H I G H S I E R R A H I K E R S A S S O C I A T I O N PO BOX 8920 SO. LAKE TAHOE CA 96158 April 16, 2013 Don L. Neubacher, Superintendent Yosemite National Park P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, CA 95389 RE: Comments on Merced Wild and Scenic River Draft Comprehensive Management Plan ( Plan ) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) Dear Superintendent Neubacher: The High Sierra Hikers Association ( High Sierra ) is a nonprofit public benefit organization that educates its members, public officials, and the public at large about issues affecting hikers and the Sierra Nevada, and that advocates the protection of park values and preservation of wilderness character in the Sierra for the public benefit. High Sierra represents thousands of citizens living throughout the United States who use and enjoy Yosemite s wilderness, wild & scenic rivers (including the Merced River corridor), and other backcountry and frontcountry areas for hiking, camping, backpacking, climbing, mountaineering, cross country skiing, horse packing, wildlife viewing, photography, and other recreational pursuits, as well as to seek solitude, quietude, and spiritual refreshment. This letter transmits our comments on the above referenced Plan and its accompanying DEIS. Our scoping comments (dated June 6, 2007 and January 28, 2010) and our subsequent additional comments regarding the Merced River Plan (dated May 30, 2010 and April 14, 2011) are hereby incorporated by reference, and should be already included in your project record. Please contact us at the letterhead address if any of these four important background documents are not in your project record and/or if you need additional copies of our earlier comments.
Page 2 of 8 In sum, High Sierra is very concerned that: (1) the proposed Plan fails to heed the Park Service s Organic Act by allowing impairment of park scenery and other resources; (2) the proposed Plan fails to limit commercial enterprises as required by the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act; (3) the proposed Plan fails to ensure timely compliance with clear direction provided by Congress regarding the High Sierra Camps ; (4) the DEIS fails to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it does not adequately evaluate and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed actions; and (5) the proposed project fails to comply even with Yosemite s own General Management Plan. High Sierra Camps High Sierra is especially concerned about the commercial High Sierra Camps (HSCs) at Vogelsang, May Lake, Sunrise, and Merced Lake, all of which drain to the Merced River. These aged and ugly facilities create significant, profound, and harmful negative impacts on the Merced River corridor and on the environment of Yosemite National Park. For example, numerous significant pollutants of human occupancy are produced at the camps, including sewage (human body wastes), gray water from showers, grease and detergent from kitchens, and other garbage and trash. Wastewater, sewage, and other wastes from these developments pollute the meadows, soils, and waters of Yosemite. Further, the numerous packtrains needed to supply the camps significantly damage and pollute trails and surrounding areas, including the Merced River. Congress specifically recognized these threats to Yosemite when it passed the California Wilderness Act of 1984. That Act, signed by President Reagan, bestowed formal wilderness designation upon much of the Yosemite backcountry. Congress allowed the HSCs to (temporarily) remain, but stated:...if and when it occurs that the continued operation of these facilities...results in an increased adverse impact on the adjacent wilderness environment (including increased adverse impact on the natural environment within the enclaves themselves), the operation of these facilities shall be promptly terminated, the facilities removed, the sites naturalized, and in the procedure set forth by section 9 of the bill, the areas promptly designated as wilderness.
The simple truth is that the HSCs are a destructive commercial venture initiated by the early concessionaires Desmond and Curry. The Park Service climbed onto this money making (for the Currys) venture in the 1920s, encouraging the building of additional camps in order to get more people into the backcountry. But the problem is now reversed: so many people want to visit Yosemite s backcountry that access is strictly rationed. If environmental impacts in the backcountry are to be kept at or below any certain level, then for every person who stays at a High Sierra Camp you will have to refuse access to ten or more people who travel on foot and do not need to be supplied by commercial packtrains. The DEIS fails to honestly acknowledge, evaluate, or disclose these fundamental facts. The Vogelsang HSC (capacity 42) is located within the Merced River watershed, and all of the pollutants generated and discharged at the camp therefore drain to the Merced River. The same is true of the commercial camps at Merced Lake (capacity 60), May Lake (capacity 36), and Sunrise (capacity 34). The trails to all of these HSCs are battered and eroded by the commercial packtrains that supply the camps. The numerous commercial packtrains leave manure covered trails, featuring flies and stench and dust. For the sake of those few commercial clients, dozens of people every day and during the course of an entire season, thousands are inconvenienced, offended, and exposed to health hazards by the disgusting condition of the trails. Further, scientists from the University of California (U.C. Davis Medical School) have documented that Yosemite s waters are being significantly polluted, and concluded that: pack animals are most likely the source of coliform [bacterial] pollution (Derlet and Carlson 2006). The House Committee Report prepared for the 1984 California Wilderness Act also stated:...because of the importance of continuing monitoring and assessment of this situation, immediately upon enactment of this bill into law, the Secretary of the Interior should document current baseline operational and environmental impact conditions of all of these facilities [HSC camps], and he should also, within one year of the date of enactment, report in writing to the relevant committee of the House and Senate, his findings and recommendations as to this matter. Annual assessments of Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8 this situation should thereafter be made by the Secretary to assure continued monitoring of conditions. (House Committee Report No. 98 40) The Park Service at Yosemite has never prepared the baseline reports or submitted the annual monitoring reports requested by Congress, and High Sierra is concerned that the Park Service has ignored and continues to scoff at Congress direction to monitor and document the serious impacts caused by these commercial developments. The HSCs are classified as potential wilderness additions, which, by law, must be treated and managed essentially the same as wilderness. (See the California Wilderness Act of 1984, Section 9.) However, despite the ongoing and increased impacts of the HSCs, and the clear direction from Congress, the NPS has made ongoing efforts to hide the impacts of these facilities from Congress and the public, and has illegally continued to use nonconforming methods (i.e., helicopters) to maintain the HSCs and to construct new developments (i.e., sewage mounds, toilets, etc.) at the HSCs. Congress specifically directed that: Helicopter use for routine nonemergency purposes associated with visitor use is a questionable activity in national park system wilderness areas and should be eliminated within designated national park system wilderness. (House Committee Report No. 98 40, at p. 51) In sum, the DEIS fails to honestly analyze and clearly disclose the many environmental impacts to the Merced River and its corridor caused by the HSCs at Vogelsang, May Lake, Sunrise, and Merced Lake. Significant impacts include, but are not limited to: (1) impaired scenery; (2) degraded trails; (3) pollution of surface and ground waters by sewage and wastewater produced at the HSCs; (4) pollution of surface waters by manure (containing bacteria and pathogens) produced by pack animals that service the camps; (5) harm to wildlife that come in contact with sewage, kitchen/bath wastes, and human food sources; and (6) harm to native songbirds due to proliferation of brown headed cowbirds. Your Plan should permanently remove all of the HSCs discussed above, restore the sites, and propose that the potential wilderness additions be designated as wilderness as intended by Congress in the California Wilderness Act (see Section 9; and House Committee Report No. 98 40).
The HSCs are an anachronism an out of date holdover from the bad old days of the 1920s through the early 1960s, when more development and more commercialism were considered desirable and beneficial. It is time for the National Park Service to catch up with the times (and heed its Organic Act) by choosing preservation of park resources, scenery, wilderness character, and wild river values over ongoing exploitation and impairment. We are aware that some staff members at Yosemite have proposed that the polluting commercial camps be grandfathered, and perhaps even codified in your plan as Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs). Any attempt to enshrine the HSCs as ORVs would be both ludicrous and unlawful, and is unacceptable. In order for recreational uses to be considered as an ORV, a value must be: 1) river related or river dependent, and 2) rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context. The High Sierra Camps are none of these. The camps simply offer a luxury, catered, pampered lodging experience that is neither river related nor river dependent. And those who desire soft bedding, fancy meals, and showers can find such comforts in thousands of locations throughout the region, state, and nation. These elitist camps are nothing more than commercial tent villages catering to the comforts and convenience of a very small minority of park visitors, at the expense of everyone else. The camps degrade scenery, pollute water, create noise, and impair Yosemite s river values and wilderness character in many other ways. As discussed above and in our previous comments, Congress has expressed serious concerns about the camps, and authorized the Park Service to remove them. Any attempt to designate these commercial camps as ORVs would therefore be arbitrary and capricious. Others have tried to rationalize the retention of the aged, unsightly, and polluting commercial High Sierra Camps on the grounds that they are historic and/or somehow an important part of our heritage that should be continued. This is a bankrupt abuse of language that has been used repeatedly throughout Yosemiteʹs history to justify continuing ruinous practices that were, many years too late, recognized as the uninformed, anti social, and anti environmental practices that they were. Some examples in point: Page 5 of 8
The famous firefall. The absurd business of shoving a huge bonfire off a 3,000 foot cliff every evening for the entertainment of the mob. Finally ceased in January 1969, when at long last it occurred to the powers that be that this was probably the worst model for behavior in a national park that one could imagine. During the 1920s and 1930s, by far the greatest tourist attraction in Yosemite Valley was the feeding of bears at a garbage dump. The bear feeding platform was such a permanent fixture that it even appeared on the USGS topo maps of the time. Initiated by catastrophic ignorance. Eliminated by modest recovery of sanity. In the prewar halcyon days there was actually a Yosemite zoo, featuring lion cubs, bear cubs, and deer. And here we are in 2013, still hopelessly mired in the past. The current Plan proposes to continue the HSCs with but a few cosmetic tweaks around the edges (plus some unlawful new developments). Horses and mules are non native, disease carrying, weed spreading animals. On those grounds alone they should be barred from Yosemite except in cases where they are absolutely necessary. Yet the proposed Plan persists in encouraging their use, and the NPS resists all efforts to reduce or eliminate their damaging and polluting impacts. Why is this your policy, and how can you justify it? Furthermore, the General Management Plan (GMP) for Yosemite National Park states that: Potential wilderness classification will prevent any further development of facilities or services; should existing developments be removed, there will be no reconstruction of facilities. Yet, despite the clear direction from Congress and this clear direction contained in Yosemite s own GMP, the draft Plan proposes to construct new toilet facilities at some HSCs. This would be unlawful. The GMP clearly prohibits any further installation of facilities or services at the HSCs. The NPS should stop trying to rationalize the existence of the HSCs, and it should cease all plans to install new facilities or services. Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8 Commercial Enterprises The HSCs and the packtrains used to supply them are commercial activities. The Plan essentially continues business as usual with only a few minor cosmetic changes to these commercial enterprises. This violates the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act by failing to adequately limit and regulate harmful commercial ventures. Invasive Weeds Our scoping comments (dated June 6, 2007) discussed at length the issue of invasive weeds. Please refer to those comments for a detailed discussion of this issue. An additional study documents weed invasions in Yosemite (Exotic Species Threat Assessment and Management Prioritization for Sequoia Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks, by J. Gerlach and others, April 2001), and provides clear evidence that domestic stock animals (i.e., horses and mules) are responsible for introducing and spreading weeds in Yosemite. The DEIS fails to honestly evaluate and fully disclose these impacts, and the Plan fails to incorporate mandatory measures that would effectively prevent the introduction and spread of weeds. Water Quality & Water Pollution Our scoping comments of September 2006 discussed and provided a copy of a publication by Derlet and Carlson (2006), which documented contamination of surface waters in Yosemite National Park due to pack & saddle stock animals (i.e., horses & mules). Subsequent research has confirmed those findings (see Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Backcountry Lakes and Streams in the Sierra Nevada Mountains: a 5 Year Study, by R. Derlet and others, 2008. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 19:82 90). a Because stock animals are known to contaminate surface waters with diseasecausing pathogens (and because of the many other stock related impacts discussed in our earlier comments cited above), the use of stock animals should be prohibited within the Merced River corridor, except in cases where they are absolutely necessary. When stock animals must be used, their numbers should be a Although these two scientific papers (i.e., Derlet and Carlson 2006; Derlet and others 2008) are listed in the DEIS s bibliography, the DEIS fails to honestly analyze or disclose the papers findings or to acknowledge the conclusion that Yosemite s waters are being significantly polluted by domestic stock animals. Simply listing papers in the bibliography does not constitute analysis and disclosure of the significant environmental impacts documented therein.
as few as possible, and every feasible effort must be made to avoid water pollution from animal wastes, such as by requiring that all stock animals be outfitted with manure catchers, which are now readily available and inexpensive. (See, for example, www.bunbag.com and www.equisan.com.au.) Impacts of Stock Use The DEIS contains no serious or honest description, evaluation, or disclosure of the many profound and adverse physical and organic environmental impacts caused by domestic stock animals (i.e., horses and mules). (See our previous comments for detailed summaries of the many significant impacts.) The DEIS contains only unsubstantiated conclusions in an apparent attempt to rationalize business as usual in regards to stock use, and it fails despite many hundreds of pages to provide the public and decision makers with any real information about the serious impacts of stock use: trail damage, water pollution, spread of invasive weeds, proliferation of parasitic cowbirds, etc. Summary & Conclusion Page 8 of 8 For the reasons stated above, High Sierra is very concerned that: (1) the proposed Plan fails to ensure timely compliance with direction provided by Congress regarding the High Sierra Camps ; (2) the proposed Plan fails to heed the Park Service s Organic Act by allowing impairment of park scenery and other resources; (3) the proposed Plan fails to limit commercial enterprises as required by the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act; (4) the DEIS fails to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it does not adequately evaluate and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed actions as required by NEPA; and (5) the proposed Plan would violated Yosemite s own GMP by installing new developments and facilities at the HSCs. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments. Please keep us informed of all opportunities for public involvement for this project, and send complete printed copies of all planning workbooks and environmental and decision documents for our review. Sincerely, Jeff Kane, Conservation Associate High Sierra Hikers Association