Snowy Range Parking

[Albany Mountain]

Its hard to believe that only 253 responses were sent, and of that 90% were negative from the B.C.A. in Laramie.

Really the article said "Short said more than 90 percent opposed the parking lot. Sandoval said about half were form letters and postcards that originated with the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance". Not saying that some of the other negative comments were not associated with the BCA, but the BCA does not represent everyone with a negative attitude towards snowmobilers.

they have assured us from the get go that the current parking would remain open for overflow.

Not saying that this assurance didn't happen,BUT now the article states; "The proposed parking lot would cover up to 10 acres. Snowmobilers no longer would be allowed to park along the road after the parking lot is built, Sandoval said."

Remember the title words "Scenic Byway" or in other terms, A scenic Highway. As the parking lot was identified as a means of relocating snowmobiles off of the highway, it can maybe be read into it that a Scenic Highway is one void of Unorganized Snowmobile Parking. Now it can be read into it, the impact stops here as 10 acres of parking will be all allowed into this area, and possibly no more.

Now remember this,, Ranger Sandoval is now the 3rd ranger overseeing this proposal, as the position of Ranger in the Medicine Bow National Forest seems to be a revolving door; swinging faster than the one utilized by the University of Wyoming Football coaches.

Only 25? You've got to be kidding me. That just doesn't sound right, shoot we get more responces out of threads like, My Sled Will Outclimb Your Sled.

In any of these proposals, the public comment is ever so important and are not repeated. The comments will be answered in publications which is sent to most of the public commentors. The decision will follow afterward with an appeals process, AVAILABLE only to those who had written comments and therefore involved at this point. This means that everyone's elses opportunity for input (if they neglected to comment this time) is done with and gone, sunk, over, hasta la vista and forever non-existant at this point. I appreciate the ones that commented favorably, I have tried to motivate favorable responses out of this forum (and post) but disappointed of the lack of responses and I can probably guess who did respond from this forum.

I always felt that MedBow is truly multipurpose, but when any one user group gets too large, stuff like this happens and some consessions take place. The parking situation on the Highway will get fixed, a parking area will probably get built. But I am not sure when building and/or closures will take place. Its going to take a long time at current forest activity levels and Wyoming finally received some stimulas money to be applied to Forests after initially been overlooked.

It will get interesting I am sure. But I will really be bummed out if 90% of the folks I see here in the forums, suddenly return after a long hot summer and start wanting getting involved in topics like this using comments like, THIS CAN'T HAPPEN, NOT IN MY FOREST, I PAY TAXES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, I SPEND TONS OF MONEY THERE and the like. The comment period is over and gone, we are at the mercy of the managing agencies or a federal judge siding with one side or the other.

 

[Albany Mountain]

Know thy enemies

Here is a response to the Casper Tribune article, by Mr. Duane Short or someone who pretending to be Mr. Duane Short, on BCA's (Biodiversity Conservation Alliance) letter writing as referenced in the July 30th article.

Duane Short wrote on Aug 1, 2009 8:36 AM:

" First, I wish to state I have read and re-read every public comment the Forest Service received regarding the Snowy Range Scenic Byway development project. On July 4th, BCA collected signatures and offered cards for citizens to sign opposing the proposed parking lot at Green rock. No one was forced or coerced into signing a card. In fact, we had to keep two staffers manning our booth all day long just to keep up with lines that were often four deep with citizens waiting to sign. Those signing the cards, citizens that Mr. Sandoval has attempted to diminish in significance, could have been enjoying themselves at any of the many other booths and activities but they felt the desire and responsibility to take time out from celebrating our Democratic nation's birthday to voice their position (i.e., cast their vote) on the project. It is totally misleading and somewhat unethical for Larry Sandoval to report that "half were form letters and postcards that originated with the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance" as if those cards and letters do not express the positions of those that signed them. Mr. Sandoval's comment about the BCA cards is the equivalent of saying one who voices one's opinion on election day by "merely" signing a pre-prepared ballot (a card) is not really significant and should not be counted as significant. How dare Mr. Sandoval! I think Mr. Sandoval owes those responsible citizens and those reading the article above an apology for trying to downplay the overwhelming opposition that the Forest Service received through a process that is a standard process and one in which ALL citizens had the opportunity to participate.

Mr. Sandoval failed to mention that the 8% support shown for the parking lot plan came from a few individuals and snowmobile merchants and off-road recreation association leaders (not their members), and that the remainder came from the State agencies. Those 8% supporting the proposed snowmobile and ATV parking lot DO NOT represent the general public, rather, only a narrow base of motorized recreation constituents. Mr. Sandoval failed to mention this glaring fact. One agency that repeatedly warned the Forest Service that the parking lot and other developments along the Scenic Byway would harm wildlife and wildlife habitat was the Wyoming Dept. of Game and Fish. Again, through a standard Forest Service process (a formal comment period) that is open to ALL citizens the verdict is in. OVER 90% of all citizens and agencies - if you want to count agencies as citizens - formally commenting on the proposed parking lot OPPOSED it. Period. "

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

From what I can find, RV places' rule-of-thumb (not wrist) is 10 units per acre. If either lot is built and is a usable 10 acres, that yields a good 100 parking spaces, *assuming* it's designed well... (no curbs & shrubs in the middle like Fort Collins would do).

It also probably means no shoulder / road parking by the lodge (20 rigs?) or opposite the Green Rock lot below the turn around (80+ rigs?). I could also see them banning double parking in the Green Rock lot.

[FONT=&quot]The USFS map does not have a purple diamond (phase 1 projects) by the switchback, suggesting it is no longer on the table.

[/FONT]

 

[Albany Mountain]

From what I can find, RV places' rule-of-thumb (not wrist) is 10 units per acre. If either lot is built and is a usable 10 acres, that yields a good 100 parking spaces, *assuming* it's designed well... (no curbs & shrubs in the middle like Fort Collins would do).

It also probably means no shoulder / road parking by the lodge (20 rigs?) or opposite the Green Rock lot below the turn around (80+ rigs?). I could also see them banning double parking in the Green Rock lot.

[FONT=&quot]The USFS map does not have a purple diamond (phase 1 projects) by the switchback, suggesting it is no longer on the table.

[/FONT]

If I were a bettin' man, I would bet that you are 100% correct on the first two points and that the forest service couldn't really pinpoint the diamond where it really needs to be and that the parking lot is somewhat secure in future plans.

I am really getting the feeling that the lot will probably be built to satisfy the Scenic Byway goal of "undigestable" highway parking by snowmobilers. This is based on two points.
1. They sponsored a Winter Use Group that tried to solve many of the problems associated with the close proximity of two "OPPOSITE" groups being the sledders and the Xcountry skiers. Some action resulted as a part of this and I am sure that both sides won and both sides lost, in which politicians call compromise.
2. Enter the Scenic Byway and listed on their "MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES" were
(1). Increase winter non-motorized areas – potentially prohibit motorized activity south of the highway prior to Green Rock in winter &
(2). Limit the number of vehicles permitted to park along the Byway during the winter.

So I am betting that they cater to the sledders to make a 10 acre parking lot which makes the skiers upset and sledders happier; and eliminate parking on HWY 130 during the winter that makes the sledders upset and the skiers happier. This is COMPROMISE and serves the multipurpose statement.

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

Not being allowed to park on the road by the lodge doesn't bother me directly. My rig is too big... However, that does mean I have to get to the new lot or Green Rock lot early to secure a spot.

I actually like the idea of parking by the switchbacks, means less ditch / road riding. The switchback lot would also mean the county would maintain the 'scenic byway' to the lot. This would be great for the Snowy Mountain Lodge & Mountain Meadow Cabins (great place to stay) businesses and the skiers too.

Ahhhh, I have the urge to go hug a tree now...

 

[tmk50]

[FONT=&quot]The USFS map does not have a purple diamond (phase 1 projects) by the switchback, suggesting it is no longer on the table.

[/FONT]

The purple diamond was not on the paper copy that they sent me in the mail when the process started - could be:
a) it was a mistake from the beginning (leaving it off)
b) they have already made their minds up to go with the lot by the ski area
c) they won't do anything (but it seems like they usually have the do nothing alternative spelled out in the proposals - it is strangely absent from this plan)

 

[SkiDoobyDoo]

The purple diamond was not on the paper copy that they sent me in the mail when the process started - could be:
a) it was a mistake from the beginning (leaving it off)
b) they have already made their minds up to go with the lot by the ski area
c) they won't do anything (but it seems like they usually have the do nothing alternative spelled out in the proposals - it is strangely absent from this plan)

c...
"Items with a * indicate that a NEPA analysis would most likely be required prior to implementation. All actions would be subject to the availability of funding."

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/projects/trans/adobepdf/Phase1_Actions_open_house.pdf