|
|
|
|
|
|
A PAPER FROM THE URBAN IMPERATIVE [Table of contents] [Buy the book] [PDF version]
California cities and the protection and restoration of Yosemite National Park
JOHN J. REYNOLDS
The author is a Senior Fellow of the National Park Foundation. He has been a Deputy Director of the United States National Park Service and Regional Director of its Pacific West Region. He lives in California. Citation: This paper may be cited as: [Authors.] 2005. [Article title.] In Ted Trzyna, ed., The Urban Imperative. California Institute of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California. 1. INTRODUCTION
Yosemite National Park is the birthplace of the national park idea that led to Yellowstone and thousands of other protected areas around the world. It is a World Heritage Site. It is one of those few protected areas that enjoy special recognition in conservation and preservation annals worldwide.
Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of giant redwood trees, now part of Yosemite National Park (USNPS, 2004a), were the first places in the world protected by the action of a national government on behalf of all the people of that nation. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ceding federal land to the state of California as an inalienable public trust. From the beginning, the fight to preserve Yosemite Valley, and ultimately all of what became Yosemite National Park, has been a tale of pursuing a dream. It is also a tale of special attachment to the people of San Francisco and its neighboring communities, and to other metropolitan areas within California.
Yosemite has charmed people from the very beginning. It reaches inside virtually all of them, to their hearts and souls. It becomes a part of their personal heritage, attached to it in unusual personal depth. Many become willing to put prodigious amounts of personal time and energy into making sure that “their” park, and especially “their” valley, are made “pure.” It happened to John Muir, a city man who became the progenitor of what has become an enduring passionate, personal, and yet democratic struggle to decide what is “right” for Yosemite. He began the San Francisco connection that has led the intellectual, heartfelt, and often expertly political struggle for the future of the park. He formed the Sierra Club, the world’s first national conservation advocacy group, first and foremost to protect Yosemite. And so Yosemite’s need for the people of the cities began in earnest.
Over the years, millions of people have visited Yosemite from the San Francisco area. Billions of family and childhood memories have been made. Hearts and minds of city dwellers have become unwittingly and unswervingly devoted to Yosemite.
2. THE CONTEXT: A PARTICIPATORY PLANNING PROCESS
In the mid 1970s, the United States National Park Service, faced with a powerful concessioner who seemed more concerned with resort-type activity than with the park itself, had no long-range plan. As the people of California’s cities found out that resort-like development might be coming to Yosemite, they rose up en masse and spoke out in unprecedented numbers. The many previous draft plans were “rejected” as a result. A new planning team was formed and began work in 1975. The team was trained in the philosophy and techniques of public involvement. Over the next two years the number of people, mostly city people, on the official mailing list and involved in the struggle for the park’s future grew to 65,000. Five years later, in 1980, a historic plan for Yosemite was approved (USNPS, 2004b). In the introduction to this plan, the National Park Service stated:
“Today, the Valley is congested with more than a thousand buildings – stores, homes, garages, apartments, lodging facilities, and restaurants – that are reflections of our society; the Valley floor is bisected by approximately 30 miles of roadway which now accommodates a million cars, trucks, and buses a year. But the foremost responsibility of the National Park Service is to perpetuate the natural splendor of Yosemite and its exceedingly special Valley.
“The intent of the National Park Service is to remove all automobiles from Yosemite Valley and Mariposa Grove and to redirect development to the periphery of the park and beyond . . . the essence of wilderness . . . will be preserved.
“Implementation of this . . . plan will be the first big step in carrying out this intent . . . The plan describes immediate actions that will achieve five broad goals:
The National Park Service, led by thousands of city people, had historically committed to restoration of the natural grandeur and sublimity of Yosemite as the path to visitor enjoyment in the future.
Sixteen years later, in 1997, a flood roared through Yosemite Valley taking with it virtually all the roads, lodging, employee housing, and campsites in its floodplain. In those 16 years, the public, again most vocally from the San Francisco area, had come to two conclusions: first, that the “broad goals” of the 1980 plan were still completely valid, and second, that details of how to get there needed to change with the times. As the Park Service moved to replace facilities lost in the flood, a pair of lawsuits by citizens against the Service’s processes brought deliberate sense to the situation. New plans that looked at the Valley holistically were produced after great public discourse. These plans reaffirmed the broad goals from 1980 and created an updated vision of the park’s future. Restoration of natural processes was the basis upon which all other decisions were reached (USNPS 2004b).
The foregoing is but a brief history of the tumult resulting from deep public caring for Yosemite. What is important here are two things:
These people who care so much live mostly in the cities of California, illustrating a quotation in the introduction in the concept paper for The Urban Imperative workshop: “The fight for conservation . . . will not be won in the remote depths of the forests and mangroves. It will be won in the large metropolises . . . It is there that we will . . . win the cause for protected areas” (Cunha e Menezes, 2001).
Perhaps no place is the truth of this statement more clearly demonstrated than in Yosemite. The connection between the park and the citizens of the major metropolitan areas of the state of California and especially of the San Francisco Bay Area is long, deep and intense. The questions at hand are:
3. YOSEMITE AND URBAN PEOPLE: DEEP AND LASTING CONNECTIONS
The first question, “Are these connections demonstrable?” requires a little analysis of the record.
In order to do this, we need to have a little more history. I have already mentioned the John Muir tie to the San Francisco area. His leadership to get the park established in 1890 was not the end of his work. His second battle not only tied San Francisco to the park in a different way, but was also the biggest conservation battle in history to that time. It was the battle for Hetch Hetchy Valley, another valley comparable in size and beauty to Yosemite Valley itself. In the early 20th century San Francisco saw the need to establish for itself a reliable source of water, and saw this second high-walled valley as necessary for water storage. John Muir and the Sierra Club, based in San Francisco but growing ever stronger in the rest of California’s cities, decried the loss that was to come. The fight was finally waged in the Congress of the United States, where power politics won and Hetch Hetchy Valley was lost to a city’s thirst. Perhaps as John Muir’s tombstone, O’Shaughnessy Dam rises today at the end of the valley. To some it signifies assured water for San Francisco. To others it signifies the absolute solidification of the public abhorrence of dams in national parks worldwide. This loss created a lasting resolve in city conservationists that Yosemite would never be so ravaged again.
In 1913, cars were first officially permitted to enter the park. By 1925, adverse impacts were becoming apparent. Visitation skyrocketed. It hit one million in 1954, and doubled over the next two decades to 2 million in 1976, when the first long-range plan, described above, was begun. Two more decades later, visitation had doubled again to 4 million, proving that the connections between Yosemite and its urban constituents were not only real, but also powerful.
Drives to respond to visitation increases in the traditional manner of increasing facilities within the park and especially in Yosemite Valley resulted in a massive outcry by the public centered in California’s urban areas, but reflected throughout the nation.
The resulting planning effort in the 1970s, which I referred to earlier, conducted over 48 public meetings throughout California and in six cities across the nation. The outpouring of caring about what should happen in Yosemite was intense. Over 65,000 people asked to be placed on the mailing list. Over 32,000 of these participated regularly in the ensuing process which led to adoption of the plan.
Where were most of these people from? The largest group was from the San Francisco area. Other major identifiable groupings were from the Los Angeles metropolitan area and emerging cities of California’s interior Central Valley.
The public response was overwhelmingly consistent from these urban dwellers in one regard. Although they varied some in what specific actions they would take, they believed virtually as one that Yosemite was a special place, and creation of more lodging and other new buildings should not occur inside the park. And they concurred en masse that restoration of natural conditions and de-urbanization of the park were essential to experiencing Yosemite in the future. The approved plan was basically a compact with urban America, led by urban California. Nearly two decades passed. Following the 1997 flood and its massive destruction of facilities in its path, the public spoke again. They said that facilities lost to the flood should not be replaced in kind, but that reconstruction should be guided by the goals of the 1980 plan. For both legal reasons and to ensure that the Park Service understood the public mind, detailed planning to implement these goals in light of the new conditions was undertaken. Final plans were approved in late 2000 and early 2001. Once again the ties between the people of the metropolitan areas of California and Yosemite were vocal, persistent, and remarkably consistent in their vision of Yosemite and its restoration after the flood. Over 10,000 comments came from all over the United States and 13 other countries. Seventy-six percent of them came from within California. Of the California commentaries, 68 percent came from the major urban centers, divided as follows:
The evidence is overwhelming that this park needs and is cared about by the people of the cities, and that the special original tie between San Francisco and the park still exists. But inherent in these figures is a clue to park managers about who must receive more concerted attention than in the past. As population growth has skyrocketed in the interior Central Valley cities, which lie closer to Yosemite than San Francisco, the people in these cities are beginning to express what they think Yosemite’s future should be more strongly than ever before.
Metropolitan areas, especially San Francisco, are where the political power that most affects Yosemite’s future is based. It is also from these same people that the philosophical base for what constitutes an appropriate future for the park grows, and from which opposition to or consensus for agency actions is born and matures. The answer to the first question, “Are these connections demonstrable, both in the past and now?” is without a doubt “Yes.”
4. HOW DID THEY HAPPEN?
The answer to the second question, “How did they happen?” is relatively straightforward. Historically, San Francisco was the closest major city to Yosemite. San Francisco was the only port and rail terminus from which transportation could be easily arranged. It was the cultural and media center of California, and adopted Yosemite as a part of the culture of those in the city wealthy enough to get to and enjoy the place. Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, facilities in Yosemite were modernized. Cars became ubiquitous and the middle class discovered Yosemite. The population of California has continued to grow and spread. The people who can easily get to Yosemite now live not only in the San Francisco area and the growing cities of California’s interior Central Valley, but in Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California as well – and in other cities around the United States and the world.
These are trends that happened to a generally passive National Park Service, one responding primarily to increased demand for facilities at first. But as the 1970s hove into view, the National Park Service did indeed begin to pay attention to and value public opinion about the conditions of the park. The explosive reaction to the behind-the-scenes politics of the concessioner in the early 1970s led directly to an acceptance and unprecedented inclusion of the public in decision-making processes related to the park.
The first permanent connection as a result was commitment to open, inclusive public processes, especially in California’s urban areas. Two other phenomena began to emerge quickly. The first was the idea that philanthropy could benefit the park. The second was that connecting children to the park for educational purposes was not only possible but also desirable. Both took root in Yosemite in the mid-1980s. And so were born two non-profit official partners of the park, both dependent on city dwellers and both resulting in enduring connections to the park.
The philanthropic path resulted in the formation of The Yosemite Fund, dedicated to raising funds and volunteers to assist in the management of the park. The Fund began as a largely San Francisco Bay Area-based institution. Many of the first officers and the current long term executive director came from the Bay area and had long personal histories associated with the park. The Fund headquarters has always been in San Francisco. Historically, the majority of fund raising has taken place there, though in later years the ties have expanded to other cities in California.
The education path grew virtually simultaneously. The Yosemite Institute, dedicated to educational programs that connect children to Yosemite, was formed. It is brings children from schools all over the state to the park as part of their school experience. The success rate is overwhelming. The Institute now brings over 13,000 kids a year from more than 250 schools to the park. Over half of them come from the San Francisco Bay area.
Preceding all of this, from the earliest times in Yosemite’s history and up through the last quarter of the 20th century, another influence tied Yosemite to the hearts and souls of urban America, especially California’s city folk, and most passionately the people of San Francisco. From the very beginning, famous painters such as Thomas Moran and Albert Bierstadt captured the grandeur and sublime character of Yosemite in art displayed around the U.S. and Europe. Photographers were similarly enchanted, and one in particular, Ansel Adams, made it his life and his passion. A native of San Francisco, he perhaps did more than any other single person to capture the essence of Yosemite on film and infect countless individuals with first a desire to come see for themselves and then a memory of an experience beyond simple verbal description. In more recent times, and in color, the late Galen Rowell’s photographs continue to make this connection. Others, like the poet Gary Snyder, use words to create it. Contemporaneously, television, film, and a myriad of artists and photographers not so famous continue the tradition. These bonds between park and the arts and letters grow more deeply through time, and they all connect the park to the cities.
There are also other avenues that exist that create enduring relationships between the park and the people of cities. One is scientific research of all kinds from universities. The University of California at Berkeley has had a long, deep relationship with the park. That relationship has spread hither and yon through the university systems of California, and is now being formalized in two ways. The first, which includes all national park areas in California, is through an agreement between the University of California and the National Park Service and other federal government agencies called a “Cooperative Environmental Study Unit.” This agreement will facilitate the relationships between university students and the parks in many ways, most particularly in accomplishing studies and research of all kinds beneficial to the parks. The second is the establishment of a direct relationship between the new University of California campus in Merced and Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks. In both instances, students, primarily from urban areas, will be exposed to the parks and develop enduring connections with them.
An increasingly important way in which the relationships between Yosemite and its urban visitors are developed is through volunteer service programs. People, again primarily urban people, gather in organized groups to perform volunteer service in order to give back something to their country. Invariably, after laboring for a day or more in Yosemite, they have formed a bond with the place that endures for the rest of their lives.
5. WHY DO THEY PERSIST?
And so, the third question: “Why do they persist?”
These connections happen one person at a time. They always begin with a very personal experience, one that in some (usually indecipherable) way is personally special. Strongest, and I think most compelling, is an experience in the park. Often seen in letters to the park and always in conversation with people about why they feel so strongly about the place, is a very personal expression of connection. Most often it is simple, straightforward, and perhaps only implies what the experience really is. When asked, people say things like, “Well, I camped there as a kid,” or “My dad and mom took me skiing there the first time when I was just two years old,” or “I was married there,” or “The water; it’s so beautiful, and comes in so many forms, big falls, little falls, gentle river, little creeks, rushing cataracts.” And to those fortunate enough to have worked and lived there, “Yosemite . . . it is my home.” There is always awe, reverence, and many times a puzzled tone that says, “I don’t really know; it’s just there and always will be.”
Other times, and increasingly important in our expanding and diversifying urbanized citizenry, are connections that come from images, whether they be picture or prose. As is evidenced over and over by surveys about why people in cities want wilderness areas to exist, it is not always because they will go to use them. In increasing numbers they just want to know they are there, and that nature is real or has been restored. Yosemite draws on this need in people, and thus a connection is made. Often, this results from photographs, art, prose or poetry.
In terms of organizations that grow up to foster these connections and take advantage of them, such as the Yosemite Institute and the Yosemite Fund, again the connection begins with some kind of deep caring and personal commitment. In the case of the Institute, personal desire to tie Yosemite to the larger good through education coincided with compatible park goals, and a new organization was born. The same is true for the Yosemite Fund, which draws on the individual connection of primarily city dwellers to give back to Yosemite and be part of ensuring its future for generations yet to come through philanthropic giving.
In the end, all of the connections between city and park begin with some experience that creates a personal connection. In some way, the park becomes personally cherished and a sense of personal stewardship and responsibility grows. In many this sense results in a need to give back something that is personally theirs. For example, the “give back” may be participation in public processes, volunteering time, philanthropic giving, artistic creation, or educational endeavor. These people live mostly in cities, both near and far.
6. CONCLUSION
Yosemite both now and throughout its history has needed cities – or, more accurately, the people who live in cities – to survive and evolve. To many, Yosemite may seem to be an anomaly, an interesting story, but perhaps not one applicable elsewhere, back home in a different culture.
However, if we look a little more deeply the basic lessons seem to apply more universally.
First must be an acceptance by park managers that parks need cities, and the people who live in them.
That accepted, then a thoughtful analysis of which cities are important to your park is next. Who comes to this park? Who could come but does not come now? Who could benefit? Where are the people who have experienced this place and have fallen in love with it so much that they will give of their personal time and energy? The answers will vary.
Learning these three things is essential:
The answers can lead to connections similar in kind to the ones to which the restoration of Yosemite owes its support. The key always is connecting the unique nature of your park to the minds, hearts, and souls of people who will support what you are committed to do. Perhaps the history and experience of Yosemite, the birthplace of the national park idea, can continue to serve as a source of inspiration and thoughtful deliberation as the relationship between parks and cities full of the people they are meant to serve continues to evolve. What a wonderful legacy that would be!
7. REFERENCES
Cunha e Menezes, Pedro da. 2001. The mission of protected areas in Brazil. Parks 11 (3): 20.
USNPS. 2004a. Yosemite National Park. http://www.nps.gov/yose. United States National Park Service, Washington. D.C.
USNPS. 2004b. Yosemite National Park: Park planning. http://www.nps.gov/yose/planning. United States National Park Service, Washington, D.C. These Web pages include the General Management Plan of 1980, the Yosemite Valley Plan and Merced River Plan of 2000, and background on the planning process. |
|
|
|
This paper copyright © 2004 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Reproduction of this paper for educational or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this paper for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder.
Web site hosted by the California Institute of Public Affairs, an IUCN member since 1980
Home page / Site map / Copyright & caveats The copyright notice applies to the entire contents of this Web site. |