ShareThis Page
Arch bridges’ future uncertain in Yosemite |

Arch bridges’ future uncertain in Yosemite

The Associated Press
| Saturday, July 7, 2012 6:22 p.m

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. — Perhaps no river crossing in Yosemite Valley has been more photographed than the historic Stoneman Bridge — a single, arching span faced with rough-hewn granite that provides a dramatic foreground to Half Dome, the park’s most iconic natural marvel.

Yet the 205-foot bridge is slated for possible removal under proposed plans for restoring the natural flow of the Merced River.

Some say the Merced — a federally designated “Wild and Scenic River” —should have its course shaped only by nature as it meanders through the valley — but bridge abutments alter that course.

The future of the nearly 80-year-old Stoneman Bridge and two other spandrel-arch bridges concerns environmentalists. They want the river to flow freely — opposing historic preservationists who say these early examples of the rustic park’s architectural style are too culturally important to destroy.

“We’re talking about nationally significant resources in arguably the best-known national park in the world. What happens in Yosemite has echoes throughout the National Park System,” said Anthony Veerkamp of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Last month the trust put the Stoneman Bridge and two other Yosemite Valley stone-arch bridges — the Ahwahnee Bridge and the Sugar Pine Bridge — on its 2012 most endangered historic places list.

“These are not monumental structures — they took their design cues from the environment,” Veerkamp said. “I do not envy the very complicated decisions the National Park Service has to make.”

Four other Yosemite Valley bridges cross the Merced River, but only the three are built into the river, said park spokesman Scott Gediman.

“Yosemite is known throughout the world for its beauty — but in addition to natural beauty, the cultural beauty is significant,” Gediman said. “We take it very seriously. These are not decisions we’re taking lightly.”

Yosemite is remarkable among the nation’s national parks with a combination of stunning beauty, inspiring hikes and proximity to populous metropolitan areas. Despite the park’s 1,200 square miles of wilderness, 95 percent of the 4 million visitors each year stay in the 1-mile-by-8-mile valley, where senses are overwhelmed by the Half Dome and El Capitan walls of granite, stands of pines and stair-step waterfalls.

Called the “Voice of Yosemite” by famed naturalist John Muir, the Merced River flows for 81 miles in the park, from its source 13,000 feet high in the Sierra-Nevada wilderness to its 317-foot drop into the tourist mecca and through it.

For more than 15 years, the park has been pressured by the courts and environmental groups to write a plan balancing public access against the strict protections that come with the river’s 1987 federal wild and scenic designation. As the process winds down, options have included everything from limiting the number of park visitors daily to slowing riverbank erosion by restricting access, to removing lodging and some camping areas in the valley and back country.

The wild and scenic designation left the park service leeway on how to protect the river. Veerkamp said that protecting historic resources, such as the bridges, should have been recommended by the agency.

Four of the five draft plans under consideration call for removing bridges to restore “free-flowing conditions” of the Merced.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.