The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

1

Holds up

5

Not fully backed

1

Never analyzed

• AlternativesNot fully backedMeeting growing recreation demand can't be done within the resort's existing permit boundary, so an in-footprint upgrade alternative wasn't analyzed.

  The best support is Table 3.1-3, which shows 50,218 square feet of guest service space against a recommended 61,550 to 78,740, and the terrain gaps in Table 3.1-1. But the document never estimates how much capacity or guest space upgrades inside the current 887-acre permit could add, even though part of that permit lies outside the operating area. The dismissal is three sentences long.

  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “Providing a guest experience that meets the expected growth in population in Utah and associated demand for outdoor recreation cannot be accomplished within BHR’s existing operational and SUP boundary.”

  2.4.5 Expansion Within Existing Resort Footprint / Resort Infrastructure Upgrade Alternative

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “The portion of the resort on NFS lands operates under a special use permit (SUP) administered by the DNF that includes 887 acres, some of which fall outside BHR’s current operational boundary.”

  1.2 Background

  “As depicted in Table 3.1-3, BHR does not meet the recommended range for overall guest service space and falls below industry averages in most guest service functions, including ski school space, restaurant seating, ski patrol, and kitchen/scramble space.”

  3.1.3 Affected Environment

  The law

  “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii) ↗

• EffectsNot fully backedAt the resort's observed snowmaking rate, the identified water supply would cover the new snowmaking, and use won't exceed authorized quantities.

  The agency's support is the 10-season observed average of about 1.0 acre-foot per acre, under which demand fits within the 393.3 acre-feet identified. Design criterion HS22 also bars snowmaking construction until water right changes are approved. But the hydrology section calls 1.0 the minimum expected ratio and reports values as high as 1.2 acre-feet per acre 40 percent of the time. At its chosen 1.3 rate, Table 3.7-3 shows a 103.3 acre-foot shortfall for Alternatives 2 and 3, and the supply letters behind the 393.3 acre-feet aren't binding.

  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “When the observed average snowmaking application rate of approximately 1.0 AF/acre is applied, snowmaking demand would not exceed the identified dedicated snowmaking supply.”

  3.7.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Alternative 3, Water Sufficiency

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “This would be the minimum expected ratio, as snow may not be made across all acres every year.”

  3.7.3 Affected Environment, Existing Snowmaking

  “The letters of intent are not legally binding water-supply agreements.”

  3.7.3 Affected Environment, Water Rights

  The law

  “a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) ↗

• EffectsNot fully backedGoshawk habitat mitigation, still to be designed, will fully offset habitat loss, supporting the finding that goshawk viability won't be affected.

  The agency cites no active nests found, pre-construction surveys, 30-acre nest buffers and Forest Plan Standard X. But the offset measures are only listed as things that may be done, with no acreage, ratio or location. Alternative 2 removes 117 acres of potential nesting habitat. The Forest already sits far below its minimum viable population.

  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

  The agency says

  “The final mitigation approach will be documented in the ROD and would be sufficient to offset the suitable goshawk habitat loss associated with the applicable project component.”

  3.6.4 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Alternative 2, American Goshawk

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “The Forest Plan establishes a minimum viable population of 40 American goshawk breeding pairs for the DNF.”

  3.6.3 Affected Environment, American Goshawk

  “The Forest has never met that minimum viable population and currently estimates approximately 9 breeding pairs on the Forest.”

  3.6.3 Affected Environment, American Goshawk

  The law

  “Resource plans and permits, contracts, and other instruments for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands shall be consistent with the land management plans.” National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1604(i) ↗

• Show 2 more claims +Show fewer

  • EffectsNot fully backedTraffic impacts from expansion would be localized and manageable, with only two intersections showing winter deficiencies in 2042.

    The agency relies on a full-buildout scenario of 13,250 guests, acceptable summer operations at all study intersections, and acceptable level of service in Parowan. It also points to feasible fixes for the two winter problem intersections. But the reported 2042 winter peak-hour totals of 639 and 1,248 vehicles equal the 2024 counts (209 and 408) plus project trips (430 and 840). That means they appear to leave out the background growth the method says was added. This text doesn't show intersection results with that growth included, so the 'localized and manageable' conclusion isn't demonstrated.

    The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “Traffic effects would be most pronounced during winter peak periods; however, the traffic analysis indicates that impacts would generally be localized and manageable.”

    3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Alternatives 2 and 3

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “Future plus project conditions AM and PM peak-hour volumes for the summer and winter peak periods were developed by adding the project trip generation to the 2042 background traffic volumes.”

    3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Future (2042) Plus Project Conditions

    “Under the conservative full-buildout traffic scenario, total peak-hour traffic volumes are projected to reach 639 vehicles during the winter AM peak hour and 1,248 vehicles during the winter PM peak hour.”

    3.4.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Future (2042) Plus Project Conditions

    The law

    “a detailed statement by the responsible official on- (i) reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action; (ii) any reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) ↗

  • ScienceNot fully backedA complete cultural survey covered every federal and state area that would be disturbed.

    The agency's support is a Class III inventory of 2,058 acres over three field seasons and State Historic Preservation Office concurrence on June 18, 2026. It also relies on a Programmatic Agreement that would require added inventory before ground disturbance. But Section 3.5.3 says some updated footprints fall outside surveyed areas, so the survey doesn't cover every area to be disturbed under the current design. Alternative 3 moves disturbance to the edge of sites of Tribal interest with no buffer, and the document says Tribes still need to confirm that's acceptable.

    The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words

    The agency says

    “A Class III (100 percent of surface) cultural survey on all federal- and state-owned areas to be disturbed including structure locations and access disturbance was conducted.”

    Table 2.2-1. Project Design Criteria, H1

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “The cultural resource inventory was based on preliminary design and spatial data, and some updated development footprints extend beyond previously completed survey coverage.”

    3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

    “Continued Tribal consultation is recommended prior to implementation to gain further insight into the values Tribes may place in these resources and confirm whether this level of avoidance is satisfactory.”

    3.5.3 Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences, Alternative 3

    The law

    “ensure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussion and analysis in an environmental document; (E) make use of reliable data and resources in carrying out this chapter;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(D)-(E) ↗