The agency’s case, tested

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

1

Holds up

7

Not fully backed

1

Never analyzed

• Purpose and needNot fully backedThe new tank would support emergency fire suppression by adding on-site water storage.

  Fire suppression is part of the stated purpose, and Table 1.4-2 repeats it. But the tank is filled only from diversions allowed November 1 through March 31 for later snowmaking use, and the document never says water would be held into fire season, how much would be reserved, or how firefighters would draw it. Appendix 6 marks fire plan components not applicable.

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

  The agency says

  “The proposed water tank could support emergency fire-suppression response by providing additional on-site water storage.”

  3.4.2

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Snowmaking diversions are permitted from November 1 through March 31 and are metered for compliance with state requirements.”

  2.1.2

  “The proposed tank would temporarily store diverted water for later snowmaking use.”

  3.4.2

• Purpose and needNot fully backedRegrading about four acres of the Sunrise run is needed to fix a double fall line that hurts safety and snow retention and complicates snowmaking.

  Section 1.3.1 describes the double fall line as a safety and snow-retention problem. No injury, snow depth or grooming data are given. Section 3.1.3 says Alternative 3 delivers the snowmaking benefits without grading, so grading isn't needed to install the pipe. The safety and snow case rests on description alone.

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

  The agency says

  “The double fall line on the existing Sunrise ski run is challenging to navigate even for advanced skiers and riders and operationally does not hold snow as well as it would if it were graded more like another ski run on the mountain.”

  2.1.2

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “Alternative 3 would not include the Sunrise grading; therefore, the snowmaking benefits would occur under Alternative 3, but the terrain-consistency, circulation, and safety benefits associated with grading would not.”

  3.1.3

• AlternativesNot fully backedAn alternative without the new tank isn't feasible, because the tank is a prerequisite for the snowmaking extension and the ski area would drop the project.

  The document's first reason for dropping this alternative is that it wouldn't meet the purpose and need. That need expressly includes addressing water storage limits and providing water for fire suppression, which a no-tank alternative can't do. Section 1.3.1 also says existing storage limits efficient use of short snowmaking weather windows. The separate feasibility claim, that the tank is a prerequisite and the project would be dropped without it, rests on the proponent's statement. The document gives no storage, demand or hydraulic figures showing why the existing 5-million-gallon tank and two 500,000-gallon tanks can't serve 4,170 feet of pipe and four guns. Appendix 4 also says the 2015 tank was approved to use the entire water right.

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

  The agency says

  “The proponent considered this alternative but determined that the action would be dropped without the tank, as the tank is a prerequisite to the snowmaking extension.”

  2.2.1

  Elsewhere in the same document

  “The Forest Service approved the construction of a new 5-million-gallon water storage tank within the SSF ski area to utilize the entirety of their available water right for snowmaking.”

  Appendix 4

  “Current water storage capacity is limited to one 5-million-gallon tank and two 500,000-gallon tanks.”

  3.1.2

  The law

  “consistent with the provisions of this chapter, study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives;” National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(F) ↗

• Show 4 more claims +Show fewer

  • EffectsNot fully backedThe tank and added snowmaking won't take more water from the Rio en Medio than the ski area's existing water right, so downstream users won't be affected.

    Diversions are metered and capped at 69.72 acre-feet, and the tank's roughly 14 acre-feet fits inside that cap. But the document never states current actual diversions, and it says storage now limits use of authorized water, so real withdrawals could rise. It also reports losses of 7 to 35 percent against a permitted consumptive use of 16.39 acre-feet and doesn't reconcile the two.

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

    The agency says

    “Therefore, the proposed tank would not result in removal of additional water from the Rio en Medio beyond SSF’s existing water right.”

    3.4.2

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “SSF and the Forest Service hold snowmaking water rights authorizing up to 69.72 AF (approximately 22.7 million gallons) of annual diversion and 16.39 AF of annual consumptive use.”

    2.1.2

    “Separately, the 1985 site study estimated physical evaporation and sublimation losses of 9.8 percent, while more recent studies report losses of approximately 7 to 35 percent depending on meteorological conditions.”

    2.1.2

  • EffectsNot fully backedForest Plan direction on scheduling facility construction at popular developed sites in summer, and on National Recreation Trails, doesn't apply because the project doesn't include that activity.

    Section 3.1.3 finds construction effects minor and temporary. It says no National Forest System trails would close, ample parking would remain, and staging would stay near ski area facilities to preserve hiker parking. That fits the intent of the guideline on popular developed sites, which covers activities that would substantially diminish recreation. But Appendix 6 labels these guidelines not applicable because the project supposedly doesn't include the activity. The project does include summer construction and staging in the base area next to the Winsor Trailhead, and Appendix 6 never shows compliance or addresses weekend and holiday scheduling.

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

    The agency says

    “The proposed project does not include this activity or affect this resource.”

    Appendix 6

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “Portions of the lots could be temporarily used for staging during the construction season or closed during parts of the day, temporarily reducing available public parking.”

    3.1.3

    “This portion of the Winsor Trail is part of the Winsor National Recreation Trail and is one of the most popular trails on the Española District as well as a gateway to the Pecos Wilderness.”

    3.1.2

    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) ↗

  • EffectsNot fully backedThe project would have no effect on any federally listed or proposed species, including the monarch butterfly.

    Habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is absent. The bumble bee isn't known in New Mexico and hasn't been confirmed in the United States since 2016. No listed plants occur in the project area, and no critical habitat is present. That backs no effect for those species. For the monarch, section 3.3.1 says potentially suitable habitat may be present on the ski runs where grading and trenching would occur, though it describes those runs as previously disturbed with diminished habitat indicators. Section 3.3.2 then cites a lack of habitat or occurrence without reporting monarch survey results.

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

    The agency says

    “The proposed action was determined to have no effect on federally listed or proposed species identified for the project.”

    Table 1.4-1

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “While potentially suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly and Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee may be present within ski runs in the project area, these areas have been previously disturbed and habitat indicators are diminished.”

    3.3.1

    The law

    “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species” Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) ↗

  • ProcessNot fully backedDesign criteria will keep tribal access to the Lake Peak Traditional Use Area open during construction, supporting consistency with Forest Plan tribal direction.

    Appendix 6 frames the access commitment as design criteria that will be developed with the Santa Fe National Forest, and section 1.5 lets the Responsible Official add design criteria later. Several tribal and rural community plan ratings rest on this commitment. But Appendix 2, which the document says holds the design criteria, lists only tribal monitoring and stop-work criteria, with nothing on tribal access or the Lake Peak Traditional Use Area. Chapter 3's cultural section never mentions that area.

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

    The agency says

    “Design feature(s) would be used to satisfy component/species: PDC and BMPs will be developed in coordination with the SFNF to ensure tribal access to the LPTUA is maintained throughout project implementation.”

    Appendix 6

    Elsewhere in the same document

    “PDCs are site-specific and would be implemented to avoid and minimize potential resource impacts as a result of the proposed action and ensure consistency with applicable Forest Plan direction.”

    Appendix 2