Calf Creek overhaul

Reservation system may be option for iconic SW attraction

by Jonathan Thompson

THE NEWS: The latest example of public lands getting overrun, and a land management agency’s questionable attempt to fix it, is playing out at the Calf Creek Recreation Area, between the towns of Boulder and Escalante in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The trailhead parking lot regularly overflows, so the Bureau of Land Management decided last week to make it bigger, along with other “improvements.” Many are not impressed.

THE CONTEXT: Lower Calf Creek Falls has suffered what might be called collateral damage from Utah’s Mighty Five marketing effort. The big-bucks campaign, launched a decade ago, lured people from all over the world to the five national parks spread out across the southern part of the state: Zion, Arches, Bryce, Capitol Reef and Canyonlands. These folks even slathered London cabs with images of Delicate Arch to entice Brits to come to Canyon Country.

As we all now know, the campaign succeeded beyond expectations. Public lands advocates went from worrying about declining park visitation to fretting about overcrowding, especially at Zion and Arches. Millions of people each year – and as many as 20,000 per day –crammed into Zion’s Narrows, waited in line to view Delicate Arch or swarmed the pie shop in Capitol Reef.

But it isn’t just the parks that sag under the weight of all those people. It is also a selection of choice locations along the route, including the eminently Instagram-able Lower Calf Creek Falls. The place has always been popular, but it’s been especially inundated in recent years, prompting the BLM to do something – sort of. Instead of limiting visitors, the BLM is planning to enlarge the parking lot to accommodate more people.

You can’t really blame folks for wanting to go to Calf Creek. It’s located just off HWY 12, a popular route connecting Bryce Canyon with Capitol Reef and, as one of the most spectacular stretches of road in the United States, is a sort of asphalt destination of its own.

From a slickrock ridge offering expansive views, motorists drop precipitously into the verdant Escalante River gorge and up its tributary, Calf Creek, before reaching a campground, trailhead and parking lot. Show up early enough, and you’ll find a pleasant, quiet place – in spite of its close proximity to the highway – and your choice of about 30 parking spots. Snagging one of the handful of sweet camp spots is another matter, requiring persistence and a lot of luck.

From there, it’s a 3-mile hike up the canyon, a sort of oasis, with willows, cattails, dragonflies, beavers and even fish in the little stream. Finally, one reaches the falls, where a stream splashes down from a sandstone pour-off into a sand-floored amphitheater.

Get there early enough, and you might have the place almost to yourself. But the crowds start congealing around noon, and by mid-afternoon, it’s an all-out zoo. When you get back to the parking lot, you’re bound to find it overflowing with vehicles along with dozens of cars lined up on the narrow highway.

The BLM recognized that something needed to be done. The plan includes:

• Adding 40 more parking spaces by expanding into what is now an oak-shaded picnic ground;

• Modernizing and replacing infrastructure such as restrooms, the campground and a cool old bridge; adding Wi-Fi and more camp spaces.

• Widening the access road.

What’s wrong with the agency’s plan? For starters, the idea of wrecking an oak grove and historic picnic ground to make room for more cars is absurd. Same goes for modernizing the current facilities: It would damage the historic character of the spot. You can overhaul the plumbing without scraping and replacing structures. Adding a few campsites – if it could be done – might be OK, but it’s hard to imagine that working.

Secondly, shouldn’t the goal be to reduce crowds, not attempt to accommodate them? It’s now understood that adding lanes to a congested highway will only attract more traffic, a phenomenon known as induced demand. Add more parking, and you’ll just entice more passersby who otherwise might be deterred by the lack of parking, thereby thickening the crowds –and heightening their impact – on the trail and falls.

I don’t cherish the idea of turning people away from places like this. It seems unfair and opposed to the spirit of public lands. But in this case, there are few other feasible options aside from blasting a giant parking garage out of the sandstone cliffs. It’s probably time to put a limit on the number of visitors allowed to park at the trailhead, either by banning parking outside the existing lot or implementing a reservation system (same goes for the campground).

There are dangers to this approach: It might just encourage folks to go to nearby places. A better outcome would be that the crowds just keep going until they get to the next national park, where they can join the already burgeoning numbers.

The BLM has already issued a record of decision. But there’s still time to sign a petition calling on the agency to alter its plans at https://bit.ly/3jCuafJ.

The Land Desk is a newsletter from Jonathan P. Thompson, longtime journalist and author. To subscribe, go to: landdesk.org ■