Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!