Nordic and Snowshoe Area

NEPA requires project alternatives: No substantive alternative is provided in the EA for the project nordic and snowshoe areas. There is a larger, well-developed, and underused nordic and snowshoe area in Carson National Forest. Why does the analysis make only short mention of this? What is the need for a new venue, when there is already an area available? The public should be better engaged to understand if this is recreation the public wants or needs.

In regards to the mechanical thinning that already occurred in the highway corridor, it is disheartening that the Forest Service approved thinning in the name of wildfire mitigation that instead permits easier development.

A new 750 square foot facility is proposed at the nordic and snowshoe area. But it is suggested most operations would be based out of the Rio Hondo Learning Center. Why is another building on Forest Service land needed if operations can be based in an existing building? No details on the new building’s purpose, size, and facility location 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 public land. This building should be included in the NEPA, with details provided in full, and alternatives offered.

Finally, there is no location or physical detail on the trails and roads proposed in the EA. These roads are immediately adjacent to the Rio Hondo. Without full detail on the proposed development the environmental impacts cannot be adequately evaluated in the EA. Without trails, buildings, and associated infrastructure clearly identified, it is difficult to understand what the analysis accounts for and how it evaluated impacts. Further details need to be provided and analyzed and public input taken before construction occurs.