Skip to main content
Log in

Title 16 united states code §55 and its implications for management of concession facilities in Yosemite National Park

  • Profile
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Yosemite National Park is one of the nation's most scenic and ecologically/geologically important parks. Unfortunately, the park is subject to extensive development of concession facilities and associated high levels of visitor use. Those concerned with preservation of the park's resources have attempted to limit the types and extent of such facilities to reduce adverse impacts. Strictly speaking, resolution of the preservation versus use controversy must be based on whether the National Park Service is adhering to its legislative mandate to regulate development and use in the parks. The common interpretation of legislative mandates for national parks, including Yosemite, is that they call for a difficult balancing between the conflicting goals of preservation and use. Accordingly, although concession developments cause significant impacts, they usually have been interpreted to be within the legal discretion allowed the secretary of the interior. However, the usual interpretations of the meanings of legislative mandates for Yosemite National Park have not considered Title 16 United States Code §55, which is a very restrictive statute limiting concession facilities. Many of the limitations imposed on concession facilities by the plain language of the statute have been exceeded. If it can be shown that 16 United States Code §55 is a valid statute, the policy implications for park management in Yosemite National Park would be considerable — namely, that significant reductions in concession facilities could be required. This article examines whether the statute can reasonably be thought to be valid and encourages others to conduct further examination of this question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • County of Trinity v.Andrus. 438 F. Supp. 1386, 1377–78 (E.D. Cal. 1977).

  • Dustin, D. L., and L. H. McAvoy. 1982. The decline and fall of quality recreation opportunities and environments?Environmental Ethics 4:49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons, A. K. 1976. National parks: The dilemma of development.Science 191:440–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, R. R. 1973. Planning for man and nature in national parks. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ise, J. 1979. Our national park policy: A critical history. Arno Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, J. 1986. Research in the national parks.The Environmental Professional 8:127–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, J., and D. Stout. 1984. A reinterpretation of national park legislation.Environmental Law 15:41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantell, M. 1979. Preservation and use: Concessions in national parks.Ecology Law Quarterly 8:1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milestone, J. F. 1980. Influence of modern man on the stream system of Yosemite Valley. Pages 155–163in Proceedings of the second conference on scientific research in the national parks, Volume 9: Human impact on natural resources. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service. 1963. Contract with Yosemite Park and Curry Company NPS-WASO-IX-63-2 (May 9, 1963). US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service. 1978. Draft environmental statement, general management plan. US Department of Interior, Yosemite National Park/California.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Park Service. 1980. State of the parks—1980, A report to congress. Office of Science and Technology, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Parks and Conservation Association v.Kleppe. 547 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

  • Sax, J. 1979. Fashioning a recreation policy for our national parks: The philosophy of choice and the choice of philosophy.Creighton Law Review 11:973–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, B. 1976. Environmental law: People, pollution, and land use. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra Club v.Department of the Interior. 398 F.Supp. 284 (N.D. Cal. 1975).

  • University of California, Department of Agricultural Sciences. 1964. The influence of modern man on the vegetation of Yosemite Valley. University of California Manual 36.

  • US House of Representatives. 1974. National Park Service management of concession operations before certain sub-committees of the Committee on Government, Operations and Small Business. 94th Congress, 1st Session.

  • US House of Representatives. 1975. National Park Service policies discourage competition, give concessioners too great a voice in concession management. H.R. Report No. 869. 94th Congress, 2d Session.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lemons, J. Title 16 united states code §55 and its implications for management of concession facilities in Yosemite National Park. Environmental Management 11, 461–472 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867654

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867654

Key words

Navigation