BLM UTAH STILL TRYING TO EXPAND FEES AND REDUCE DISPERSED CAMPING DESPITE HUGE PUBLIC OPPOSITION
They were foiled in early 2019 because of the government shutdown. But they have come roaring back!
Over the 2018 Christmas holiday period, the Bureau of Land Management in Utah quietly announced plans to make sweeping changes to fees at two popular recreation areas. The changes would result in higher prices for existing fee sites, many new fee sites, and fewer opportunities for free dispersed camping. They were on track to ram the changes through a brief comment period and then within a few days after the comment deadline to get them approved by their statewide Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The Utah RAC has a long history of never telling the BLM “No” on anything.
Given the minimal publicity and the timing, it was clear that BLM was not expecting many comments, and they planned to “analyze” them behind closed doors without ever letting the public have a chance to read them. Between the end of the comment period and the scheduled RAC meeting, there was insufficient time for us to submit a Freedom Of Information Act request. The expected rubber-stamp approval was supposed to be complete before most people even knew that changes were being proposed.
But in an ironic twist, just after WSNFC learned about the plan and put out an email Action Alert to our supporters, national politics intervened and a month-long government shutdown kicked in. That furloughed all the people in charge of accepting comments and forced the cancellation of the RAC meeting. File that under “Silver Linings.”
With the extra time, WSNFC filed a FOIA request and obtained copies of all the public comments that BLM got. We analyzed and summarized them as honestly and objectively as we could and have been able to show conclusively that they were overwhelmingly negative.
But it was a temporary reprieve. On May 29, 2019 they released revised plans and opened a new 14-day comment period (even though BLM policy requires a minimum 30-days). They did not publish a summary of changes, so anyone who wants to figure out what they are has to slog through both the original plan and the revised one, comparing them side by side. And once again, from the close of the comment period until the re-scheduled RAC meeting, only three business days have been allowed for review and “analysis” of the public comments. Obviously, the result of that “analysis” has been pre-determined.
Here is what was originally proposed:
For the Monticello Field Office:
- raise Cedar Mesa overnight hiking permit fees by 188% in peak season and 300% in the off season.
- raise Cedar Mesa day use fees by 250%
- impose a new fee for Butler Wash, a long-time dispersed (undeveloped) camping and day hiking area
- impose new fees for two roadside interpretive sites/rest areas along Highway 95 at Mule Canyon ruins and Butler Wash ruins
That proposal received 114 comments.
103 OPPOSED the proposal. ONE supported it. (10 were ambiguous) See the tally HERE.
The revised Monticello Field Office plan made the following changes in response to public opposition: None.
For the Richfield Field Office:
- expand a small existing free campground and begin charging a fee there for the first time
- build four new individual and group campgrounds in places that are now used as free dispersed (undeveloped ) camping areas and as ATV and equestrian trailheads
- ban dispersed camping within 1/2 mile of those newly constructed campgrounds
- get approval for fees at the newly constructed campgrounds before they are even built
That proposal received 105 comments.
91 OPPOSED the proposal. ONE supported it. (13 were ambiguous) See the tally HERE.
The revised Richfield Field Office plan made the following changes in response to public opposition: They dropped the proposed fee at the existing Otter Creek campground (in response to a blistering letter opposing it from the Piute County Commisssion). They are going ahead with plans to get pre-approval for fees at three campgrounds that are not even built yet, in areas currently used by campers who prefer undeveloped camping.
The two original “business plans” have now been taken down from the BLM’s website. But you can still read them, as well as the revised versions, here:
Monticello – Original Cedar Mesa Business Plan
Richfield – Original Campground Business Plan
Monticello – Revised Cedar Mesa Business Plan
Richfield – Revised Campground Business Plan
We have provided the tally of public comments to the RAC, as irrefutable evidence of overwhelming public opposition. We have also objected to the brief comment period and to confusing and contradictory information that needs to be corrected. BLM needs to take a step back and completely re-think these plans and their public outreach efforts.