Booster Tank and Snowmaking

NEPA dictates that a range of alternative means are looked at: The EA offers no alternative(s) to construction of new snow making infrastructure. A simple alternative to consider is shifting the ski season to begin later in the winter when more natural snow is present. The proposed development for “efficient” snowmaking does not acknowledge climate change. Does this activity contribute or mitigate issues related to climate change and reduced natural snowfall? Why continue snowmaking with decreased precipitation and more draw on the watershed? The EA does not describe impacts regarding climate change or the impacts that the proposal may or may not have regarding reduced precipitation. The efficiency in snowmaking is described as needed because of reduced precipitation, but no analysis of precipitation and climate change is included in the analysis pertaining to EO 13990. In addition to climate change impacts, environmental concerns associated with snow making are well known; yet the EA addresses none of the following: noise disturbances to local wildlife, disruptions to vegetation and soil composition underneath the artificially made snowpack. Additional research on the impacts of the new snowmaking system need to be accounted for before construction should occur.

In regard to fire response, no detail on how the system will serve fire response is provided in the EA. It is a nice idea that the new system will provide fire protection but no details are provided. The analysis needs to have details on the purpose and operation of the proposed development before proceeding.

In terms of operation, the system may not in whole increase the uptake from the Rio Hondo but the additional storage capacity causes concern. However- how, when, where and at what rate water is diverted to the new system can have negative impacts on stream health (e.g. large withdrawals in the fall can impact brown trout spawning). The EA does not provide sufficient detail on the proposed developments operation: where water withdrawal will occur, when, how much at once - need all be included in analysis. Meetings with the public, especially fishermen and women and downstream irrigators, should occur to coordinate on potential impacts of this larger storage and snowmaking system.

Finally, no detail on size and facility location of the ‘maintenance bay’ are included in the EA. This is a new facility on Forest Service land. There need be appropriate detail and analysis provided in order to build on forest service land. This building should be included in the NEPA process, with details provided in full, and alternatives offered (like why not continue using current infrastructure?).