Proposed fee changes for Mogollon Rim campgrounds

[joebartels]

Proposed fee changes for Mogollon Rim campgrounds
CLINTS WELL, Ariz., July 8, 2019 - The Coconino National Forest is seeking public input on proposed fee implementation at the Clint’s Well and Kehl Springs campgrounds, and fee increases at Blue Ridge, Rock Crossing, Knoll Lake, Elks, Long Valley Work Center and Moqui campgrounds on the Mogollon Rim Ranger District.

Based on increased increased use at campgrounds, a fee increase and fee implementation is needed to continue site improvements and will help ensure that people can continue using and enjoying our campgrounds. Fees have not been changed in over a decade. The proposed new fees would bring these recreation sites into better alignment with nearby public and private recreation areas.

The following image displays the Forest Service's proposed fee changes for campgrounds in the Mogollon Rim Ranger District:

Of the recreation fees collected, 95 percent remain on the forest to operate, maintain and improve the facilities and programs at the campgrounds. An increase in fees would help the recreation sites be more financially sustainable.

Developed family campgrounds are limited to a family size group or up to eight people and two cars. The Moqui Group Campground consists of three group sites that can accommodate up to 50 people and 10 vehicles at each site. The Elks and Long Valley Work Center Group Campgrounds can accommodate up to 300 people and 50 vehicles. These two large group sites are ideal for large family reunions and social gatherings

The fee change proposal will be presented before a citizen’s advisory committee, called the Arizona Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RAC), which helps ensure the Forest Service addresses public issues and concerns about recreation fees. The public is welcome to attend and comment at all advisory committee meetings, which is expected to be held in December 2019.If these fee proposals are approved, the increase would go into effect as early as spring 2020.

The deadline for comments is October 15, 2019. The public can submit comments in writing through one of several methods:

Regular mail: Coconino National Forest, Mogollon Rim Ranger District, Attn: Recreation Fee Program, 8738 Ranger Road, Happy Jack, AZ 86024
Email: comments-southwestern-coconino-mogollon@fs.fed.us
FAX: (928) 477-5057, Attn: MRRD Recreation Fee Program

For more details regarding the fee change proposal, please visit our fee proposal frequently asked questions web page.

[Jim]

Wow! $100 a night to camp at Moqui? Good thing I can camp for free out of campgrounds.

[big_load]

The Moqui Group Campground consists of three group sites that can accommodate up to 50 people and 10 vehicles at each site.

$100 seems reasonable for that.

[chumley]

@big_load
for a big group campsite it's quite the bargain!

[rcorfman]

a fee increase and fee implementation is needed to continue site improvements

What improvements will be continued? I kind of doubt any improvements have been in progress for awhile now.

[joebartels]

What improvements will be continued?

The Mogollon Rim Ranger District wants to improve the overall condition of its developed campgrounds. Fees will also help protect scenic, wildlife, environmental, historical, archaeological, cultural, and recreational values as a result of a more sustainable developed recreation program. Overall, the fees will help preserve public investment in outdoor recreation infrastructure that supports personal health, economic, environmental, and social benefits for the individual visitor and community.

Specifically, what will these fees go towards?
Costs to maintain these sites include things such as:

Daily/weekly tasks such as cleaning restrooms and removing trash;
Annual maintenance, such as painting;
Replacement or repair of facilities such as information kiosks, signs, fire rings, picnic tables, and restrooms as they reach the end of their useful life;
Infrastructure work, including road resurfacing and water system repairs.

I kind of doubt any improvements have been in progress for awhile now.

Improvements such as Corfman benches will be installed at mile intervals on a honey-combed grid throughout the forest.

[hikeaz]

Since 1990 the population of Arizona has doubled. Can anyone think of a NEW F.S. campground being built/established? I can think of many that have CLOSED, some 'remodeled'; but any NEW ones? I see new USFS buildings, many, many new FS Vehicles (usually parked), but new CAMPGROUNDS? Where are the extra 3.7m folks camping?

[Jim]

Yeah actually for a group that's not bad. Not sure why I think the other two groups sites name their site as a group site for some reason moqui doesn't.I guess I could have just inferred that from the price.

[WonderlandLena]

Personally I feel that the NPS may be justified in the price increases because as the population increases so does the garbage they clean and I'm all for supporting that cause along with maintaining restrooms and creating more campgrounds, however installing benches every mile in a forest is not something I would support. I don't go to the wilderness to see benches everywhere people don't NEED benches our forests NEED protected.
Also consider the fact that if the campsite prices are higher than what people will want to pay then they will find blm land and build fires outside of your maintained fire pits and that poses a risk of man made forest fires.
Will you be implementing the discounted campsite fee with the America the beautiful pass?

[joebartels]

@WonderlandLena
The benches were a bad joke.

The fee is proposed by the USDA Forest Service.
NPS is the National Park Service.

[chumley]

Personally I feel that the NPS may be justified in the price increases because as the population increases so does the garbage they clean and I'm all for supporting that cause

Just as a devil's advocate here, as the population increases, so does the revenue that the government rakes in. How they spend it, on the other hand, is a different argument.

As for the annual passes, they generally provide a 50% discount to camping fees at forest-operated campgrounds. The passes generally offer no benefit at concessionaire-operated campgrounds. I believe the campsites in this proposal are all to remain forest-operated.

[rcorfman]

The benches were a bad joke.

Darn, I was really looking forward to sitting down on my wanderings.

[ALMAL]

None of those changes are going to cost me a dime, and probably the same for most HAZ people?
But up to $20 for a nice single campsite is fair, if that's your game.

[david_allen_3]

Too high price. Build more campgrounds

[hikeaz]

Less and less campgrounds, higher and higher NFS budgets - Who loses? Guess...
https://ktar.com/story/2656284/epa-orde ... l-forests/
(Note how they 'spin' it to say cesspool as opposed to 'septic tank' which is the more common nomenclature). Playing the 'headline game' to appeal to those who feel they are 'too busy' to educate themselves.

[Tough_Boots]

(Note how they 'spin' it to say cesspool as opposed to 'septic tank' which is the more common nomenclature). Playing the 'headline game' to appeal to those who feel they are 'too busy' to educate themselves.

They use the term "cesspool" because that is the term the EPA used in the press release as quoted in the article.

[chumley]

I do believe there are substantive differences between cesspools and septic tanks with regards to how each dissipates waste into the surrounding soil (or doesn’t at all in the case of some septic tanks). I don’t think cesspools have septic fields for leaching liquid waste like some septic tanks have. Though I am often full of feces, I readily admit this is a topic which I am not particularly well versed.

In any case, I think I can go along with a regulation that helps prevent contamination of Arizona’s delicate natural water sources. I just wish a replacement solution would be implemented rather than closing a campground or eliminating an option for managing waste in a high use area.

[joebartels]

Is closing overrun crappers best for nature?

[hikeaz]

(Note how they 'spin' it to say cesspool as opposed to 'septic tank' which is the more common nomenclature). Playing the 'headline game' to appeal to those who feel they are 'too busy' to educate themselves.

They use the term "cesspool" because that is the term the EPA used in the press release as quoted in the article.

Yes... 'they'... the EPA. I should have introduced the pronoun before using it.. my bad. My grade-school nuns are waving their metal rulers at me from the grave.