof dumpsters. How many have had upper and lower GI sickness while staying there?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
Rodger nails it - although I've always found in these camp situations that regular hand washing is a great help in avoiding illness. I always volunteer to wash the dishes.
I wonder if they envision some higher tech bear lockers, if there is such a thing? The current lockers are the second version that has been used in Camp 4, the first ones having a simple clip open/shut system. Whatever, perhaps quieter lockers could be invented. The "anvil chorus" gets a bit tiresome.
Nothing was said at the meeting about reservations and related campground management matters. Whether they'll shift from the current situation - awkward, but moderately fair - being an interesting question.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
in all the planning as evidenced in the MRP documentation (though the MRP has not yet been legally challenged, I suspect it is only a matter of time) we find:
that 35 additional sites for the "walk in" campground
there are only 25 in this current expansion, we could ask why not 35 as stated in all the documentation
the intention seems to be to keep it a walk in, but there is a lot of chatter regarding reservations, we could ask where is this chatter coming from?
it has long been known that washing your hands is effective in preventing GI distress, especially prior to cooking. Much GI distress in camping situations attributed to other causes is actually just the result of "poopie hands."
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
I am sure your current president has some good ideas.
Trump Tower Camp4
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
prelude to the meeting...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
there was a golf course at the Ahwahnee Hotel, removed in 1981... now that the hotel has been renamed perhaps they could try again... the POTUS likes his golf.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Roughing It, Book II.
Sample chapters:
Climbers eat most anything, just like coyotes.
Climbers are somewhat lax about personal hygiene.
The NPS is not your dad.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Anders, you're a heavyweight satirist, and you deserve kudos, if not prizes, for your prose.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
It is suspected that the giardia scare that boosted filter sales was actually poops hands
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
The last thing you want in YOS is Trump. Too much of a negative energy force field. Might trigger more rock fall
|
|
gruzzy
Social climber
socal
|
|
Showers are an impressive leap for the park Service. Stinky climbers standing in line are not good for business. Did the concession have a say in this?
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
Can someone mention if the expansion and new parking have been evaluated with a final NEPA decision document? On the prior page they tangle things up by saying "A tiered NEPA / NHPA compliance effort (EA/Section 106 Determination) will evaluate a range of alternatives. . . ."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the NEPA, EIS, etc process seems a very tangled mess. I've found that YNP goes to great lengths to avoid these sorts of requirements because of the unwanted scrutiny and legal mischief they invite...
if you read carefully you see that the expansion is on top of an area where housing existed in the past, thus "already disturbed," and the explicit statements that that previous disturbance makes it unlikely that anything needs to be studied or protected.
I linked the "Appendices" to the MRP above, where these evaluations are made.
The bottom line of the evaluation: there is that nothing needs be done in terms of EIS, which I presume is a necessary finding in the NEPA process.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
If they're working with interested publics, like us, then I don't really care if NEPA is done. (as long as the outcome of the project is good). But, if NPS is moving forward with a plan that is undesirable, that's another story. Sloppy.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the plan has been in the works for many years (look at the past budgets) with the presumed acceptance of the MRP and the choice of the "preferred plan."
That the climbing community had disconnected from the process isn't the fault of the NPS or YNP, but that climbers generally do not have an organized presence that persists through the entire planning process.
As with much of our society, climbers often respond to "crisis" situations rather than doing the work to stay in the loop and help the process along. Climber unawareness of YNP activities is not a surprise.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Little has been said of your continued interest/insights/research and I'd like to thank you on our communal behalf, Ed.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
I kind of fell out of touch since they never seem to follow through with what they say they are going to do.
Second that. Ed, thanks for keeping up and speaking up.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
At the meeting, the subject of charging stations (gadgets, vehicles...) was also raised. A change in climber behaviour - decades ago, climbers went to Yosemite to get away, now they need to be connected at all times. (Or at least their sponsors do...) Somehow I rather doubt that there'll be an outlet at each campsite. However, there was no talk of a cell tower on Columbia Boulder.
Also, nothing was mentioned as to whether the new sites will have fire pits.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
improved cell coverage is in the budget...
the "preferred option" in the latest MRP is one entitled "enhanced visitor experience..."
Talking with one of the lead rangers a couple of weeks ago, she was beside herself in describing a new "interpretive" display that was a "selfie stand" with a particularly nice background... she feels the NPS and YNP in particular has given up on any sort of educational presence, that the current visitors are uninterested in what YNP is all about, and that it isn't possible to change the idea that the park cater to the desires of the tourists.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2017 - 10:06pm PT
|
Today's press release from the NPS, on improvements to roads and campgrounds in Yosemite:
Improvements underway along Northside Drive and Camp 4 Campground
Yosemite National Park is working to implement several roadway and campground improvements within Yosemite Valley. Extensive work is being conducted on Northside Drive, the road leading from Yosemite Village to Yosemite Falls and toward the park exits. Significant work is also being conducted at Camp 4, a popular campground in Yosemite Valley. The current work is expected to be completed by this winter, and complements the work that was completed earlier this summer.
On Northside Drive, work is being done to repave the road and add curbing for safety and resource protection. Work is also being done to realign portions of the road and do some sewer and utility work. The work on this portion of the road is in addition to work completed earlier this year which included a total redesign of the Yosemite Village Parking Area (formerly known as Camp 6), installation of a roundabout, and the repaving of the road from Stoneman Bridge to Yosemite Village. The total cost of the roadwork is approximately $14 million, coming from Federal Highway Administration, and the Recreational Fee Program.
In addition to the benefits of improving traffic flow and delineating visitor parking, the road projects include 1.7 acres of wetland restoration in an ecologically important and sensitive area of Yosemite Valley. The work is part of the implementation of the Merced River Plan, finalized in 2014, which directs actions that protect the Merced River (a federally designated Wild & Scenic River) and enhances the visitor experience.
Concurrently, significant work is being conducted in and around Camp 4, a popular walk-in campground in Yosemite Valley. Currently, the parking lot is being expanded, bringing the capacity to 130 vehicles. Either later this fall or in Spring, 2018 , 25 campsites are being added (each site can accommodate 6 people) which will bring the total to 57 campsites. A new comfort station is also being constructed in which showers will be included. This will be the first park campground that will provide shower facilities for people staying in the campground . The total cost of the campground project is approximately $2 million (funded by the Recreational Fee Program) and is expected to be completed in 2018.
All roads within Yosemite Valley and Camp 4 remain open during the construction. There are some lane closures and traffic delays associated with the ongoing work. There will be no active construction in the winter, and projects will resume in Spring 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/yosemite-national-park-implements-road-and-campground-improvements.htm
I'm reasonably sure that 36 + 25 = 61, not 57, so this seems to confirm that a few of the historical Camp 4 sites will be phased out. As to issuing a press release well after the projects started...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2017 - 09:25am PT
|
The "old Camp 4" (which our historic myopia defines as the present one, but take a tour with Haan and Breedlove someday, wandering ghosts wondering where their Camp 4 was) is being reconfigured out of the newly defined rockfall demarcation zone.
My guess on the reason there are only 25 new sites (as opposed to all the planning documentation stating 35 new sites) is that additional, and extensive, environmental documentation would have to be supplied to extend the site further.
Also, nothing was mentioned as to whether the new sites will have fire pits.
I think the point of the meeting we went to, Anders, was to invite us (climbers) to provide input as to the actual layout of the 35 new camping sites in the extension. The YNP architect seemed keen to have our input on these details, and less keen to hear us complain about the overall process. In his mind, that was a fait accompli, he was interested in moving on to complete the plan.
His job is to "enhance" our experience, he obviously thought showers were an enhancement over the traditional dip in the Merced River at the "swinging bridge" (which doesn't swing anymore), the climber's equivalent.
The problem with "enhancement" is easily recognized, the current construction project is laying in the infrastructure, plumbing, electrical, etc... disrupting the natural setting.
Not only that, but the new parking plan will put the tour busses between the two Camp 4 sites rather than off behind the Lodge parking and services area. The new parking area is defined as an entry "destination" for visitors, all visitors, and considered another "enhancement."
Of the five MRP options, I thought the "visitor self sufficiency" option was closest to the original vision of National Parks. And I voted for that one...
who else voted?
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2017 - 08:15pm PT
|
I remember when Peter and I walked around Camp 4 with Ed about 10 years ago. I could not get my bearings at all.
This picture shows my tent somewhere in Camp 4 in the winter I camped out. 1973/74 I think.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2017 - 01:53pm PT
|
Glen Denny's tour of Camp 4 at the 2016 Facelift, with others who'd camped there in the later 1950s and 1960s - Reva and Gary Colliver, for example - was definite that climbers mostly camped in the area above where the current sites are located, that is on the slope between the 'upper' Camp 4 trail and the Valley trail/Falls trail. Tourists could drive in and camp below, more or less where we camp now. Even in my memory, Camp 4 extended further west and east - at one time, Mead Hargis camped in a wall tent near the current ranger booth, and camping was OK anywhere west of there.
The first time I was in Camp 4 I 'camped' below what later became Midnight Lightning. Air mattress + sleeping bag. In fact, I stored them right at its base during the day, and put the lightning bolt there so that I could find them at night. Little did I know...
Overall, the new parking and camping should be an improvement - more sites, comfort station. But it's up to climbers and climbers' organizations to keep an eye on what happens. For example, if the new Camp 4 is created over the winter, who will be there to comment? The details will be very important.
As for bus parking - that should remain across the road. Too intrusive, that close to any campground.
Sheesh! As one thing that seems likely to affect climbers in Yosemite now and for decades, you'd think there'd be a little more discussion of this.
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Karkoekstan, Former USSR
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2017 - 08:10pm PT
|
let's put the gas station back on c4 where it used to be
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2017 - 10:24pm PT
|
I have no stake in Camp 4's future, I realize, as my camping days are very much over, but I do pity the poor campers whose sites will be closest to the fumes of diesels and the noise they make in the proposed bus park.
Detesting auto traffic as I do, it is my opinion that the gas station is well in the past and that's that and I'm happy to see it gone, all traces removed. It was nice when there was a drive-thru camp and I did appreciate it, it's true. I don't feel like a hypocrite saying that.
Having a gas dispensary there simply would increase congestion and noise at all hours, Majid. And avoidance of these problems is what the planners hope to do, I would think. And I sense that you are not too serious about that, somehow...
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2017 - 06:54am PT
|
Do people on this forum stand in line in the wee hours of the morning to get a walk in campsite? I think not. Camp 4 needs expansion but it’s really like adding a few grains of sand to a beach.
The camping in the Valley will never be satisfactory, there are simply too many people in too small of a place.
National Parks with climbing (notable exception: Black Canyon) have maxed out infrastructures. I suppose that climbers from urban areas are more attuned to overcrowding.
Luckily, there is still a lot of public land with climbing that isn’t overcrowded....expand your horizons.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2017 - 02:11am PT
|
What's the latest thoughts on this project? Thumbs up or thumbs down? (And why?)
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2017 - 09:53am PT
|
I am indifferent. I do line up in the wee hours in the morning, but I do not have any expectations of some amazing nature/historical experience when at C4. It is a legal place to bivy. I always meet interesting people there. The bus parking seems obnoxious, hopefully extensive idling will be prohibited.
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2017 - 11:18pm PT
|
I have been asked to comment by Rock and Ice, which is why I am trying to get a gist of what people are thinking about the expansion. I don’t see any downsides to more campsites, though the bus terminal and other aspects of the development seem to have issues. Any other opinions?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2017 - 10:46am PT
|
I think it basically goes back to the premise of the particular option of the Merced River Plan selected by the YNP/NPS, "enhanced visitor experience."
One has to wonder what, exactly, that means. In particular, you'd have thought that most climbers would have preferred the "increased visitor self sufficiency" option, which would have drastically reduced services in the Valley, while dramatically increasing camping options.
Along with that would have been a reduction in the ability to supply your stay locally, requiring visits to communities outside of the Valley for supplies.
In the extreme, imagine having to hike into the Valley with all of your supplies on your back. That would put a natural time limit on visits, but would also reduce the accessibility of the Valley to those physically able to make the hike. Limited accessibility to the general public would probably reduce the popularity of YNP, and also reduce political support for the NPS. This is certainly a factor in the existence and maintenance of the "Cable route" on Half Dome, for which major facilities have been built along the trail to accommodate the traffic of a large number of visitors. All in the "wilderness zone." The popularity of that particular trail far outweighs any consideration of preserving the wilderness.
Looking at the Camp 4 improvements in light of the option of full self-sufficiency (i.e. hiking your kit in for miles), climbers could take public transportation into the Valley and arrive at the "destination" of Camp 4 without having to have a personal automobile. That destination is linked to the rest of the Valley by the local shuttle service; off hour transportation would be by foot or perhaps bicycle, an overall reduction in the automobile traffic which drives so many issues (for instance, parking).
Parking for climbs will be affected by the current improvements, curbs to discourage arbitrary off road parking with the paving of some pullouts. Overall the options for parking will be reduced.
Traditional climber hangouts, like El Cap meadow will also be affected in the overall plan as the meadow is restored. However, the complete "restoration" of this meadow would require re-daming the Merced River at the terminal moraine (located across from the "wood lot" turnout west of El Cap meadow) which is not likely to ever happen, as its existence was responsible for the seasonal flooding that resulted in "Lake Yosemite," a phenomenon that maintained the meadow preventing the encroachment of trees, which could not tolerate the ground moisture.
Having accepted the "hand of man" in the remaking of Yosemite Valley, we have little hope to see any coherent application of the idea of wilderness as "...places that humans do not control and have not developed..." in the Valley. This applies to the majority of climbing routes, too.
Given all that, what is the interest of the climbing community in Camp 4 expansion?
more camp sites
larger latrine with shower facilities
better access to transportation
We cannot retain a past that time has taken, we can embrace a future which "enhances" our experience along with the restrictions that entails.
But more importantly, if we wish to have those places Donini refers to remain wild, we have to work to preserve them as "wilderness," which necessitates that they remain difficult to access and generally inconvenient and unaccomodating to us when we visit. To do this, our visits require us to work to preserve their wildness; limit formal campsites, pack waste out, etc..., basically leave no trace, really.
Chouinard lamented in the late 1960s that Yosemite Valley had ceased to be that wild place the early climbers encountered during the "Golden Age." Of course, he drove into the Valley, taking full advantage of human "improvements." Yosemite's fate had been cast long before that time.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2017 - 03:35pm PT
|
Great post Ed, as usual.
If the only reason they're giving for not doing that it's rockfall danger, I would question other developments, particularly roads, the Le Conte Memorial,
As I understand the policy, the rockfall zone only limits overnight camping, other uses are okay. Probabilities of dying I guess?
|
|
deuce4
climber
Hobart, Australia
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2017 - 12:20am PT
|
I suppose my reservation about the plan specific to Camp 4 is why they are finding the need to close any of the existing Camp 4 sites. Rockfall? I recall the huge rockfall off Camp 4 wall in the middle of the night in the 80’s. It sounded so loud I rushed out of my tent and ran, cutting my feet. But later had a good look, and it seemed to me the area east of the ditch, where the current rescue site is, seemed safer due to topology, with a larger chance in the Indian area to the west. But of course no place on the valley floor is truly “safe”from rockfall, so I wonder if there is any other reason they plan to close a handful of current sites? In any case, a foreboding precedent to close any existing sites, despite the addition of new sites nearby, which I think is a very good thing, as campsites in Yosemite have only steadily dwindled over the last century.
Edit: Jerry Greenleaf informs me that the to be closed sites are near the Kiosk to make room for the new parking lot. Seems reasonable. But of course the bigger issue is how car centric Yosemite is, and that there is nothing in the plan to move toward a future ideal carless Yosemite.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2017 - 06:33pm PT
|
It seems to me that what is needed is ongoing involvement in the plans and implementation of Camp 4 improvements by climbers' organizations - the Yosemite Climbing Association, American Alpine Club, Access Fund, and so on. Maybe also even manufacturers and retailers of climbing equipment.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
So does anyone have observations and perhaps photos of the work at Camp 4 and vicinity that has been done over the last few months, and is continuing? Report, please!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Remember that Climbers are not the only ones who hold this ground sacred.
The Native community will be impacted by these changes. They were not consulted.
Also- Haven't we just spent the last fifteen years removing asphalt from the Valley Via Facelift?
We are chided by The National Paving Service for picking up Aluminum artifacts from the '60's yet the below fresh pavement caps millennia of human occupation. We shrug and say oh well what's done is done.
Well. looks like the skateboarding will be sweet. And since when has shower ever made a difference in Camp 4?
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
Joni Mitchell nailed it
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half to seem 'em
No no no
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
That lot will fill out nicely as the Starbucks overflow. Maybe they'll also finally install a 1st world place to take a crap.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 03:41pm PT
|
OK, so they repaved the road, and paved part of the parking lot - as they said they would. Did they put in curbs? What else has been done? Perhaps someone who's familiar with the entire plan could have a look, and let us know what's happening.
|
|
Ballo
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2018 - 04:14pm PT
|
LOL, it's like you guys want more regs and higher fees.
Didn't the Valley have like 5x s many primitive campgrounds before they were shut down one by one?
I'm calling it now: They'll eventually turn Camp 4 into a zoo exhibit where your betters can drive by slowly while taking photos, or choose to drive behind a partition which will keep your visage (and smell?) away from their delicate sensibilities and perfectly brewed Starbucks lattes.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
About two weeks ago.
Camp 4 ranger booth. No change, except (snif!) the absence of Pinky.
New information sign, beside the ranger booth.
New parking lot, looking west. The ranger booth is in the far left distance.
The new parking lot, from across the road. It's in several linked pieces.
Not shown: the fence surrounding the work area, essentially everything east from the parking lot almost to Swan Slab. There was a promising looking foundation for what will probably be the comfort station (toilets, washing up, showers), and other work in progress.
There is/will be a low split timber fence between Camp 4 and the road, which may help channel foot traffic. Backing it up with a hedge, preferably of something pointy, may reduce noise and visual impacts. (A wit suggested poison oak...)
|
|
hooblie
climber
from out where the anecdotes roam
|
|
well, the paved surface should make transmission swaps go a little smoother.
lucy pointed out a project underway just west of C4 which will be a traditional roundhouse, nice!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
So the Miwuk people are proceeding with rebuilding the site of their last village in the Valley, west of Camp 4. It was named Wahhoga, and the reconstruction is in part being financed by the Yosemite Conservancy ($100,000). Presumably there'll be a good gap between the west end of Camp 4 - once its rebuilding is done - and the village.
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article212274659.html
|
|
| Messages 1 - 78 of total 78 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!