Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mtnfreak
Trad climber
Lost on the West Coast
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 5, 2012 - 02:15am PT
|
I just scrolled through 600+ messages to see if this has already been posted. Sorry if I missed the original discussion.
Supposedly parts of Camp 4, Curry Village, and the Employee Housing have been determined to be too much at risk to rockfall, so they will need to be closed and moved.
From 16 June 2012, LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-yosemite-rocks-20120616,0,6009812.story
Note: underlined portion edited in to be more accurate - thanks Eric!
|
|
Fletcher
Trad climber
Fumbling towards stone
|
|
The article notes eight sites at Camp 4. Doesn't sound like the entire place will be closed?
Eric
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Camp 4 is on the National Register of Historic Places as part of Tom Frost's noble efforts and really can't be tampered with easily.
Still plenty of bad blood in the NPS trying to undermine Camp 4's protected status so I would be a bit skeptical of their intentions here.
The NPS could simply say it was out of their control so I don't see the liability in Camp 4 that Camp Curry would pose.
Act of God usually suffices here.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
merced, california
|
|
Don't freak, Mtnfreak.
We remember when the NPS hired SAR personnel to move rocks in their spare time.
Moving Camp 4 would be about this easy.
|
|
bergbryce
Mountain climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
Yes this has been discussed.
Something like 8 sites are to be "closed" or something like that.
More campsites closing in Yosemite, what's new?
|
|
Patrick Oliver
Boulder climber
Fruita, Colorado
|
|
That's ridiculous. No boulders have ever come down as
far as Camp 4!
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Well here's the problem, they say 8, out of ~ 35 (IIRC). They have been proposing to add sites by expanding to the east and adding another bathroom, for what, a decade now? Haven't done jack sh#t...although they did manage to build a million dollar bus shelter by the falls in that time.
In a reasonable world, this would give them the kick in the ass to finally expand the campground. Sadly, the NPS is about as "reasonable" as the babbling pyscho on the city bus.
Closed the river campgrounds, plan to close Wawona, shrink C4. Pretty soon it'll be nothing but day trip Japanese tourist on buses and rich yuppies in cabins and the Ahwahnee.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
The Valley is meant to be a stepping stone in a young climbers life. You go there when you can handle the hassles of being there, learn to climb and then go back when you can afford to stay in the Awhahnee.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Closed the river campgrounds, plan to close Wawona, shrink C4. Pretty soon it'll be nothing but day trip Japanese tourist on buses and rich yuppies in cabins and the Ahwahnee.
While I acknowledge that the bus shelter wasn't paid with NPS funds, there has been no sense of urgency in replacing lost campgrounds. In fact, a few years ago, the NPS was saying that the demand for camping in the Park has decreased, citing the decrease in the number of campers (as opposed to an increase in the vacancy rates).
Well, of course the number of campers decreased; the number of campsites decreased drastically in 1997. Frankly, the more I read the NPS documents and comments under the current River Planning effort, the more convinced I become that we make a grave error using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a basis for planning Yosemite Valley and Yosemite National Park. Was it really necessary to close the river campgrounds? Did we really need to tear out the Happy Isles Bridge (or need we tear out the Ahwahnee or Sugar Pine bridges, for that matter)?
Yosemite Valley may be a stepping stone for some, as Jim said, but it remains a unique part of the legacy of all Americans. Sad to say, El Cap's prediction of the trend in Valley visitation is already coming true. We need to do better.
John
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
What about just modify the backcountry camping pass rules to allow rock climbers to sleep in the talus under their routes? Not that bad living underground once you get moved in.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Elfont completely misses the point. The source of the funding is irrelevant,, the NPS still has a NEPA requirement, and likely design review/approval, etc...many man-hours of involvement and ultimate approval over if and when the project was undertaken.
It is an issue of priorities, and you lowly walk-in campers are not "the", or even "a" priority. You don't generate enough revenue.
|
|
CF
climber
|
|
all sites on the uphill side of the upper road will be moved down by the main road. not sure what they will do about the sar tents
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Chris, that is a sad situation. Camping right next to the road...
|
|
Andy Fielding
Trad climber
UK
|
|
The Valley is meant to be a stepping stone in a young climbers life. You go there when you can handle the hassles of being there, learn to climb and then go back when you can afford to stay in the Awhahnee.
Went to the valley this year for the first time at the age of 50 and headed straight for camp 4. Can't see me ever staying in the Awhahnee. Hope to be back in camp 4 again next year, I've got the bug.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Gotta wonder how they know which 8 sites the boulders will take their wild bounces into,...
"Oh, don't worry the million pound rock won't land in YOUR site, just the one next to you."
Ah well.
You don't suppose that somebody got to say, "C4 is for the little people anyway. Let them eat cake."
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
Steve, if C4 is in the national register of historic places, and presumably can't be changed by the NPS, then someone could file for a temporary restraining order against the Park Service to stop them. I do not know the law in this area, but expect a judge would freeze things the way they are until s/he ultimately decides whether the NPS is acting legally. Once in court, you are in a position to negotiate with them and come up with a way to minimize the change to the historical site while still preserving public safety.
Some of those boulders above have been there for many thousands of years. Yes rockfall is dangerous, but this is not a response to a real problem, it's a problem someone thinks might occur. I can understand the NPS' position, they dont want to be encouraging people to camp in dangerous places. But from what you say I think the climbers can demand a say in how its done.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
and presumably can't be changed by the NPS
This is incorrect. A listing on the NRHP only means that certain changes/activities/etc require consultation with the SHPO and/or ACHP per Sec 106 of the NHPA. They will determine/address/mitigate "adverse effects" though that process.
They could have an MOA in place allowing and defining certain actitivies (typically routine maintenance) without consultation. Without knowing what they have in place with respect to SHPO/ACHP agreements, you can't even know that. All that is for certain is that Sec 106 and the related consultation process applies.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Thanks for the clarification as you sound knowledgeable.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/upload/Quantitative-rock-fall-hazard-and-risk-assessment-for-Yosemite-Valley-April-2012.pdf
The hazard map from the above study for
Glacier Point apron:
Camp 4:
In both the redline is defined as the end of the "talus" and the high risk areas indicated. Apparently the SAR camping areas with the green flags in C4 are considered low risk. Being closer to the cliff and further toward the Rixon area that seems a little counterintuitive but I have not been through the reach and shadow angle calculations. Presumably the shadow angle allows the energy of the rock fall to be estimated and the reach angle the statistics of the reach for previous falls. Not being a long term denizen perhaps I also don't interpret the aerial photos correctly. BITD Yosemite used to involve a 6000 mile commute.
The weight given the talus line also seems a little counterintuitive. I would much rather be in a tent in C4 where rock fall has to make its way through the large stone field above the camp than sleeping at the base of Glacier Point Apron. On the apron the rock will meet no resistance and no particular reduction in size while sliding down. Perhaps somewhere we can find out how this engineering calculation is done. Walking the site of the Rixon fall might also be helpful - and interesting.
Very interesting stuff!
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
|
|
Elcapinyoazz - I just checked the regs and this is how I think it would work. A group of climbers who regularly stay in Camp 4 sue for an injunction. They have standing under Citizens of Overton Park v Volpe. The argument is that the NPS should have gone through the NHPA review process and it was illegal for them to just blow this off. The judge would most likely grant the injunction to maintain the status quo. Here is what they are supposed to do, in non-legalese, from somebody's website:
A federal agency first determines if the proposed project activities are covered by Section 106 of the NHPA. If so, the agency initiates the Section 106 review process. Next, the federal agency gathers information to decide which properties, if any, in the project area are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If no properties in the project area are eligible for listing, then further Section 106 review by the agency is not necessary. If any properties in the project area are eligible, the agency then determines how these historic properties might be affected by the federally supported undertaking. If historic properties will be adversely affected, the agency consults with the other parties and explores alternatives to avoid or reduce harm to historic properties. If necessary, the agency obtains advisory comments from the ACHP. Finally, the federal agency works to reach an agreement with the SHPO (and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in some cases) on appropriate measures to deal with any adverse effects to the historic properties.
You then tell the judge to stay the proceedings while the administrative agency process runs its course - ie consultation with ACHP and whatever else. Tom Frost or whoever goes back in to show the ACHP why camping next to the road is not the same as camping next to El Cap. Then you are not exactly cutting the deal yourself, but you have the ACHP on your side, at least to some degree. I am not licensed in CA or would be glad to do it myself. It should be really easy to get the injunction and block everyhing until the agencies work it out themselves. Dont worry about secret memos of understanding - they would be public records accessible either through the FOIA, or the same judge.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!