Proposed Camping Fees at Creek Pasture and Superbowl

Saw this on the Monticello Field Office Website and thought that some of the folks on here might be interested in providing the BLM with feedback on their proposal.

blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/…

Wow, thanks for that. Will be sending in comments.

Estimated 4'000 users per year. Did you notice the overall use numbers for the district going up 30,000 to 50,000 in five years?

Paying ten bucks per campsite to help maintain Indian Creek doesn't seem like too big a burden, things like CXT toilets don't build and maintain themselves as climbing numbers are ever increasing.

I'm not opposed to fees per se, but I think $10/night is a little steep, especially considering there isn't water or trash. Oowah Lake above Mill Creek (yes I realize that's USFS not BLM) is $5 per site and that seems more reasonable.

The real question though is will there be campground hosts that are some cranky old couple in a $200k RV posted up all season driving around in a golf cart berating climbers about every stupid thing?

FYI comments are due by 9/3. You can email them to BLM_UT_MT_Comments@blm.gov

JF1 wrote:Estimated 4'000 users per year. Did you notice the overall use numbers for the district going up 30,000 to 50,000 in five years? Paying ten bucks per campsite to help maintain Indian Creek doesn't seem like too big a burden, things like CXT toilets don't build and maintain themselves as climbing numbers are ever increasing.

That is true but many of those facilities were built through donations and volunteer labor. BLM currently has an adequate budget for pumping out those toilets.

The problem I see with charging at those sites is your going to have many more of people using dispersed camping in the area and creating new campsites and shitting everywhere. This takes us back to same problem Indian Creek faced before these camp grounds became more established, people camping and shitting everywhere.

Comments due to the BLM by September 3rd to BLM_UT_MT_Comments@blm.gov

Highlander wrote: The problem I see with charging at those sites is your going to have many more of people using dispersed camping in the area and creating new campsites and shitting everywhere. This takes us back to same problem Indian Creek faced before these camp grounds became more established, people camping and shitting everywhere.

Yep.

That is definitely a huge concern. However, the development of Creek Pasture and Superbowl and installing amenities was "to for the area to become a fee site". See page 17 of the business plan, 3rd paragraph. Fees are likely inevitable, but it seems very worthwhile pointing out this concern that high-ish fees will drive more people to dispersed camping/shitting everywhere. Suggest a lower fee, at least for the first few years. While public comments are not a democracy, if enough people voice this concern it can have an impact. The Pit (Bishop BLM Field Office) has basically the same amenities and was $3/night the last time I was there.

It seems like fees for the group sites are entirely reasonable considering the ability to reserve it, particularly for school/guided groups and these fees ought to help offset some of the costs related to the toilets and maintenance while also preventing the increased impact on the dispersed/free camping around.

$5 or $10 these areas will be just as crowded as they always are. Just fewer tight ass dirtbags. As a whole the creek will have the same amount of people, fees or not.

Gentrification comes to the Creek.

If you read the entire plan its obvious that the BLM wants to cater to the upper income bracket and turn these campgrounds into money makers. That means RV hook ups, tent platforms, and shade structures. This also gives them an excuse to give $500,000+ to their homies at Canyon County Engineering for the "improvements", just another example of government waste.
It is a shame the climbing community invested in these sites through volunteer labor, seeking donations through climbing affiliated companies, and personal donations for these campgrounds to become another Hamburger Rock for tourons and the rv and atv crowd.
Climbers will just go out and create another campground for ourselves like we did before.

The following is an (older) letter sent from members of the FOIC board. It gives some good information on some of the things 'we' have done. Some good info in here to use in your letter to show what climbers have done to minimize our impact (and thus how this new fee will neg affect us). My biggest fear is that the inevitable dispersement of climbers will lead to further oversight/development.. sighhh. I guess I can't say I'm surprised as the San Juan Co. in general is crooked. Using improvements made by FOIC and other to eventually charge $10/night.. bullshit.

" … in 2010 alone, the year we [FOIC] received the State Directors Public Land Partner Award, it was stated in the award letter that
"Your efforts in assisting the Monticello Field Office with the management of Indian Creek [resulted in donations of] $18,000 for the Donnelly canyon permanent toilet … and $5000 … for the placement of portable toilets in two of the busiest campsites in the area … Through your recruiting efforts, you brought more than 100 volunteers … who donated more than 800 hours of labor [a conservative value of $12,000] … to various projects beneficial to the corridor." Juan Depalma, May 23, 2011.

That brings 2010 in at a conservative overall-estimate of $35,000 given to the stakeholder (MFO) in one year alone, from the rock-climbing user-group. Since then "we" (climbers, via the various means) have likely tripled that, totaling over $100,000 in value, in three years, for other infrastructure projects, including developing the campsites now proposed for fees. And bear in mind, we speak exclusively for the Friends of Indian Creek—The AAC, The AF and The American Mountain Foundation will indubitably have their own figures (and concerns) to add to this equation. Ironically, were it not for climbers' efforts and expenditures, the Monticello FO would not meet the BLM criteria for a fee structure campsite at Creek Pasture or Superbowl—We can say with a fair amount of certainty, the user-group volunteers would not have been so willing to assemble picnic tables, had they known it was a pathway to creating fee-structure validity.

In summary, here is a quote from a Friends of Indian Creek supporter that I think roundly and eloquently summarizes the sentiment we anticipate will be wide-spread: "As an Indian Creek enthusiast who put many hours of volunteer labor into improving the Creek Pasture campground and have donated cash to the FOIC, I am disappointed at the possibility of the impending change. I am also concerned about the increased impact on the fragile desert environment this change may cause. Already, this week with many colleges on a Spring break we have observed more climbers using dispersed camping throughout the canyons. I am hoping all my fears are unfounded, but I thought I'd bring this to the attention of the FOIC. Perhaps with organized efforts we could either prevent use fees for the Creek Pasture, or reach a compromise with the BLM … ? Thank you for all your hard work in keeping our beloved climbing resources accessible to all climbers."

Ben Jammin, thanks for the awesome post.

Whoa, that quote in the last paragraph was written by me! I'm glad our voices do get heard. Please take your times and write to the BLM. Our local BLM office has recently opened comments for a ski area expansion, and they got 80% negative comments!

Bump for more folks to send their thoughts in to the BLM

After reading through this I promptly contacted blm and the access fund. This is the worst idea I can think of for an area like Indian Creek. The statistics that are listed in paper on the link at the top are ridiculous. They say that over 33 of the visitors to creek pasture and Super Bowl campsites make over 100k a year or more? And that Only 15% make less than 25k a year. I have spent my fair share of time here and that figure is blatantly incorrect. And who says this area needs any developing? The last thing creek pasture needs are more huge rvs with generators running 24/7. Quote from proposal "In addition, a failure to raise the campground fee would mean that improvements to the campgrounds, such as additional toilets, tent pads, and shade shelters would not be added to the existing campground infrastructure. Furthermore, needed improvements to campground facilities could not be done unless the campground fee were to increase."

TimKeyt wrote:They say that over 33 of the visitors to creek pasture and Super Bowl campsites make over 100k a year or more? And that Only 15% make less than 25k a year.

That's not what it says. It says that visitors to the Moab-BLM sites make that much according to the NVUM study conducted in 2007. The author of this plan then goes on to make the [perhaps dubious] assumption that the household income statistics for the Moab-BLM NVUM 2007 survey correlate to the Monticello-BLM visitors (and not just to the Superbowl and Creek Pasture campgrounds as you have said).

So what kind of fee do people think is reasonable? Hell no we won't go, no fee? My thought is even though FOIC did a lot of the improvements to Creek Pastures inevitably it'll be the BLM who will have to maintain them. (Which should be a future consideration for FOIC and other when installing these types of improvements in the future, not that I'm against them).

Personally I'm going to propose a $3/night fee for the above reason. Also, I'm going to call BS on comparing average income for Moab-BLM to Monticello-BLM. I also want to make clear that (I think) it will hurt future development from outside funding sources (FOIC and other) when they turn around and propose unsubstantiated fees using dubious comparables after 'our' groups did a lot of improvements.

3 bucks a night will pay for the toilets to be cleaned, it's affordable to folks who work even occasionally, and it's not enough to pay for further dubious and unwanted 'improvements.' Sounds pretty good to me.

I'd agree, though aim lower because after negotiations it will go back up.

Fees to cover maintenance? Ok, fine, guess my tax dollars aren't enough. I'll concede. But fees for an ultimate expansion and golden calf? No way.