United States Department of Agriculture

Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement 

North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization

Forest 

Service

Southwestern 

Region

Lincoln 

National Forest

MB-R3-08-04A 

October 2014
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper – October 2014
Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the North Fork 

Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization Project

Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Travis G. Moseley, Forest Supervisor

3463 Las Palomas Road

Alamogordo, NM 88310 

For Information Contact: Dave Warnack, District Ranger

901 Mechem Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345 

(575) 257-4095 

Abstract: The Lincoln National Forest proposes to authorize, under a new special use permit, the 

operation of four municipal supply water wells (and their associated facilities as described in 

more detail in chapter 1) located on National Forest System land in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

drainage. This proposal addresses the need for: (1) authorizing, under a special use permit, the 

Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells on National Forest System land, as a substantial component of the municipal water supply 

system that the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, residents and visitors rely upon; and (2) 

protecting natural resources on the national forest by maintaining adequate surface and 

groundwater flows to sustain or improve the riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be affected 

by groundwater drawdown from pumping of these wells. The new permit would include 

additional terms and conditions reflecting current adaptive management strategies which both 

respond to the purpose and need for action, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to surface 

water and groundwater resources from well operations. This supplemental draft environmental 

impact statement (SDEIS) compares environmental effects of implementing three alternatives, 

including (1) continuation of pumping; (2) no pumping; and (3) the proposed action. 

We (USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) released the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Use Authorization Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on 

May 25, 2012 for public comment. The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012 and encompassed 

approximately 99 percent of the project area. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had 

on the project area and resources analyzed in the DEIS, we stopped the comment period on the 

DEIS and proceeded with preparing a supplemental information report to document the extent of 

the changed conditions and the need for a SDEIS. A Notice of Intent to prepare a supplemental 

DEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. We have prepared this SDEIS using 

public comments we received on the DEIS prior to the end of the comment period, multiple 
interdisciplinary team discussions, coordination with project stakeholders (Village of Ruidoso, 

Eagle Creek Conservation Association, and the U.S. Geological Survey), literature review, and 

resource analyses of changed conditions in the project area since the Little Bear Fire. 

We encourage your review of this document. It is important that reviewers provide their 

comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the USDA Forest Service’s

preparation of the final EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the 

comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. Comments 

must be received within 45 days from the date of the Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register. Failing to submit timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in 

response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part 

of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted 

and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.

Once the final EIS is prepared, it and the associated draft decision document (Record of Decision) 

are subject to the predecisional administrative review process (objection process) pursuant to 36 

CFR 218, subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who have previously 

submitted specific written comments regarding this proposed project during scoping or other 

designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with §218.5(a). Issues raised in 

objections must be based on previously submitted, timely, specifically written comments 

regarding this proposed project unless based on new information arising after the designated 

comment opportunities. 

Send Comments to: Dave Warnack, District Ranger 

901 Mechem Drive

Ruidoso, NM 88345 

Date Comments Must Be Received: 
Summary

We (the USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) propose to authorize, under a new special 

use permit, the operation of four municipal supply water wells (three equipped and one 

unequipped) and associated monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipelines 

and power lines; and road access located on National Forest System land in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek (North Fork) drainage. The new permit would be authorized for up to 20 years, with 

stipulations for frequent review and verification of the permit terms and conditions. These could 

occur as often as every year but would occur at least every 5 to 10 years. The new permit would 

include terms and conditions reflecting current adaptive management strategies which both 

respond to the purpose and need for action, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to surface 

water and groundwater resources from well operations. 

North Fork Eagle Creek is located in the Sacramento Mountains of south-central New Mexico in 

Lincoln County north of the Village of Ruidoso and approximately 2.5 miles west of Alto, New 

Mexico (figure 1). The project area consists of approximately 5 acres of National Forest System

land occupied by the Village of Ruidoso’s four wells and surrounding National Forest System

land upstream from the Eagle Creek gaging station. This area is within the North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage, which totals 5.3 square miles, or approximately 3,400 acres. The North Fork 

Eagle Creek between the North Fork stream gage and the Eagle Creek stream gage, totaling 

approximately 2 stream miles, is the emphasis of this environmental analysis (figure 2). 

Eagle Creek Conservation Association, Inc., Gerald Ford, and Dr. William S. Midkiff filed a 

lawsuit in 2005 based on concerns that operating these wells could be affecting streamflow in 

Eagle Creek. The case was dismissed in 2006 after all parties to the lawsuit signed a Stipulation 

Agreement, in which the Lincoln National Forest agreed to complete an environmental analysis 

before a new permit can be issued to the Village of Ruidoso. As part of that analysis, the 

agreement also requires that an independent watershed and geohydrologic study of Eagle Creek 

and the North Fork wells be undertaken by an entity not previously involved in the lawsuit. 

We have studied the environmental effects of authorizing, under a special use permit, the 

operation of the existing wells and their associated pipeline, underground power cable, well 

control house, and road access in this SDEIS. These wells supply a substantial amount of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s municipal water system. They provide, on average, a direct contribution to 

the Village of Ruidoso water supply ranging from 24 to 29 percent. When indirect annual 

contributions are added to direct contributions (based on factoring in diversions from return flow 

credits, described in more detail in chapter 1 and in chapter 3), this increases to 36 to 43 percent. 

During the summer months, data show that 57 to 87 percent of total direct and indirect annual 

diversions can be attributable to the North Fork wells). There is a need for: (1) authorizing, under 

a special use permit, the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert groundwater from its 

North Fork wells on National Forest System land, as a substantial component of the municipal 

water supply system) that Ruidoso residents and visitors rely upon; and (2) protecting natural 

resources on National Forest System lands by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater 

flows to sustain or improve riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater 

drawdown from pumping of these wells. 

We published a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal 

Register on February 3, 2011, initiating the public scoping period for this project. We held a 

public meeting on February 17, 2011, in Ruidoso to answer questions from the public and discuss 

the project and process. We received a total of 102 comment letters from the public—including 

agencies, organizations, individuals, and elected officials—in response to our request for input. 

We analyzed all of these scoping comments to identify issues and information that have been 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF i 
Summary 

addressed in this SDEIS. Based on public and internal scoping results, we identified five

significant issues. These significant issues include effects of well pumping on water resources, 

aquatic habitat and fish, riparian vegetation, water rights, and socioeconomics. These issues were 

used to develop alternatives to the proposed action including: 

• No Change (Continue Current Management) Alternative: The USDA Forest Service 

would issue a new permit with no change in existing well pumping operations. Pumping 

would continue at historic levels with no new restrictions on use, in accordance with the 

Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. The new permit would be issued with similar terms, 

conditions, and history of water use that has been in operation since 1988. 

• No Action (No Pumping) Alternative: The USDA Forest Service would not issue a new 

permit for the Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well operations and maintenance; the use 

of these wells would not be authorized and would be discontinued. 

We released the DEIS for public comment on May 25, 2012. The Little Bear Fire started on June 

4, 2012 and encompassed approximately 99 percent of the project area. Because of the substantial 

impact this wildfire had on the project area and resources analyzed in the DEIS, we stopped the 

comment period on the DEIS and prepared a supplemental information report to document the 

extent of the changed conditions and the need for a supplemental DEIS. A Notice of Intent to 

prepare a supplemental DEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. We 

received 19 comments between June and September 2012 (email, letters, or phone calls) that were 

either related to the content of the DEIS prior to suspension of the comment period or on our 

request for information on changed conditions due to the Little Bear Fire. 

This SDEIS is similar to the May 2012 DEIS but documents changes necessary due to the Little 

Bear Fire and in response to the Notice of Intent previously mentioned. It was prepared using 

public comments we received on the DEIS prior to the end of the comment period, multiple 

interdisciplinary team discussions, coordination with project stakeholders (Village of Ruidoso, 

Eagle Creek Conservation Association, and the U.S. Geological Survey), literature review, and 

resource analyses of changed conditions in the project area. A listing of the specific changes 

between the DEIS and this SDEIS is provided at the beginning of chapter 1. 

Based upon effects of the alternatives, the Lincoln National Forest Supervisor must decide 

whether to issue a new permit to re-authorize the Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well operations 

on National Forest System lands, and if so, under what permit terms and conditions, including 

adaptive management requirements. 

ii SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Summary 

Figure 1. Project vicinity

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF iii
Summary 

Figure 2. Project area 

iv SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................. i

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................... 1

Background.................................................................................................................................. 1

Water Rights ............................................................................................................................ 3

Changes between DEIS and SDEIS ............................................................................................ 3

Purpose and Need for Action....................................................................................................... 4

Desired Condition ................................................................................................................... 5

Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 5

Need for Action ....................................................................................................................... 7

Management Objectives .......................................................................................................... 7

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 8

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 9

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 9

Significant Issues ......................................................................................................................... 9

Water Resources ...................................................................................................................... 9

Aquatic Habitat and Fish ....................................................................................................... 10

Riparian Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 11

Socioeconomics ...................................................................................................................... 11

Water Rights .......................................................................................................................... 12

Nonsignificant Issues ................................................................................................................. 12

Soil Quality ........................................................................................................................... 12

Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 12

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 12

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 13

Recreation and Scenery ......................................................................................................... 13

Public Safety and Well Security ............................................................................................ 14

Regulatory Framework and Consistency with Management Direction ..................................... 14

Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986, as amended) .......... 14

Agency Direction .................................................................................................................. 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ............................................ 21

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 21

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ................................................................................................ 21

Alternative 1 - No Change - Continue Pumping at Historic Levels ...................................... 21

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping) - Discontinue All Pumping .................................. 23

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action - Adaptive Management ..................................................... 24

Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 33

Wildlife and Fish ................................................................................................................... 33

Water, Soil, and Vegetation ................................................................................................... 33

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 33

Public Safety and Health ....................................................................................................... 34

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 34

Water Resources and Fisheries .............................................................................................. 34

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 36

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................. 36

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – General ................................................. 37

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – Monitoring and Adaptive Management 39

Suggestions for New Alternatives ......................................................................................... 46

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Described in the DEIS ....................................................... 53

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF v 
Contents

Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................... 77

Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 77

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...................................................... 81

Significant Issues ....................................................................................................................... 88

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 88

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 88

Measurement Indicators ........................................................................................................ 90

Incomplete or Unavailable Data ............................................................................................ 92

Pre-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment ........................................................................... 96

Post-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment ......................................................................... 112

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 124

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 126

Aquatic and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 139

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 139

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 140

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 144

Riparian Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 151

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 151

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 153

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 157

Socioeconomics ....................................................................................................................... 163

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 164

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 167

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 175

Water Rights ............................................................................................................................ 188

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 188

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 188

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 194

Vegetation (Except Riparian Vegetation) ................................................................................ 195

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 196

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 197

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 199

Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield .................................................................. 201

Wildlife (Except Aquatic Habitat and Fish) ............................................................................ 204

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 205

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 206

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................. 209

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 213

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................................................. 213

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................................... 213

Other Required Disclosures ..................................................................................................... 214

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ................................................................ 215

Preparers and Contributors ...................................................................................................... 215

Core ID Team Members ...................................................................................................... 215

Supporting IDT Members ................................................................................................... 217

Federal, State and Local Agencies, Tribes and Others ........................................................ 218

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the EIS Were Sent ........ 219

Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology ........................................... 221

vi SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Contents

References Cited............................................................................................................ 225

Specialist Reports .................................................................................................................... 225

References Cited in Chapters 1 and 2 ...................................................................................... 226

References Cited in Chapter 3 and in Supporting Specialist Reports ..................................... 228

Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 228

Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 239

Socioeconomics and Recreation .......................................................................................... 241

Water Rights ........................................................................................................................ 242

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 243

Aquatic Habitat, Fish, and Wildlife ..................................................................................... 244

Appendix A – Public Scoping Results ......................................................................... 249

Responses to Scoping .............................................................................................................. 249

Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos .............................. 253

Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS .............. 261

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 261

DEIS Commenters ................................................................................................................... 261

Comments Received in 2014 ................................................................................................... 263

Comment Consideration ...................................................................................................... 263

Comment Summary ............................................................................................................. 263

Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 274

Appendix D – Photos of Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions ........................................ 275

Index ............................................................................................................................... 279

Tables

Table 1. Streamflow before 1980 and after 1988, measured at the Eagle Creek gage ............ 49

Table 2. Summary of alternative components ......................................................................... 54

Table 3. Summary of environmental effects by alternative .................................................... 57

Table 4. Past, in progress and planned activities within the Upper Eagle Creek drainage ..... 83

Table 5. Streamflows measured at the Eagle Creek gage ...................................................... 110

Table 6. Little Bear Fire conditions in the North Fork and South Fork, Eagle Creek 

Watersheds ..................................................................................................................... 112

Table 7. Water repellency classes in the North Fork Eagle Creek Basin ............................... 117

Table 8. Changes in storm event peak flows after the Little Bear Fire, Eagle Creek modeling 

locations ......................................................................................................................... 117

Table 9. Summary of anticipated wildfire effects on water resources .................................. 124

Table 10. Historical perspective: durations of no surface flow and hypothetical pumping 

limitations using potential adaptive management triggers for flow volume ................. 134

Table 11. Summary of past and present aquatic habitat and fish information for the North 

Fork Eagle Creek .......................................................................................................... 141

Table 12. Eagle Creek fishing pressure and fish caught (New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish 2011)............................................................................................................... 142

Table 13. Species classified as facultative wetland plants (Reed 1988) occurring in the North 

Fork Eagle Creek sampled quadrats ............................................................................. 153

Table 14. Population by race and ethnicity (2010) ............................................................... 174

Table 15. Summary of available water (acre-feet per year) per alternative, based on available 

past data (for alternative 1, this is actual pumping data) .............................................. 183

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF vii
Contents

Table 16. 2009 Consent order between the applicant and Office of the State Engineer for the 

four North Fork Eagle Creek wells ............................................................................... 189

Table 17. 2010 Consent Order Surface and Groundwater Rights Combined. (The surface 

diversion and supplemental groundwater can be combined at any rate by any withdrawal 

method (surface or ground) ........................................................................................... 190

Table 18. Eagle Creek drainage summary of water rights (see also figure 6) ....................... 193

Table C 1. Listing of comments that were received on the DEIS or on the request for 

information on changed conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek Project Area ........ 261

Figures

Figure 1. Project vicinity.......................................................................................................... iii

Figure 2. Project area ............................................................................................................... iv

Figure 3. Flowchart of proposed adaptive management strategy ........................................... 26

Figure 4. Upper Eagle Creek drainage for cumulative impact analysis .................................. 79

Figure 5. Little Bear Fire ........................................................................................................ 80

Figure 6. Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage .............................. 102

Figure 7. Measured water levels in alluvium and bedrock, September 2008 and March 2009

 ...................................................................................................................................... 106

Figure 8. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown ...................................................... 107

Figure 9. Flow frequency from 1971-1980 before pumping began ...................................... 109

Figure 10. Flow frequency depicts the flow frequency from 1989-1998 after pumping had 

commenced ................................................................................................................... 109

Figure 11. North Fork Eagle Creek showing channel and adjacent vegetation (photographs 

taken by Terry Miller in July 2011) .............................................................................. 155

Figure 12. South Fork Rio Bonito showing various degrees of intermittent to perennial flows 

(photographs taken by Terry Miller in July 2011) ........................................................ 156

Figure 13. Population change for the Village of Ruidoso, Lincoln County and the State of 

New Mexico (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011, State of New Mexico 2008)....... 168

Figure 14. Total metered water use and the percent of use occurring in summer months 

(Wilson and Company 2005) ........................................................................................ 170

Figure 15. Diversion estimates ............................................................................................. 172

Figure B 1. Eagle Creek Gage (November 2010) ................................................................. 253

Figure B 2. North Fork Gage (November 2010) ................................................................... 253

Figure B 3. South Fork Gage (November 2010) ................................................................... 254

Figure B 4. North Fork Eagle Creek (during wet spring of 2008) ........................................ 254

Figure B 5. North Fork Eagle Creek along road (November 2010) ...................................... 255

Figure B 6. Eagle Creek near Eagle Creek gage – dry conditions versus wet conditions 

(courtesy of USGS: left picture was taken by Nathan Myers on May 30, 2006, and right 

picture was taken by Nathan Myers on September 28, 2006). ..................................... 255

Figure B 7. Confluence of South Fork and North Eagle Creek (November 2010) ............... 256

Figure B 8. North Fork Eagle Creek lower end (November 2010) ....................................... 256

Figure B 9. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream of the North Fork wells (Nov 2010) ........... 257

Figure B 10. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the North Fork wells (Nov 2010) ..... 257

Figure B 11. Eagle Creek diversion dam downstream of Eagle Creek gage (Nov 2010) ..... 258

Figure B 12. Eagle Creek downstream of diversion dam (November 2010) ........................ 258

Figure B 13. Eagle Creek downstream of Alto Lake (November 2010) ............................... 259

viii SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Contents

Figure B 14. North Fork Well 3 (August 2011) .................................................................... 259

Figure B 15. North Fork Well 4 (November 2010) ............................................................... 260

Figure B 16. North Fork Well 1 (November 2010) ............................................................... 260

Figure D 1. The crossing of the North Fork of Eagle Creek near monitoring well MW-1 

looking north (August 22, 2012) ................................................................................... 275

Figure D 2. Just south of the North Fork crossing, above the North Fork gage, looking 

southeast (August 22, 2012) ......................................................................................... 276

Figure D 3. Looking southeast to the North Fork crossing upstream of the North Fork gage 

(August 22, 2012) ......................................................................................................... 277

Figure D 4. View to the northeast of the North Fork, above the North Fork gage - the view is 

of debris in an unnamed drainage (August 22, 2012) ................................................... 278

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF ix
Contents

This page intentionally left blank

x SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

We (the USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) propose to authorize, under a new special 

use permit, the operation of four municipal supply water wells located on National Forest System 

land in the North Fork Eagle Creek (or North Fork) drainage. The new permit would be 

authorized for up to 20 years, with stipulations for frequent review and verification of the permit 

terms and conditions. These could occur as often as every year but would occur at least every 5 to 

10 years. The new permit would add terms and conditions to the permit reflecting current 

adaptive management strategies which both respond to the purpose and need for action, and 

mitigate potential adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources from well 

operations. 

Background 

The Village of Ruidoso drilled four production wells on National Forest System land along the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek. Three of these wells were put into service in 1988 and remain in use. 

The permit for the operation of these wells expired on December 31, 1995. Between 1996 and 

2005, the Forest Service began discussions with the Office of the State Engineer, the Village of 

Ruidoso, and the Eagle Creek Conservation Association concerning permit renewal. Since 2005, 

well operations have continued under annual operating plans while the environmental analysis 

and decisionmaking process for issuing a new permit is being conducted. 

Urban and resort development and drought conditions have placed increasing demands on surface 

water and groundwater resources within the Eagle Creek basin. These wells supply a substantial 

amount of the Village of Ruidoso’s municipal water system. They provide, on average, a direct 

contribution to the Village of Ruidoso water supply ranging from 24 to 29 percent. When indirect 

annual contributions are added to direct contributions (based on factoring in diversions from 

return flow credits, described in more detail in the next section and in chapter 3), this increases to 

36 to 43 percent. During the summer months, data show that 57 to 87 percent of total direct and 

indirect annual diversions can be attributable to the North Fork wells. 

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted an independent study from 2007 to 2009 to determine 

potential effects of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field on streamflow in the Eagle Creek basin 

and to provide data for this SDEIS. The final report was released on October 21, 2010, and 

subsequently revised in November 2010 and November 2011 (Matherne, Myers and McCoy 

2011). Findings show that: 

• North Fork Eagle Creek is a perennial stream maintained by base flow from groundwater 

in its upper reaches and becomes intermittent in the 2 miles upstream from the Eagle 

Creek gage (figure 26, page 55 in Matherne, Myers and McCoy 2011); see figure 2 on the 

previous page. Without pumping, North Fork Eagle Creek would still be intermittent 

below the wells. About 1,600 feet downstream of the North Fork stream gage the creek’s 

water sinks into the stream channel alluvium and bedrock aquifer, so this reach remains 

dry during dry periods, although water resurfaces from the alluvium in some downstream 

reaches (stretches ranging from 10 to 50 feet long). Streamflow, when present, tends to 

occur in reaches where there are bedrock outcrops in the channel or the alluvium is thin. 

There are three gaging stations; one each for the South Fork, North Fork, and Eagle 

Creek.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 1 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

• When groundwater is pumped from the North Fork wells, a temporary decline in the 

water table results and creates a cone of depression around the wells. 

• Pumping and streamflow are related, and pumping near a stream (generally) will cause 

streamflow depletion. However, the degree of connection and the nature of groundwater 

flow paths is complex in this area and has not been fully characterized. 

• During the U.S. Geological Survey study period there was less available sustained base 

flow than there was before the wells began pumping in 1988. Annual discharge, direct 

runoff, and base flow were lower during the study period (2007–2009) than before 1988 

(1969–1980). Although years of below average precipitation were recorded during both 

time periods, there were no days of zero flow recorded at the Eagle Creek gage from 

1969–1980. No-flow days were recorded in 11 years (totaling 789 days) of the 20 years 

analyzed after 1988, with 8 of the last 10 years having no-flow days. No-flow days 

occurred during periods of both below and above average precipitation during the study 

period but no-flow days did not occur during periods of below average precipitation 

before 1988. It is important to note that the Eagle Creek gage measures flow from both 

North Fork and South Fork, and that the Eagle Creek gage used to be (1969–1980) at a 

different location further downstream along Eagle Creek. The exact position of this prior 

location is not known with certainty (this is described in more detail in the water 

resources section of chapter 3).

• Average annual groundwater recharge was estimated to average 490 acre-feet, or about 4 

percent of precipitation (1970–1980). Groundwater flow out of the basin (552 acre-feet) 

was estimated to represent about 16 percent of basin yield (1970–1980), and mean annual 

groundwater pumping (578 acre-feet for 1988–2000) was estimated to be about 17

percent of basin yield. 

• The streambed has a capacity to transmit water at a threshold rate of about 0.7–1 cubic 

feet per second. The amount of water needed to saturate the alluvium to the bottom of the 

stream channel at its greatest cross-sectional area between the North Fork and Eagle 

Creek gages was estimated using Darcy’s law to range from 0.6 to 1.2 cubic feet per 

second. Sustained flows greater than 2.2 cubic feet per second (threshold rate of 1.0 cubic 

feet per second loss to bedrock plus 1.2 cubic feet per second) are needed to both saturate 

the alluvium and maintain continuous flow in the North Fork. From September 2007 

through March 2009, 2.2 cubic feet per second of discharge was equaled or exceeded at 

the North Fork gaging station 2 percent of the time. During the study period, a discharge 

of 1.2 cubic feet per second was equaled or exceeded at the North Fork gaging station 8 

percent of the time. 

These results are consistent with other studies conducted in this area. For instance, Balleau (2004) 

used the Glover-Balmer (1954) approximation to estimate streamflow loss caused by pumping of 

the North Fork wells at Eagle Creek of between 0.5 and 0.8 cubic feet per second. Finch et al. 

(2004) determined by a mass balance analysis of the Balleau groundwater model that about 70 

percent of the water pumped by the North Fork wells was derived from surface water and 30 

percent from groundwater storage. 

If the cone of depression continues to expand, it could impact water-dependent resources outside 

the stream corridor. This situation is exacerbated by the location of the wells within the stream 

channel, together with the low storage capacity of the aquifer.

2 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

The June 2012 Little Bear Fire, started by lightning, burned approximately 35,300 acres within

the Smokey Bear Ranger District. It affected the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area where it 

burned approximately 3,380 acres of the 3,400-acre project area (or 99 percent). It burned with a 

mix of severities as follows:

• 26 percent high burn severity 

• 26 percent moderate burn severity

• 27 percent low burn severity 

• 21 percent unburned or very low severity 

Wildfire is widely acknowledged to be a major watershed disturbance, which potentially creates 

substantial changes in watershed dynamics and water balance factors. These changes are often 

more pronounced when these extensive, severe fires occur in coniferous mountain watersheds 

such as the Eagle Creek headwaters. As summarized in the following “Existing Condition” 

description and described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3, several 

hydrological aspects of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed have been changed or are expected 

to change over time because of the Little Bear Fire. 

Water Rights

As described in more detail in chapter 3, the Village of Ruidoso (the applicant; the entity that is 

applying for a special use permit) owns water rights in Eagle Creek basin. The applicant was 

originally adjudicated a total of 5,648 acre-feet per annum from the North Fork wells subject to 

beneficial use. In June 2007, the Village of Ruidoso filed Proof of Beneficial Use with the State 

Engineer which was used as a basis for a 2010 consent order adjudicating a total of 2,539.34 acrefeet per annum with an additional 846.46 acre-feet per annum subject to beneficial use to be filed 

on or before December 31, 2024. The 2010 Consent Order also adjudicated the North Fork wells 

authorizing supplemental well diversion up to 761.12 acre-feet per annum for the Village of 

Ruidoso surface water rights on Eagle Creek.

The Village of Ruidoso and Rio Hondo Land and Cattle Company, L.L.P., entered into a 

memorandum of agreement on July 26, 2011, regarding Village of Ruidoso water rights in the 

Eagle Creek basin. To our knowledge as of April 2014, this agreement between the two parties 

has not been acknowledged by the Office of the State Engineer. If an updated consent order from 

the Office of the State Engineer including this agreement is issued, we will recognize the updated 

consent order as the most current description of the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. Until that 

time, we will use the 2009 final adjudication as the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in the North 

Fork Eagle Creek. More details regarding this memorandum are included in the “Water Rights” 

section of chapter 3. The alternatives presented in this document for analysis would not be 

affected by implementation of this memorandum of agreement. 

Except for Federal reserved water rights, in New Mexico, the Office of New Mexico State 

Engineer has authority to administer water rights, even on Federal land. The Forest Service has 

authority to allow or deny use of National Forest System lands and to determine what is 

reasonable access, (e.g. conditions of use of National Forest System land).

Changes between DEIS and SDEIS 

This document is similar to the May 2012 DEIS that was provided for public comment. The 

primary differences between the content of the DEIS and this SDEIS is in reference to the Little 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 3 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Bear Fire. We have carefully reviewed each section of the document to ensure that any 

anticipated changes in the project area due to the wildfire are accurately described and that any 

changes anticipated to the alternatives, analysis or conclusions are accurately reflected as well. 

We also reviewed public comments received on the DEIS and used this in preparing this SDEIS. 

Changes include: 

• Minor adjustments to the “Purpose and Need” and “Management Objectives” sections in 

chapter 1 to reflect the most current information on the Village of Ruidoso’s water system

• Minor adjustments to the Desired Condition description in chapter 1 to recognize changes 

in the way streamflow would likely be measured in the future 

• Additions to the Existing Condition description in chapter 1 to reflect changed baseline 

conditions 

• Additions to the Public Involvement section in chapter 1 to reflect the public comment 

period on the DEIS and the decision to prepare this SDEIS

• Minor adjustments to the “Measurement Indicators” described in the “Issues” section of 

chapter 1 to more accurately reflect differences in how resources can be measured in the 

future due to changes from the Little Bear Fire. The water quality indicator under water 

resources was removed.

• Minor adjustments to the descriptions of alternative 1 (no change/continue current 

management) and alternative 2 (no action/no pumping); these changes are described in 

more detail in chapter 2 

• Revisions to some aspects of the adaptive management triggers of alternative 3 (proposed 

action) in chapter 2. These are described in more detail in chapter 2. 

• Adjustments to alternative 3 (proposed action) and the adaptive management strategy 

proposed to reflect changes due to the Little Bear Fire. These are described in more detail 

in chapter 2. 

• Adjustments to mitigation measures and monitoring for the alternatives analyzed in detail 

in chapter 2 

• Updated affected environment resource descriptions in chapter 3 

• Updated environmental consequences sections for each resource area to reflect revised 

alternative descriptions and changed baseline conditions

• Added appendix C to summarize public comments received on the DEIS 

• Added appendix D with photographs of the project area post-Little Bear Fire

Purpose and Need for Action 

The USDA Forest Service’s purpose of taking action at this time is to respond to a request by the 

Village of Ruidoso for authorization to access their existing wells on National Forest System 

lands. 

There is also an equal need to provide for protection of forest resources on National Forest 

System lands in the project area.

To develop the purpose and need, we compared desired conditions to existing conditions. 

4 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Desired Condition

We developed the following desired condition description based on a review of the 1986 “Lincoln 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,” as amended (forest plan); applicable 

USDA Forest Service management direction in laws, regulations, Forest Service Manual and 

Handbooks (summarized later in this chapter under “Management Direction”); studies and reports 

pertinent to the project area; and input from USDA Forest Service personnel and stakeholders. We 

also considered the changes in condition in the project area due to the Little Bear Fire. 

Adequate surface flows between the North Fork gage and the Eagle Creek gage are 

maintained in order to provide streamflow (consistent with an intermittent stream). North 

Fork and South Fork tributaries provide streamflow to the Eagle Creek gage, measured 

either at the gage and/or measured at associated monitoring wells, during dry periods, and 

no-flow days average 20–30 days or less per year, or their equivalent measured at 

associated monitoring wells, roughly half of the average number of no-flow days 

experienced between 1989 and 2011. 

Groundwater discharge sustains base flows in North Fork Eagle Creek and is a source of 

water for springs and seeps and water-dependent ecosystems. Riparian habitat along 

North Fork Eagle Creek is present and provides ecological diversity and wildlife habitat 

and functions to aid in restoration of watershed conditions affected by the Little Bear 

Fire. Water quality in North Fork Eagle Creek is maintained, recognizing that short-term 

adverse impacts due to the Little Bear Fire are likely, but that these effects will diminish 

over the long-term. 

North Fork Eagle Creek provides streamside recreation and wildlife viewing. The 

thresholds for average or median water table depth annually or seasonally (based on 

monitoring) is maintained. 

The Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork wells are authorized under an existing special use 

permit and provide an important source of water to the Village of Ruidoso; these wells 

provide water to the Village of Ruidoso, but with a focus on water conservation, 

management flexibility, and seeking opportunities for transferring water rights to 

locations off of National Forest System land. 

Existing Condition

We developed the following existing condition description based on the best available 

information at the time of this writing regarding conditions and uses along North Fork Eagle 

Creek. Information used is listed in the references section later in this document, included in the 

project record, and discussed in more detail in each resource section of chapter 3. 

North Fork Eagle Creek is a perennial stream maintained by base flow from groundwater 

in its upper reaches (above the North Fork gage) and an intermittent stream below the 

North Fork gage for approximately 2 miles downstream to the Eagle Creek gage. 

Streamflow below the wells, when present, occurs in reaches where bedrock outcrops 

into the channel or where bed load (sand and gravel) deposits are thinner. North Fork 

Eagle Creek has less available sustained base flow than it did before the wells began 

pumping in 1988. Annual discharge, direct runoff, and base flow were lower during the 

U.S. Geological Survey study period (2007–2009) than before 1988 (1969–1980). Noflow days average approximately 46 days per year (1988–2011).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 5 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Several hydrological aspects of North Fork Eagle Creek watershed have been changed or are 

expected to change because of the Little Bear Fire, as described in more detail in chapter 3 and in 

the Water Resources Report in the project record (AECOM 2014). These include:

• Changes in upland vegetation and reduced canopy interception, which can 

modify moisture availability, lead to greater runoff from storms and snowmelt, 

and temporarily increase surface water yield.

• Reduced storage of water in litter which can increase overland water flow.

• Reduced transpiration which can increase soil moisture, increase streamflow and 

possibly increase recharge from large monsoonal events.

• Reduced infiltration which can increase overland flow and erosion.

• Changed surface streamflow resulting in temporary increases in ‘flashy’ 

responses to rainfall and rapid snowmelt, seasonal changes in snowmelt and 

altered water quality. 

• Reduced infiltration and recharge resulting in short-term decreases in baseflow. 

Over the long-term, there could be a return to pre-burn baseflow conditions, or 

increased baseflow due to tree and shrub densities, reduced evapotranspiration 

and monsoonal recharge. 

• Increased stormflow and sediment/debris yields resulting from greater peak flow 

rates, greater volumes of sediment and debris, greater flash flood frequency, 

increased erosive power, and modified channel conditions. 

• Increased snow accumulation (due to reduced canopy cover), which can be offset 

by increased or accelerated evaporation, sublimation, and melt. 

• Vegetation within the project area riparian corridor consists primarily of 

ponderosa pine and boxelder in the overstory and grass in the understory. 

Obligate wetland species are generally not supported by this stream based on the 

results of surveys conducted in 2010–2011; willows and sedges were only 

occasionally observed. North Fork Eagle Creek provides streamside recreation 

and wildlife viewing. 

As described in more detail in chapter 3 and in the “Riparian Vegetation Report” in the project 

record (Miller 2014), the Little Bear Fire affected vegetation in the project area, including the 

riparian corridor (200 feet on either side of North Fork Eagle Creek). However, the wildfire 

burned primarily at or below low intensity in this corridor; only 1 acre (or less than 1 percent) 

burned at moderate intensity and there was no high intensity fire. There was little loss of 

vegetation in the riparian corridor due to the wildfire but some areas showed signs of sediment 

flow where vegetation was covered in sediment, bank scouring and deep cobble deposits near the 

confluence of the North Fork and South Fork of Eagle Creek. 

The Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork wells provide an important source of water to the municipal 

water supply system, but are currently operating under an expired special use permit. Estimates of 

their contribution to the municipal water supply varies (as described in more detail in the 

“Socioeconomics” section of chapter 3), but when both direct and indirect contributions are 

factored in, they supply up to an average of 43 percent annually and up to 87 percent during the 

summer months (Wilson and Company 2005; AECOM 2012 and 2014; Hennighausen and Olsen 

2012 and Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2014). 

6 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

The Village of Ruidoso’s methods for managing water supplied by the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells were affected by the Little Bear Fire, in combination with continued drought conditions. 

This is described in an updated summary of “water rights, return flow and conditions resulting 

from the Little Bear Fire and drought” prepared by Atkins Engineering Associates (2014). Due to 

the wildfire, the Village of Ruidoso lost their ability to use Eagle Creek surface water because of 

poor water quality and debris flows. Groundwater availability was also reduced due to damage to 

aquifer recharge. Since the 2012 Little Bear Fire, the Village of Ruidoso has been diverting more 

surface and groundwater from the Rio Ruidoso to meet the demand for municipal water. Water 

storage in Grindstone Reservoir by diversion from the Rio Ruidoso has declined to historic lows. 

The Village of Ruidoso anticipates the effects of the wildfire on water quality and aquifer 

recharge in Eagle Creek will stabilize over a period of years so that resumption of their normal 

operations would be possible in the future.

Need for Action

Using the model Desired Condition – Existing Condition = Need for Change, there is a need for: 

• Authorizing, under a special use permit, the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access and 

divert groundwater from its North Fork wells on National Forest System land, as a 

substantial component of the Ruidoso municipal water supply system that residents and 

visitors rely upon; and 

• Protecting natural resources on the national forest by maintaining adequate surface and 

groundwater flows to sustain or improve riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be 

affected by groundwater drawdown from pumping these wells. 

Management Objectives

We are responding to the Village of Ruidoso’s application for a new permit to access their wells

on National Forest System land as required by law, regulation and policy. The above needs and 

the following management objectives will be used to guide implementation of this project. 

• Recognizing the importance of the well field to municipal water supply by providing 

water to the Village of Ruidoso while also encouraging water conservation, management 

flexibility, and opportunities for transferring water rights to locations off of National 

Forest System land; and 

• Minimizing impacts of groundwater drawdown from well field pumping by maintaining 

adequate surface and groundwater flows and protecting water dependent ecosystems. 

The Little Bear Fire has affected watershed conditions in the project area and is likely to result in 

altered conditions in both the short- and long-term as described in more detail in chapter 3. We 

recognize the importance of watershed stabilization post-Little Bear Fire and the importance of 

adequate surface and groundwater, and upland and riparian vegetation in this stabilization. 

This need for action and these management objectives are consistent with USDA Forest Service

policy and direction, as described in more detail in the “Consistency with Management Direction” 

section later in this chapter. In summary, the Lincoln National Forest is to be managed to provide 

a favorable flow of water for users by maintaining watersheds in satisfactory condition. Standards 

and guidelines in the forest plan include that riparian areas and fish habitat are to be maintained 

and enhanced and existing water rights are to be maintained and protected. Forest Service Manual 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 7 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

and Handbook direction also applies to special use authorizations and water uses and 

development and requires that ‘thoughtful and prudent’ management be applied to groundwater 

beneath National Forest System lands as a valuable resource.

Proposed Action

To begin moving the project area toward desired conditions and to address the purpose and need 

for action and management objectives, we propose to authorize, under a new special use permit: 

operation of four municipal supply water wells (three equipped and one unequipped) and 

associated monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipelines and power lines; 

and road access located in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on National Forest System land. 

The new permit would be authorized for up to 20 years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and 

verification of the permit terms and conditions. These could occur as often as every year but 

would occur at least every 5 to 10 years. The new permit would include an operating plan with 

new requirements reflecting current adaptive management strategies which both respond to the 

purpose and need for action, and mitigate potential adverse impacts to surface water and 

groundwater resources from well operations. 

The adaptive management strategy would take into consideration the dynamic nature of 

groundwater systems by establishing a feedback process to guide management of groundwater 

withdrawal rates over time. The North Fork Eagle Creek drainage is characterized as highly 

transmissive (water moves through it easily); yet with a relatively low groundwater storage 

capacity. These two characteristics make it sensitive to variations in precipitation patterns and 

intensity. 

Thresholds would be established for streamflow volume and alluvial water depth, water table 

depths, and riparian vegetation, as described in more detail in chapter 2. Exceeding these 

thresholds would trigger implementation of adaptive management strategies to mitigate impact to 

surface resources. Adaptive management strategies currently under consideration include limiting 

groundwater withdrawal rates and stopping pumping for short periods. In addition, a threshold 

would be established for the total volume of water withdrawn from the Village of Ruidoso’s wells 

over a consecutive 3-year period, where exceeding the threshold would trigger a review of the 

other thresholds and mitigations to prevent degradation of surface resources.

The proposed action would require the Village of Ruidoso to be responsible for the cost and 

implementation of any identified monitoring and adaptive management of groundwater and 

surface water resources, once finalized in a Record of Decision and included in the operating 

plan, which is part of the special use permit. The USDA Forest Service, with assistance from the 

U.S. Geological Survey, if possible, may also assist with certain aspects as mutually agreed upon 

by all parties. Four key monitoring indicators would be used to evaluate effectiveness of this 

management strategy. This adaptive management strategy would be incorporated into the 

operating plan that is part of the permit. 

We described the details of the monitoring indicators and how we would use them more fully in 

chapter 2. 

8 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Decision Framework

The Lincoln National Forest Supervisor must decide whether to issue a new permit to reauthorize the Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well operations on National Forest System lands, 

and if so, under what terms and conditions, including adaptive management requirements. 

Public Involvement 

We released the “North Fork Project Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and Proposed Action” on 

February 3, 2011, for a 45-day scoping period. We continue to accept comments throughout the 

process. We mailed a scoping letter with a detailed purpose and need and proposed action 

description to 174 stakeholders including private landowners, agencies, organizations, and tribes. 

We also posted information on the Lincoln National Forest web site and published a news release 

in the Ruidoso News on February 15, 2011. We held a public open house at the Ruidoso Middle 

School on February 17, 2011, to provide project information and answer questions. As of January 

2012, we received a total of 102 comment letters from you, the public—including agencies, 

organizations, individuals, and elected officials—in response to our request for input. Appendix A 

displays all those who provided comments prior to January 2012 and the completion of the DEIS, 

the consolidation of all these comments, and how these comments were addressed in the DEIS.

We released the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on May 25, 2012. The notification of its availability for 

public comment was published in the Federal Register, a legal notice was published in the 

Ruidoso News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all those on the project 

mailing list. We requested comments by July 9, 2012. We received several requests for extensions 

to the comment period and Lincoln National Forest Supervisor Trujillo granted an additional 60-

day extension, requesting all comments be submitted no later than September 9, 2012. 

The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had 

on the project area analyzed in the DEIS, Lincoln National Forest Supervisor Trujillo decided to 

stop the comment period on the DEIS and begin the process to prepare a supplemental DEIS that 

would address the changed conditions in the project area. This was published in the Federal 

Register on July 20, 2012. While we discontinued the formal comment period on the DEIS, we 

did invite any comments on the changed conditions in the project area by September 7, 2012. We 

also received comments on initial drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of this SDEIS from stakeholders and 

these comments were also considered in development of this document. Appendix B includes a 

summary of the comments that were received and how they were used in preparation of this 

SDEIS.

Significant Issues 

Based on the content analysis process, we have identified five significant issues for the North 

Fork project. We used the significant issue measurement indicators described below to identify 

and compare differences in effects among alternatives in chapter 3. Where necessary, these have 

been updated since the DEIS to reflect changed conditions since the Little Bear Fire. 

Water Resources 

Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and water 

table) and surface water (streamflows, wetlands, springs, and seeps). Surface water and 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 9 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

groundwater availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. Water 

resources over time can also be affected by climate change.

Measurement Indicators

Well pumping may affect the quantity and quality of streamflow, groundwater, wetlands, springs, 

and seeps. Effects of climate change may affect well pumping alternatives over time. Alternatives 

will be compared using the following indicators: 

• Streamflow Quantity: Compare estimated durations of no surface flow conditions 

anticipated to occur at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. Noflow conditions are defined as anything less than 0.01 cubic feet per second in the stream 

at the gage.

• Streamflow Quantity: Compare estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 

1.2 cubic feet per second at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation.

• Springs and Seeps: Identify springs and seeps that may be affected by pumping as those 

within the projected drawdown (see figure 7 and figure 8 in chapter 3).

• Domestic Wells: Identify domestic wells that may be affected by pumping as those 

within the projected drawdown (see figure 7 and figure 8 in chapter 3).

• Success of the Alternatives Over Time Considering Climate Change: This indicator 

involves a qualitative analysis without significance determination, based on a general 

review of the indicators above under possible climate change effects. Potential effects on 

water resources from climate changes may include reduced basin yield and recharge from 

changes in rainfall, reduced snowpack accumulation, and evapotranspiration; more 

frequent early season snowmelt; and reduced seasonal peak flows and/or shorter flow 

durations. 

Aquatic Habitat and Fish 

Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying 

degrees. Lowering streamflow may increase temperatures and temperature related fish mortality. 

Quantity, quality, and waterflow availability that mirrors natural flow patterns are important for 

aquatic habitat and fish. Suitable water quality and temperatures, which are partially based on 

water depth and channel conditions, are necessary to support fish populations. Sufficient water 

supplies must also be available during summer months to provide water temperatures needed for 

survival of aquatic species.

Measurement Indicators

Well pumping may affect the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat; including temperature, 

(salmonids require summer water temperatures at or below 68 degrees Fahrenheit), and waterflow 

availability and seasonality (seasonal and year-long flows compared to expected flows without 

pumping). Alternatives will be compared using the water resource streamflow quantity indicator. 

While water quality, particularly related to temperature, is important for assessing impacts to fish, 

the former streamflow quality indicator that was used in the 2012 DEIS as part of the water 

resources analysis has been removed. This is because this indicator is not likely to apply either to 

short-term or long-term post-wildfire conditions, since the North Fork Eagle Creek channel will 

transport and re-work sediment and debris for a considerable number of years. This is described 

in more detail in the Water Resources Report (AECOM 2014). However, water quality will be 

used in a general sense to compare the alternatives in chapter 3 qualitatively. 

10 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Riparian Vegetation 

Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying 

degrees. These water quantity changes could indirectly affect quantity and quality of riparian 

vegetation along the stream corridor.

Measurement Indicators

Well pumping may affect riparian vegetation canopy cover, species composition, and overall 

riparian condition. Alternatives will be compared using the following indicators: 

• Canopy Cover: Predicted qualitative shifts in canopy cover for trees over time, based on 

implementing each alternative. 

• Species Composition: Predicted qualitative shifts in plant communities over time, based 

on implementing each alternative.

Socioeconomics

Effects on water available for diversion have potential to affect local social and economic 

conditions. Well pumping may result in changes in groundwater and surface water availability. 

Limiting access to groundwater pumping has potential to alter municipal water supply, affect 

streamside recreational use (public use of streams for streamside recreation, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing), and affect private land (availability of water for domestic wells).

Measurement Indicators

Well pumping may affect municipal and private land water available for diversion based on 

information presented in the water resources specialist report. Well pumping may also affect 

streamside recreational use based on potential effects to surface water used for recreation. 

Alternatives will be compared using the following indicators: 

• Municipal Water Supply: Estimates of potential forgone water diversion from 

groundwater withdrawal limitations are used to measure the potential for change to 

historic North Fork well diversion. Effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations will be 

examined on historic North Fork well diversion (average annual), diversion for Alto 

Creek and Grindstone Reservoirs (average annual) and projected demands from the 40-

year water plan. In addition, effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations will be 

examined on historic North Fork well diversion during the 5-month summer resort period 

(high demand on water use) from May to September. 

• Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation (private land water 

supply): Availability of domestic well water indicators will be used to measure potential 

for change to private land water supply using an estimate of water drawdown similar to 

the springs and seeps (as described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this 

chapter).

• Streamside Recreational Use: Streamside recreational use indicators will be used to 

measure potential for change to quality of recreation experience from streamflow 

quantity, streamflow quality, and riparian vegetation associated with springs and seeps (as 

described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter).

• Values, Beliefs and Attitudes: Where economic or other effects on area communities 

cannot be quantified, a qualitative discussion of nonmarket and social values will be 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 11
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

used. Accordingly, values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to 

address social considerations.

• Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, orders federal agencies 

to identify and address environmental justice effects, which are any adverse human health 

and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority 

and low income populations. 

Water Rights

Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater and surface water. Surface water 

and groundwater availability are linked and are limited not only by accessible available quantities 

of water, but also by available water rights. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has 

potential to alter municipal water supply and affect beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s total 

adjudicated water rights. 

Measurement Indicators

Well pumping may affect available water rights and beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s 

total adjudicated water rights. Alternatives will be compared using the following indicator: 

• Beneficial use of Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights.

Nonsignificant Issues 

Nonsignificant issues are sometimes important for understanding the full context of alternatives. 

Mitigation measures are generally used to mitigate these types of concerns which we will discuss 

in chapter 2. Unlike significant issues, these nonsignificant issues are not usually subject to 

detailed analysis, so these will be addressed more briefly in chapter 1 or chapter 3 of the SDEIS. 

We have identified the following six for the North Fork project:

Soil Quality

There is little potential for measurable effects to soil quality based on implementation of the 

alternatives. New ground disturbance is not proposed (except under the no pumping alternative); 

we have identified mitigation measures (chapter 2) that would be used to ensure any potential for 

effects are minimized. Therefore, soil quality will not be discussed in chapter 3. 

Vegetation

Besides riparian vegetation (which is a significant issue), there is some potential for effect to 

other types of vegetation such as invasive plant occurrence, sensitive plants, and, to a limited 

extent, upland vegetation. The possible effect of conifer density on water yield in the drainage 

was also identified during scoping as a concern. This will be discussed briefly in chapter 3. 

Wildlife

Besides aquatic habitat and fish (which is a significant issue), other types of wildlife such as 

federally listed and sensitive species, management indicator species, and migratory birds are 

discussed in chapter 3; these nonaquatic wildlife species are not significant to this project and are, 

therefore, only discussed briefly in chapter 3. 

12 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Cultural Resources

There is little potential for measurable effects to cultural resources based on implementation of 

the alternatives; archaeological surveys have been conducted in the project area and there are no 

known sites within the vicinity of the wells. Only minimal new ground disturbance is proposed 

under any of the alternatives and the impacts of this disturbance would be adequately minimized 

by implementation of mitigation measures as described in chapter 2. These measures would 

require that the forest archaeologist be notified before any ground-disturbing activities to ensure 

surveys are up to date and no protection measures are needed. Therefore, this project would not 

affect cultural resources, and cultural resources are not discussed in chapter 3. 

Recreation and Scenery

Besides streamside recreational use (which is a significant issue) there are no other types of 

recreation or visual resources within or near the project area with potential to be affected by 

proposed actions due to the limited nature of effects from well pumping, as summarized below. 

Therefore, this project would not affect recreation and scenery and these topics are not discussed 

in chapter 3. 

There are no wild and scenic rivers within or near the project area.

White Mountain Wilderness is approximately 2 miles from the project area upstream from the 

North Fork gage and would not be affected by implementation of alternatives downstream. 

There are no inventoried roadless areas in or near the project area. 

There are several streams in the White Mountain Wilderness designated in the State of New 

Mexico as Outstanding National Resource Waters (New Mexico Environment Department 2011) 

but these are all upstream from the project area and do not have potential to be affected by 

proposed actions. 

There would be no changes in access (roads and trails) to or within the project area, including 

access for outfitter/guides or other special use permit holders. 

The Eagle Creek Summer Home area occurs upstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells. 

Effects to this area are evaluated as part of domestic water supply under “Water Resources.”

North Fork Eagle Creek primarily provides opportunities for dispersed recreation; there are no 

developed recreation sites along the North Fork Eagle Creek between the North Fork gage and 

Eagle Creek gage; the nearest developed recreation site is Oak Grove Campground, greater than 1 

mile from the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. Dispersed recreation, as defined in the forest 

plan, is recreation use that occurs outside of developed sites and requires few, if any, facilities 

other than roads and trails. In the project area, dispersed recreation activities primarily including 

hiking, backpacking, and camping. The only aspects of dispersed recreation with potential to be 

affected by the alternatives are streamside recreational use and fishing opportunities. Since these 

recreation aspects are discussed in other sections of chapter 3 (under “Aquatic Habitat and Fish” 

and “Socioeconomics”), dispersed recreation is not discussed further.

There are no active livestock grazing allotments in the project area, so grazing will not be 

addressed in chapter 3 of the SDEIS. However, depending on results of the water resources 

analysis and the possibility of effects to springs and seeps in the larger drainage, there is potential 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 13
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

for a cumulative effect. Monitoring measures are identified for springs to determine if any effects 

are occurring; the likelihood is small as discussed in the “Water Resources” section of chapter 3. 

Most of the project area is in the recreation opportunity spectrum class of roaded natural. Changes 

in pumping levels would not result in any changes to this recreation opportunity spectrum class 

and is consistent with management direction for Management Area 1I and this recreation 

opportunity spectrum class. The scenic integrity of project area is classified primarily as high 

with a high sensitivity level. These recreation and scenery classifications would not be directly or 

indirectly affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping. 

Public Safety and Well Security

Any potential effects to public safety and security of well facilities would be mitigated by 

following safety standards and requirements. Because it is the responsibility of the Village of 

Ruidoso to ensure safe and secure facilities, public safety and security will not be addressed in 

chapter 3. Each wellhead is secured and locked. As stated in the description of alternative 1 (no 

change) and alternative 3 (proposed action), the Village of Ruidoso may install security fencing 

around each well, if needed, and this would be captured in an operating plan that is a component 

of the permit. 

Regulatory Framework and Consistency with Management 

Direction 

Several important laws and policies form the regulatory framework applicable to managing the 

Lincoln National Forest. These include, but are not limited to, the: Endangered Species Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Forest Management Act, and various Executive Orders. Chapter 3 of this document (and 

in more detail in resource reports in the project record) identifies the regulatory framework that is 

applicable to each resource analysis. 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

The proposed action is consistent with applicable management direction in laws, regulations, 

Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and the forest plan, as described in more detail below. No 

forest plan amendments are needed for this particular project. The forest plan is incorporated by 

reference and key sections applicable to this project are summarized below. Best management 

practices, other additional specific mitigating measures, and adaptive management options have 

been developed so that forest plan consistency can be assured.

Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(1986, as amended)

The mission of the Lincoln National Forest is to manage resources under multiple use and 

sustained yield principles in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits consistent with 

resource integration, environmental quality, and management considerations (p. 11 of the forest 

plan).

14 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

The forest plan goals for water resource management on the Lincoln National Forest include (pp. 

12-13 of the forest plan): 

• Provide support to resource management activities with emphasis on maintaining water 

quality and quantity. 

• Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and management of the 

forest; contribute to the forest’s estimated 123,000 acre-feet per year (acre-feet per year) 

of water yield (p. 9 and p. 217 of the forest plan). 

• Manage for a favorable flow of water for users by improving or maintaining all 

watersheds to a satisfactory or higher condition (the 2011 Watershed Condition 

Classification Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011) would be used to determine 

satisfactory conditions).

• Manage riparian areas to provide optimum vegetation and ecological diversity (the 2011 

Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011) would 

be used to determine these conditions). 

The project area occurs within forest plan management area 1I – Upper Ruidoso. This 

management area is managed primarily for recreation (p. 78 of the forest plan). There are no 

specific standards and guidelines for this management area that apply to special use permit 

authorizations or water resources. The project area is not within lands identified as base-inexchange.

Standards and guidelines applicable to all management areas (p. 28 of the forest plan) relevant to 

this project include:

• Protect and enhance riparian habitat. 

• Maintain and enhance fish habitat. Avoid causing disturbances to existing habitats. 

• Update water rights inventory, maintain and protect existing water rights.

• Limit special use permits to only necessary public utilities on land identified as base-inexchange.

Agency Direction

Forest Service Manual (FSM) directives for groundwater resource management include: 

FSM 2500, Chapter 2530 – Water Resource Management

• Objectives include: (1) produce water of a quality suitable for the beneficial uses 

identified in the land and resource management planning process (FSM 1920) and (2) 

ensure safe drinking water subject to public use on national forests, whether the source is 

a natural or developed water supply (FSM 7420). Where State standards do not exist, 

observe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality criteria (FSM 2532.02).

• Include a water quality evaluation for all environmental analyses (FSM 1950). Identify 

the water quality implications of proposed and alternative land management practices 

(FSM 2532.03).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 15
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FSM 2500, Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development – 

FSM 2541.04c Region 3 Supplement – National Forest System Water Rights – Forest 

Supervisors 

• Maintain and update annually the forest’s water uses, requirements, and rights inventory. 

Assure that wells and pipelines proposed by the Forest Service are evaluated with the 

same criteria established below for entities other than the Forest Service. A state water 

permit is not needed for water use under the reservation doctrine. All other Federal water 

uses, however, must be in compliance with applicable state law and pursuant to statebased water right or permit. Whether a water right is based on state or Federal law, water 

development by the Forest Service requires NEPA compliance. 

FSM 2541.34 - Water Uses and Development – National Forest System Water Rights - 

Water Rights and Uses for Other Purposes

• Evaluate projected water requirements of uses of National Forest System lands for 

purposes such as hotels, power developments, and transmission lines not directly related 

to Forest Service programs. Assess environmental effects of the use before authorizing 

the use. If the projected water requirements conflict with existing or potential Forest 

Service uses and rights or will adversely affect national forest resources, the potential 

permittee must seek alternative water sources or develop mitigation plans acceptable to 

the Forest Service.

FSM 2541.35 Region 3 Supplement 

• Groundwater beneath National Forest System lands in the region is a valuable resource 

that requires thoughtful and prudent management. Understanding ground and surface 

water interactions facilitates the protection of surface water rights. Where surface and 

groundwater are connected, groundwater discharge sustains base flows in National Forest 

System streams and is the source of water for springs and seeps. This groundwater 

discharge may be critical for sustaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems along with the 

numerous resources and activities dependent upon them. Data describing ground and 

surface water interactions are valuable information for State agencies to have as they 

fulfill their responsibilities for the administration of water rights (FSM 2541.35). 

• If water supplies in sufficient quantities to meet the Village of Ruidoso’s needs are 

located in existing wells or found through exploration, a detailed plan to determine 

impacts should be required. This plan will be site specific and designed to identify 

potential impacts to forest resources and neighboring water supplies, and must be 

approved by the Forest Service before testing for impacts. 

• In considering requests to use water from a known aquifer underlying National Forest 

System lands, modeling drawdown and resultant impacts may be sufficient provided that 

there is adequate information available regarding key aquifer parameters such as 

transmissivity, storativity (capacity), recharge rate, saturated thickness, etc. Modeling 

shall be conducted using a groundwater flow model approved by the Forest Service in 

consultation with the appropriate state agencies. In the absence of sufficient information 

to model impacts, an aquifer test such as long-term pumping of existing and/or 

exploratory well(s) may be required. The purpose of the test is to evaluate the potential 

impacts of removing water at production levels from the well(s) under consideration. As 

testing occurs, there should be simultaneous measurements of water levels and/or 

16 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

pressures in other wells within the vicinity and of flows in adjacent surface waters. Any 

aquifer test(s) should be conducted during periods of appropriate flows in adjacent 

surface waters so that impacts can be identified and used to support modeling of 

drawdown characteristics and/or impacts to surface water resources over time. Chemical 

characterization may be necessary to further evaluate the potential connection between 

ground and surface water sources. If the proposal involves the transport of groundwater 

pumped from nearby non-National Forest System lands across National Forest System

lands, the above testing may still be required to evaluate impacts of the groundwater 

withdrawal (40 CFR § 1508.25 Scope, 40 CFR § 1508.7 Cumulative impact). Note that in 

the analysis of impacts, the state may play a pivotal role in the determination of impact 

based on state law and priority dates. For example, the state may find that a negative 

impact to a junior appropriator is acceptable to meet the needs of a senior water rights 

holder. In the documentation and decision process, consider the statement in 40 CFR § 

1508.14 Human environment: “economic or social effects are not intended by themselves 

to require preparation of an environmental impact statement” (Sec. 3(b)).

• All monitoring or mitigation measures necessary to ensure protection of forest resources 

during the construction of water pumping, storage, or transport facilities, and during the 

long-term removal of groundwater should be included in annual plans of operation 

attached to and made a part of the permit(s). Mitigation measures such as not pumping 

during critical times of the year or returning water to streams and springs will be 

considered only if they have been granted all applicable state authorizations and if forest 

resources can be protected over a long-term period. 

◦ The holder should be required to bear the costs of monitoring and mitigation either 

directly through permit language or indirectly through the use of a collection 

agreement that funds the Forest Service to accomplish the work.

◦ If long-term monitoring detects additional or unforeseen adverse impacts to forest 

resources, or if mitigation measures do not adequately protect forest resources, the 

permit shall be suspended or revoked as appropriate (36 CFR § 251.60 (a)(2)(D)). To 

reverse or prevent a suspension, the holder shall undertake such efforts as are 

necessary to eliminate adverse impacts (sec. 5).

◦ Applicable laws and regulations governing wells and water rights shall be adhered to 

for all proposals. This includes state requirements for notifications, drilling permits, 

well abandonment procedures, and water rights; and Federal (for example, 

Environmental Protection Agency) requirements and recommendations for 

monitoring wells, construction, sampling, and abandonment. 

• In the event that testing, modeling, or monitoring indicates a possibility that appropriable 

waters are or may be impacted, the Forest Service shall follow the procedures appropriate 

for the state(s) in which the development is located. If an appropriate state remedy is not 

available, the Forest Service may seek remedy in any court of jurisdiction. The Forest 

Service shall not issue a permit for construction or issue/reissue a permit for production 

unless the applicable state authorization has been granted for the proposed development. 

In the event that a state withholds authorization for a water development proposed by the 

Forest Service, the requesting Forest Service official is advised to consult with the Office 

of General Counsel. Permits issued by the Forest Service for exploration, evaluation, 

construction, and/or production do not convey a water right to the holder (sec. 6).

FSM and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) directives for special use permitting include: 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 17
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

FSH 2709.11, 52.3 – Special Uses – Standard Forms and Supplemental Clauses 

• C-8. Operating Plan. The holder shall provide an operating plan [optional - and revise the 

plan every (year(s)/month(s)]. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the 

authorized officer or designated representative and cover operation and maintenance of 

facilities, dates or season of operations, and other information required by the authorized 

officer to manage and evaluate the occupation and/or use of National Forest System 

lands. The provisions of the operating plan and the annual revisions shall become a part 

of this authorization and shall be submitted by the holder and approved by the authorized 

officer or their designated representative(s). This operating plan is hereby made a part of 

the authorization.

FSM 2716.12 - Special Use Authorizations - Review before Reissuance 

• Before approving the issuance of a new special use permit for an established use, an 

analysis of the conditions of the use shall be made to determine whether changes in 

permit conditions are needed. Every opportunity should be taken to correct deficiencies 

and bring older facilities and permit areas up to standard. New requirements must be 

reasonable and defensible. To ensure an orderly and planned accomplishment of 

objectives, a schedule of completion dates shall be made a part of the permit.

• When an existing use is no longer desirable, or when the area is needed for uses of higher 

priority, the permittee should be given written notice that a request for a new permit will 

not be approved if the improvements are transferred. This notice will allow the permittee 

to make the most satisfactory arrangements possible, and is to be given at the earliest 

possible date. 

FSM 2800, Chapter 2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards and Services 

• In analyzing land management activities, consider: (1) location, function, and value of 

groundwater-dependent resources; (2) value of groundwater-dependent vegetation to 

provide fish and wildlife habitat, control sediment, and maintain stream temperatures and 

stream channel stability; (3) groundwater recharge and discharge areas and effluent and 

influent stream channel conditions; (4) water quality and deposition or buffering of 

potential water pollutants; (5) fluctuations in groundwater levels, discharge quantities, 

and timing of flow; and (6) cumulative effects of management activities on groundwater 

resources (FSM 2881.2).

• The objectives of geologic resources activities are to protect, manage, and improve 

groundwater and groundwater-dependent ecosystems, recognizing their unique values, 

while implementing land management activities (FSM 2882.02).

• Manage groundwater dependent ecosystems in relation to legal mandates, including but 

not limited to those associated with flood plains, wetlands, water quality, dredge and fill 

material, endangered species, and cultural resources (FSM 2882.03).

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, Subpart B, Special Uses

Section 251.50 - Scope

• All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those 

authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (§212.9); grazing and 

livestock use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such 

18 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are 

designated “special uses.” Before conducting a special use, individuals or entities must 

submit a proposal to the authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization 

from the authorized officer, unless that requirement is waived.... 

Section 251.51 – Definitions

• Permit—a special use authorization which provides permission, without conveying an 

interest in land, to occupy and use National Forest System land or facilities for specified 

purposes, and which is both revocable and terminable.

§251.54 Proposal and application requirements and procedures.

• Pre-application actions—(1) Initial screening. Upon receipt of a request for any proposed 

use other than for noncommercial group use, the authorized officer shall screen the 

proposal to ensure that the use meets the following minimum requirements applicable to 

all special uses: (i) The proposed use is consistent with the laws, regulations, orders, and 

policies establishing or governing National Forest System lands, with other applicable 

Federal law, and with applicable State and local health and sanitation laws. (ii) The 

proposed use is consistent or can be made consistent with standards and guidelines in the 

applicable forest land and resource management plan prepared under the National Forest 

Management Act and 36 CFR part 219. (iii) The proposed use will not pose a serious or 

substantial risk to public health or safety. (iv) The proposed use will not create an 

exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy. (v) The proposed use will not 

unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by the Forest Service, other 

scheduled or authorized existing uses of the National Forest System, or use of adjacent 

non-National Forest System lands. (vi) The proponent does not have any delinquent debt 

owed to the Forest Service under terms and conditions of a prior or existing 

authorization, unless such debt results from a decision on an administrative appeal or 

from a fee review and the proponent is current with the payment schedule. (vii) The 

proposed use does not involve gambling or providing of sexually oriented commercial 

services, even if permitted under State law. (viii) The proposed use does not involve 

military or paramilitary training or exercises by private organizations or individuals, 

unless such training or exercises are federally funded. (ix) The proposed use does not 

involve disposal of solid waste or disposal of radioactive or other hazardous substances.

Section 251.61 Applications for new, changed, or additional uses or area

• Holders shall file a new or amended application for authorization of any new, changed, or 

additional uses or area, including any changes that involve any activity that has an impact 

on the environment, other uses, or the public. In approving or denying new, changed, or 

additional uses or area, the authorized officer shall consider, at a minimum, the findings 

or recommendations of other affected agencies and whether to revise the terms and 

conditions of the existing authorization or issue a new authorization. Once approved, any 

new, changed, or additional uses or area must be reflected in the existing or a new 

authorization. 

Section 251.64 - Renewals 

• When a special use authorization provides for renewal, the authorized officer shall renew 

it where such renewal is authorized by law, if the project or facility is still being used for 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 19
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

the purpose(s) previously authorized and is being operated and maintained in accordance 

with all the provisions of the authorization. In making such renewal, the authorized 

officer may modify the terms, conditions, and special stipulations to reflect any new 

requirements imposed by current Federal and state land use plans, laws, regulations or 

other management decisions. Special uses may be reauthorized upon expiration so long 

as such use remains consistent with the decision that approved the expiring special use or 

group of uses. If significant new information or circumstances have developed, 

appropriate environmental analysis must accompany the decision to reauthorize the 

special use.

• When a special use authorization does not provide for renewal, it is discretionary with the 

authorized officer, upon request from the holder and prior to its expiration, whether or not 

the authorization shall be renewed. A renewal pursuant to this section shall comply with 

the same provisions contained in the paragraph above. 

20 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction 

This chapter describes and compares alternatives considered for the North Fork project, and 

includes updates made since we released the DEIS for public comment and the Little Bear Fire

occurred. It includes a description of each alternative considered in detail, as well as those 

alternatives that were initially considered but not developed for further analysis. Alternatives 

considered in detail are compared based on alternative components, measurement indicators, and 

how well they achieve the purpose and need for action and address the significant issues. A 

summary table of the environmental effects of each alternative is included at the end of this 

chapter. 

Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 

The USDA Forest Service developed three alternatives for detailed analysis, considering public 

comments, USDA Forest Service direction, internal scoping, and changed conditions resulting 

from the Little Bear Fire. These include a ‘no change’ alternative that would continue pumping at 

historic levels with no change in current management, a ‘no action’ alternative that would 

discontinue pumping, and the proposed action alternative. The no action alternative sets the 

baseline against which the effects of pumping are compared. A no action alternative is required in 

an EIS (40 CFR 1502.14(c)).

Alternative 1 - No Change - Continue Pumping at Historic Levels 

Alternative 1 is the Village of Ruidoso’s proposal as reflected in their request for a new special 

use permit. It reflects continued pumping from the North Fork well field, with no new 

restrictions, a continuation of current management, reflected under a new special use permit. 

The USDA Forest Service would authorize, under a new special use permit, the operation and 

maintenance of four municipal supply water wells (three equipped and one unequipped) and 

associated monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and 

road access located in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on National Forest System land. The 

new permit would be authorized for up to 20 years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and 

verification of the permit terms and conditions. These could occur as often as every year but 

would occur at least every 5 to 10 years. The permit term would be shortened if necessary, based 

on the results of these more frequent reviews and verifications of permit terms and conditions. 

The existing municipal water supply system is composed of these four wells (three equipped and 

one unequipped) and the following associated facilities and structures which were, except for the 

monitoring wells, previously approved by the USDA Forest Service and constructed and installed 

in 1985-1986: 

• Approximately 1.4 miles of 14-inch diameter underground ductile iron pipeline 

• One cinder block pump control house (6 foot by 8 foot)

• Approximately 1.3 miles of underground electric power cable

• Four alluvial monitoring wells (MW-1A, MW-2A, MW-3A, and MW-5A) and one

nested bedrock monitoring well (MW-1B and MW-1C) which were previously installed 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 21
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

by the U.S. Geological Survey along the North Fork in the area of the North Fork well 

field to measure groundwater (figure 2). 

The Village of Ruidoso would conduct periodic routine repair/maintenance to these structures as 

needed. Prior to any maintenance or repair, the Village of Ruidoso would contact us for approval 

and scheduling prior to performing the work. For this analysis, it is assumed that any ground 

disturbance necessary for anticipated maintenance or repair of the pipeline, control house, well, 

monitoring wells, or underground electric cable would be minimal. Prior review and approval of 

any maintenance or repair activities would ensure any needed mitigations would be applied to 

minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation 

Measures” section later in this chapter).

The Village of Ruidoso would also maintain National Forest System Road 127A from State Road 

532 to the North Fork well sites. Any maintenance activities performed by the Village (including 

the low water crossing of National Forest System Road 127A across North Fork Eagle Creek) 

would only occur following review and approval by the Forest Service. Security fencing may be 

installed around each wellhead; the Village of Ruidoso would contact the Forest Service for 

approval and scheduling prior to this work being performed to ensure that any needed mitigations 

would be applied to minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to this ground disturbance or 

noise (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this chapter).

We would issue a new permit with no change in existing well pumping operations. This means 

that pumping would continue at historic levels1

 with no new restrictions on use, in accordance 

with the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights. The new permit would be issued with similar terms, 

conditions, and history of water use that has been in operation since 1988, as described below. 

While the terms and conditions of the permit would be similar to the expired permit, the new 

permit would adhere to the most current special use permit templates.

Water use would likely average approximately 740 acre feet per year, with highest use between 

March and September (ranging from a combined total of 60 to 117 acre feet per month); between 

2002 and 2010, use averaged 569 acre-feet per year and ranged between 433 and 807 acre-feet 

per year. As discussed in the “Background” section of chapter 1 and in more detail in the 

“Socioeconomics” and “Water Rights” sections of chapter 3, from 2001 to 2006, the Village of 

Ruidoso obtained approximately 31 percent of its water supply from the North Fork well field. 

Based on recent information from the Village of Ruidoso, 46 to 75 percent of its water supply can 

be attributed to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions (Village of Ruidoso 2012). In 2010, this 

was estimated at 77 percent (Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2014).

As part of the special use permit, the authorization would include an annual operating plan that 

the Village of Ruidoso would prepare in consultation with us. We would require the Village of 

Ruidoso to prepare monthly reports, with electronic reports in spreadsheet format, with the 

following information: 

1 These estimates of historic water use are based on the best available information at the time of preparation of this document. We 

recognize that the applicant has instituted some changes in the way in which the North Fork well field is managed in conjunction 

with its Eagle Creek surface diversion and its water rights from the Rio Ruidoso due to the changes caused by Little Bear Fire. We 

recognize that these recent management adjustments are not typical and that the applicant anticipates resumption of pumping levels 

from the North Fork well field in a period of years when the effects of the Little Bear Fire are reduced (Atkins Engineering 

Associates, Inc. 2014). 

22 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• Well Static/Pumping Water Levels: Water levels (static and pumping) would be 

collected at least once a month from the following wells within and upstream of the 

project area: MW-1A, B, C; MW-2A; MW-3A; and MW-5A (see figure 7 and figure 8, 

chapter 3). Where possible, data would be collected electronically via transducers and 

data loggers that would provide daily measurements. 

• Well Pumping Reports: Daily pumping quantities of water from each of the North Fork 

wells would be reported in gallons per minute (summarized for the month). 

The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for daily operations, facilities and road maintenance 

(National Forest System Road 127A maintenance is the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso 

from NM 532 to the gate below the summer homes) and coordinating with us on 

maintenance/repair projects or data collection activities.

The Village of Ruidoso would be required to notify us if they implement stage 5 water restrictions 

(stringent water conservation measures). This would prompt a joint Forest Service and Village of 

Ruidoso review of the annual operation plan and development of an agreement to temporarily 

modify well pumping if needed to address a critical water situation. 

While alternative 1 (no change) is essentially continuing the Village of Ruidoso’s current well 

operations, it does include added mitigation and monitoring measures that are not currently being 

conducted as part of the Village of Ruidoso’s annual operating plan. These would not constitute 

new restrictions on water availability and use but would provide necessary protections related to 

ground disturbance activities for wildlife and water quality and improved monitoring information. 

These measures would become part of a new annual operating plan under this alternative and are 

described under the “Mitigation Measures” and “Monitoring” headings later in this section. With 

these added mitigations and monitoring, alternative 1 (no change) addresses some aspects of the 

purpose and need and the significant issues, as shown in the analysis in chapter 3 (and 

summarized in table 2 and table 3). 

An implementation plan (with schedule, tasks, responsible parties, reporting requirements, quality 

control measures and costs) would also be developed. 

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping) - Discontinue All Pumping

The USDA Forest Service would deny a new permit for the Village of Ruidoso’s North Fork well 

operations and maintenance. Using these four municipal water supply wells and associated 

monitoring wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and road 

access located on National Forest System land would not be authorized and would be 

discontinued, except those identified for future monitoring. These wells and associated facilities 

would be removed from service and from National Forest System lands within approximately 6–

12 months of notifying the Village of Ruidoso their permit would not be reissued. National Forest 

System road 127A would no longer be maintained by the Village of Ruidoso. 

If this alternative were selected, the Village of Ruidoso would have the option to file an 

application with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of their water 

rights to location(s) off National Forest System land, as described in the “Water Rights” section 

of chapter 3. The Village of Ruidoso would no longer be able to access and put to beneficial use 

their adjudicated water rights at this current location, and would be required to move them, 

subject to approval by the Office of the State Engineer. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 23
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

While this is outside the scope of this analysis, we anticipate that the existing North Fork stream 

gage would be removed at some point in the future if this alternative were selected, but the Eagle 

Creek and South Fork Eagle Creek gages may remain in place for future monitoring. These gages 

are the property of the U.S. Geological Survey and this would be a decision they would make if 

their use were no longer needed. 

If the gages remain and if funding were provided through the U.S. Geological Survey or other 

parties, surface water monitoring may continue at the existing Eagle Creek below South Fork 

gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600), even if pumping were no longer authorized. Water 

levels may be monitored at selected locations in or near the well downstream of the existing well 

field in the vicinity of MW-5. Recording devices or methods, measurement frequencies, and 

reporting provisions would be determined and implemented cooperatively between the USDA 

Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Alternative 2 (no pumping) includes some additional mitigation and monitoring measures as 

described in the “Mitigation Measures” and “Monitoring” sections later in this section. 

Alternative 2 (no pumping) addresses some aspects of the purpose and need and the significant 

issues, as shown in the analysis in chapter 3 (and summarized in table 2 and table 3). The Village 

of Ruidoso would not be responsible for any aspects of stream gage- or monitoring well-operation 

or maintenance or any mitigation or monitoring measures if this alternative were selected. 

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action - Adaptive Management

This alternative was developed to address the purpose and need for action and management 

objectives and provides a balance between providing municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso 

while also ensuring maintenance or improvement of water-dependent resources. It incorporates 

revisions necessary to reflect the changed conditions in the project area from the Little Bear Fire. 

The Forest Service would authorize, under a new special use permit, the operation of four 

municipal supply water wells (three equipped and one unequipped) and associated monitoring 

wells; well house control station; underground pipeline and power line; and road access located in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on National Forest System land. The new permit would be 

authorized for up to 20 years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and verification of the permit 

terms and conditions. These could occur as often as every year but would occur at least every 5 to 

10 years. The permit term would be shortened if necessary, based on the results of these more 

frequent reviews and verifications of permit terms and conditions.

All existing associated facilities (underground pipeline, power line, well control house and 

monitoring wells) that are described for alternative 1 (no change) would also be approved as part 

of the permit under alternative 3 (proposed action). As stated for alternative 1 (no change), the 

Village of Ruidoso would conduct periodic routine repair/maintenance to these structures as 

needed. Prior to any maintenance or repair, the Village of Ruidoso would contact us for approval 

and scheduling prior to performing any work. For this analysis, it is assumed that any ground 

disturbance necessary for anticipated maintenance or repair of the pipeline, control house, well, 

monitoring wells, or underground electric cable would be minimal. Prior review and approval of 

any maintenance or repair activities would ensure any needed mitigations would be applied to 

minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation 

Measures” section later in this chapter).

24 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Security fencing may be installed around each wellhead; the Village of Ruidoso would contact the 

Forest Service for approval and scheduling prior to this work being performed to ensure that any 

needed mitigations would be applied to minimize any potential for adverse impacts due to this 

ground disturbance or noise (see “Mitigation Measures” section later in this chapter). 

As under alternative 1 (no change), the Village of Ruidoso would also maintain National Forest 

System Road 127A from State Road 532 to the North Fork well sites, following review and 

approval by the Forest Service prior to performing any maintenance work, including the low 

water crossing of National Forest System Road 127A across North Fork Eagle Creek.

The new permit would include an annual operating plan that would reflect current adaptive 

management strategies which both respond to the purpose and need for action, and mitigate 

potential adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater resources from well operations. Water 

use would equal approximately 900 cumulative acre feet or less over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre-feet per year or less). This could vary based on monitoring results of the adaptive 

management triggers described in more detail below. This water use threshold would be 

implemented as a starting point only and could be adjusted (up or down), depending on the results 

of monitoring. 

The Village of Ruidoso would prepare an annual operating plan in consultation with us. We 

would require the Village of Ruidoso to prepare monthly reports, electronic reports in spreadsheet 

format, with the following information: 

• Well Static/Pumping Water Levels: Water levels (static and pumping) would be 

collected at least once a month from the following wells within and upstream of the 

project area: MW-1A, B, C; MW-2A; MW-3A; and MW-5A (see figure 3). Where 

possible, data would be collected electronically via transducers and data loggers that 

would provide daily measurements. 

• Well Pumping Reports: Daily pumping quantities of water from each of the North Fork 

wells would be reported in gallons per minute (summarized for the month). 

The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for costs associated with the adaptive management 

strategy and monitoring, daily operations, facilities, and road maintenance (National Forest 

System Road 127A maintenance is the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso from NM 532 to 

the gate below the summer homes), and coordinating with us on maintenance/repair projects or 

data collection activities. The Village of Ruidoso would be required to notify us if they implement 

stage 5 water restrictions (stringent water conservation measures). This would prompt a joint 

Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso review of the annual operation plan and development of an 

agreement to temporarily modify well pumping if needed to address a critical water situation. 

The adaptive management strategy would take into consideration the dynamic nature of 

groundwater systems by establishing a feedback process to guide management of groundwater 

withdrawal rates over time. The North Fork Eagle Creek basin is characterized as highly 

transmissive - (water moves through it easily); yet with a relatively low groundwater storage 

capacity. These two characteristics make it sensitive to variations in precipitation patterns and 

intensity.

An implementation plan (with schedule, tasks, responsible parties, reporting requirements, quality 

control measures, and costs) would also be developed.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 25
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 3. Flowchart of proposed adaptive management strategy

Install new alluvial monitoring 

wells and conduct monitoring of 

Eagle Creek, North Fork and 

South Fork gages and/or alluvial 

wells; water table depth2, 

springs, riparian obligate trees & 

water quality; conduct slug test 

or aquifer pump test

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50%

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 

1−may not include seeps/springs 

or water quality if completed in 

YEAR 1; slug test/aquifer test 

only needed once

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2 Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2. 

Conduct repeat of 2010/2011 

riparian baseline survey

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50% 

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

Are there >30 days of no flow at 

the Eagle Creek gage or >30 days 

of alluvial well elevation below 

7,609 feet? Is water elevation 

below necessary rooting depth?

YES

If this trigger 

is reached 

while pumping 

is occurring 

between 3/1-

9/30, limit 

pumping to 

<50% 

volumetric 

rate at North 

Fork gage (or 

well elevation 

of 7,904 ft) 

until surface 

flow resumes 

(or well 

elevation is 

reached)3

NO

Continue 

pumping: add 

data to future 

years: if hit 

≥30 days, limit 

pumping as 

described 

under YES

YEAR 4

STEP 2: Was average water 

table depth maintained in years 1, 

2, & 3? Was pumping below 900 

cumulative acre feet in years 1, 2, 

3? 

STEP 1: Were there more than an 

average of 20 days of no flow at the Eagle 

Creek gage (or equivalent alluvial well 

elevation) or per year in YEARS 1, 2, & 3?

YES

Limit pumping to 

<50% volumetric 

at North Fork 

gage (or well 

elevation of 7,904 

ft) and go to 

STEP 2

NO

Go to STEP 2

YES

Continue 

pumping and 

go to STEP 3

NO

FS to review 

triggers &

may require 

reduced 

pumping & go 

to STEP 3

STEP 3: Was there measurable 

decline in riparian vegetation 

based on YEAR 3 monitoring?

YES

And did you 

answer YES to 

STEP 1? If so, 

back to STEP 

1

NO

Continue 

pumping

YEAR 5

Conduct monitoring as in YEAR 2 

Evaluate & document results of 

years 1−4 to determine 

effectiveness of management

strategy

WORKING?

Achieving 

purpose and 

need & 

management 

objectives? If 

YES, then no 

change and 

continue 

implementing

NOT 

WORKING?

Make 

adjustments

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 1

PROPOSED ACTION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

1 October 1−Sept 30, each year.

2 Five years of water table depth 

monitoring should be complete 

prior to YEAR 1; if not, continue 

this monitoring in YEAR 1 and 

subsequent years until complete

3 Prompt consultation between 

VoR and USFS would be used to

determine withdrawal limitations

26 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Thresholds would be established for streamflow and alluvial water depth, water table depths, and 

riparian vegetation as described below. Exceeding these thresholds would trigger implementation 

of adaptive management strategies to mitigate the impact to surface resources (figure 3). If 

thresholds are not exceeded, there would be no restrictions on pumping. Adaptive management 

strategies currently under consideration, if thresholds are exceeded, include limitations on 

groundwater withdrawal rates and cessation of pumping for short periods. In addition, a threshold 

would be established for the total volume of water withdrawn from the Village of Ruidoso’s wells 

over a consecutive 3-year period, where exceeding the threshold would trigger a review of the 

other thresholds and mitigations to prevent degradation of surface resources.

The proposed action would require the Village of Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service to work in 

partnership, with assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey, if possible, to conduct monitoring 

and adaptive management of groundwater and surface water resources. Generally, direct costs 

associated with adaptive management and monitoring would be the responsibility of the Village 

of Ruidoso. Four key adaptive management triggers (monitoring thresholds) would be used, as 

described below, to evaluate effectiveness of this management strategy. This adaptive 

management strategy would be incorporated into the operating plan for the permit. 

Adaptive Management Triggers (Monitoring Indicators)

Trigger #1 - North Fork Surface Flow Volume and Alluvial Water Depth 

This trigger would act as an indicator of surface and subsurface flows necessary to maintain or 

improve existing riparian and aquatic ecosystems along the North Fork Eagle Creek below the 

existing well field. The Village of Ruidoso would be responsible for continued collection of 

alluvial water depth measurements collected at new wells located at the Eagle Creek gage (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387600) and the North Fork gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550), at 

existing or rehabilitated monitoring wells at the MW-1A and MW-5A well locations along the 

North Fork Eagle, and existing pumping wells. The Eagle Creek stream gage, located just below 

the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork tributaries, records surface flow volume rates 

(quantities) in cubic feet per second. These data are currently collected and stored by the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and available to the USDA Forest Service and public on the U.S. Geological 

Survey water data web site (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis). 

Because these data may no longer be reliable due to the Little Bear Fire and subsequent debris 

loading in the Eagle Creek drainage, this adaptive management trigger would use these Eagle 

Creek gage streamflow data (if deemed available and reliable), in conjunction with water depth 

measurements from monitoring wells along North Fork Eagle Creek including new monitoring 

wells to be located at the North Fork and Eagle Creek stream gages. Common elevation datums 

and transects would be established by surveys and permanently located in the field at the North 

Fork gage and its new monitoring well, at MW-1A and MW-5A, and at the Eagle Creek gage and 

its new monitoring well. These surveys would relate historic and current streamgage stages to 

benchmark water levels in monitoring wells and to elevations of the streambed and banks. If 

stream gage data are deemed unavailable or unreliable, water level data from alluvial monitoring 

wells would be used instead as adaptive management benchmarks. Flows and/or water levels in 

wells would be monitored on at least a daily basis, and transformed at least monthly into 

elevations based on a common established datum. 

If there are more than 20 days per year of no surface flow (less than 0.01 cubic feet per second or 

an equivalent monitoring well elevation) over a period of 3 consecutive water years at the Eagle 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 27
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Creek gage, or more than 30 no-flow days within any single water year (October 1–September 

30), the Village of Ruidoso would reduce groundwater withdrawal rates from pumping wells. 

Based on recent pre-wildfire streamgaging data, this flow trigger (0.01 cubic feet per second) has 

historically corresponded to an equivalent water surface elevation of 7,609.0 feet at the Eagle 

Creek gage. (This value is accurate to approximately 0.2 feet.)

If either of these adaptive management triggers (streamflow or water level thresholds) is activated 

while pumping is occurring between March 1 and September 30, then groundwater withdrawals 

from the North Fork pumping wells would be limited. Prompt consultation between appropriate 

Village of Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service staff would be required and the conclusive results 

of this consultation would determine groundwater withdrawal limitations. Groundwater 

withdrawals would be limited to 50 percent of the volumetric rate of surface flow at the North 

Fork gage (or a monitoring well elevation of 7,904 feet at the North Fork gage upstream from the 

pumping wells) until: 1) surface flow at the Eagle Creek gage resumes, or 2) the water level 

elevation in a new monitoring well at the current Eagle Creek gage location reaches at least 7,609 

feet; or 3) other criteria determined by the USDA Forest Service staff at the time of consultation 

on this trigger are met. 

The following parameters and assumptions form the basis on which the North Fork Eagle Creek 

surface flow and alluvial water depth trigger would be modeled and managed:

• Using a 3-year running average allows for natural fluctuations in precipitation and 

snowmelt runoff, and periodic short-term drought cycles, considering historic trends. 

• The 3-year threshold of 20 no-flow days is equal to about half the average number of noflow days experienced since pumping began (1988-2011), and should result in an 

improved trend in surface flows and moisture regimes in the North Fork tributary and its 

associated riparian area. The number of no-flow days and alluvial water depth 

measurements would be evaluated based on real time daily recordings from the Eagle 

Creek stream gage (if deemed reliable and available) in conjunction with a new 

monitoring well near the Eagle Creek with daily measurements taken. 

• If we identify additional criteria for groundwater withdrawals in response to trigger 

activation and required consultation, the criteria would be documented in writing and 

distributed appropriately. Such criteria may be provisional if needed, and could be based 

on pumping volumes, durations, or other monitored parameters. There are naturallyoccurring monthly, seasonal, and annual variations in precipitation, evapotranspiration, 

runoff, and groundwater recharge. Eagle Creek watershed characterizations have been 

based on historical data. Contrasting dry, average, or wet periods exist in these historic 

data. Similar natural moisture swings will occur in the future. Also, the long-term 

regional climate may change, creating local effects. Therefore, flexibility in the adaptive 

management response to flow or water level triggers is needed. Monitoring and 

mitigation measures are recommended for the purpose of enhancing multiple-resource 

management in the project area. In particular, using information gathered from monitored 

snowpack, precipitation, and water levels would allow site-specific responses to adaptive 

management triggers to be tailored to existing conditions, forecasted or reasonably 

expected conditions, or other considerations.

• We recognize that the Eagle Creek stream gage includes flow contributions from the 

South Fork tributary. For consistency with data gathered since 1969, the Eagle Creek 

stream gage location would continue to be used, assuming there are no measurable 

28 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

changes in human development or water use within the North or South Fork drainages. 

The South Fork and North Fork stream gages or the new monitoring well located at the 

North Fork gage location (U.S. Geological Survey 083875550) would also continue to be 

used in long-term monitoring, but have insufficient historical data to initially be used as 

an effective trigger. Additional surveying and monitoring will allow these locations to be 

incorporated into the adaptive management framework. The relationship between the 

current Eagle Creek gage location and its previous location is discussed in more detail in 

the water resources section of chapter 3.

• Alluvial water level elevation triggers in new monitoring wells at the current Eagle Creek 

and North Fork gage locations (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600 and 08387550, 

respectively) are based on historical elevations for the 0.01 cubic feet per second ("no

flow") condition at those sites. As of October 2012, post-wildfire streambed surface 

elevations at the North Fork gage are approximately 3 feet higher than the pre-wildfire

condition, and substantial channel disturbance also has occurred at the Eagle Creek gage 

due to sediment accumulation and site repair.

• An initial survey traverse with appropriate closure would be conducted at the start of the 

monitoring program to correlate channel and bank elevations, gage datums and stages, 

and monitoring well water level elevations between the North Fork gage location (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387550), all monitoring wells, and the Eagle Creek gage location 

(U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). Cross-sectional elevation surveys would be 

conducted annually at the permanently-located transects (at the North Fork gage, MW1A, MW-5A, and the Eagle Creek gage locations) to identify ongoing modifications in 

streambed and bank levels and locations.

This trigger is different than that described in the DEIS and incorporates modifications as a result 

of the anticipated changes in the project area along the North Fork Eagle Creek following the 

Little Bear Fire. Even as hillslope conditions eventually restore to reasonably stable post-Little 

Bear Fire conditions, a substantial amount of deposited sediment and debris is expected to move 

through the drainage system for decades. This will modify channel and bank conditions, 

streamflow occurrence and water levels, and gaging conditions. By tying adaptive management 

streamflow triggers to water level elevations, and by connecting monitoring locations to 

established elevation benchmarks, these flows, water levels and alluvial conditions can be more 

successfully tracked over time.

Trigger #2 - Water Table Depth 

This trigger would provide a continuous indicator of the status of groundwater storage along the 

North Fork Eagle Creek. The Village of Ruidoso would continue to maintain monitoring well 

MW-1B and other selected wells in or near the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, using them to 

retrieve daily data on water table levels. Data for pumping rates from individual pumping wells 

would also be retrieved. Water table depth data (feet below ground surface) have been collected 

by U.S. Geological Survey and stored in the acre-feet database. These data and the values 

additionally collected would be continuously reported to the Forest Service and public on a water 

data web site maintained by the Village of Ruidoso as real time and historic daily averages. The 

U.S. Geological Survey water data Web site or a database maintained by the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer may be used for these reporting purposes, pending an agreement with either 

agency. The reporting frequency (e.g., daily or weekly) would be determined through further 

interactions between the USDA Forest Service, the Village of Ruidoso, and other interested 

parties.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 29
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Using the sum of all monitoring data collected prior to implementation (2 years of data collected 

by U.S. Geological Survey during their study plus the data collected by the Forest Service during 

the EIS process, estimated at approximately 5 years of data), the Forest Service would evaluate 

these data to establish an adaptive management trigger (threshold) for average or median water 

table depth. For example, if the water level in monitoring well MW-1B declines to more than 75 

feet below ground surface, then pumping shall cease until the water level recovers to 65 feet 

below ground surface. The water table depth threshold may be established on an annual or 

seasonal basis (e.g. growing season, or spring, summer and fall), and would be based on 

interpretation of data representing periods of no pumping and pumping. If selected, the seasonal 

orientation would consider water table fluctuations under conditions of snow accumulation, 

snowmelt, low precipitation, and monsoonal moisture. Upon data collection and interpretations, 

individual thresholds may be established for different wells monitored at different locations along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. To avoid extreme conditions, 10 percent of the values would be 

trimmed from both the highest and lowest portions of the dataset(s). 

The Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain a corresponding average water table depth 

that is equal to or above these thresholds over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping 

of North Fork wells results in a declining trend in the average water table depths over any 3-year 

period, the Village of Ruidoso would reduce diversions from the wells until the average water 

table depth is reestablished and the Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without 

creating further departures over a 3-year period. 

In addition, the unnamed spring on the right bank of the North Fork upstream from the North 

Fork gage (UTM coordinates of 430344.177, 3697589.137 meters) would be monitored monthly 

for continued flow. Water chemistry at this spring would be characterized to ascertain its source 

(e.g., deep bedrock). After at least two years of monthly monitoring, changes or cessation of flow 

rates at this spring would be used to further inform potential adaptive management actions.

Trigger #3 - Riparian Vegetation

This trigger would provide an indicator of the effects of groundwater withdrawal on the condition 

and trend of surface resources in and downstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek basin and was 

developed to complement the surface flow and alluvial water depth trigger. 

The riparian inventory conducted in 2010-2011 would be used as a baseline so that any future 

changes in riparian vegetation in the project area would be apparent with future monitoring. 

Short-term and long-term trends in riparian vegetation canopy cover, composition, and conditions 

would be evaluated and documented by repeating the riparian inventory annually between June 1 

and July 15. This will provide an opportunity to examine any noticeable shifts in riparian 

vegetation at a community level. This inventory would be coordinated with stream geometry 

monitoring along the North Fork Eagle Creek, as further detailed under “Monitoring, Water 

Resources and Fisheries” below. 

We would conduct annual monitoring of riparian obligate tree species (e.g. willows, boxelder) 

and other facultative wetland species in the project area in order to detect short-term changes in 

condition and canopy cover. Individual baseline monitoring plots known to contain facultative 

wetland vegetation would be examined annually for continued presence/absence of these species. 

Trigger #1 for streamflow and alluvial water depth would be used to determine when pumping 

would be reduced. As a guideline for trigger #1, we chose the minimum rooting depth of 30 

30 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

inches for shining willow (Salix lucida) and 34 inches boxelder (Acer negundo) to define the 

inner and outer edge of the riparian area, respectively and their growing season (March 1 through 

September 30). If water level elevations in monitoring wells used for trigger #1 decline greater 

than these depths below their benchmark elevations [currently 7,609 feet above mean sea level 

NAVD88 at the Eagle Creek gage location, 7,904 feet above mean sea level NAVD88 at the 

North Fork gage location, or other benchmark elevations to be identified at monitored wells], then 

pumping would be reduced until water level elevations are within 30 to 34 inches of the water 

level benchmark or other mitigating arrangements are made and implemented with the Village of 

Ruidoso. If riparian conditions are adversely affected by stream channel or bank instabilities, 

monitoring locations and/or trigger activation would be modified as deemed necessary by 

qualified agency riparian specialists. 

If annual monitoring of riparian obligate or other facultative wetland species detects substantial 

reductions in condition or canopy cover, or if the 5-year re-reading of the baseline riparian 

inventory detects measurable declines in canopy cover or composition, the Forest Service may 

require diversions from the wells to be reduced to below 50 percent of the annual average well 

diversions (in acre-feet per year or acre-feet per year), or may modify benchmark water level 

elevations in monitoring wells that serve as the baseline for other triggers, to help restore riparian 

vegetation. This trigger would be used in conjunction with the streamflow and alluvial water 

depth trigger to determine if reductions in pumping are necessary. 

The following parameters and assumptions form the baseline on which the North Fork Eagle 

Creek riparian trigger would be managed:

• Annual monitoring would be relatively fast and inexpensive while still providing a 

method to detect rapid changes in keystone obligate and facultative wetland plants that 

occur in the project area and upstream of the current baseline monitoring area. 

• Because the riparian corridor was not substantially affected by the Little Bear Fire and 

experienced primarily low intensity fire only, using the pre-wildfire riparian inventory 

baseline survey conducted in 2010-2011 is still appropriate and would provide an 

important method for gaging change in riparian conditions over time. Changes in alluvial 

deposits, soil deposition and bank shearing observed in some areas post-wildfire will be 

noted and documented.

Well Pumping Volume 

The Village of Ruidoso would continue daily monitoring and recording of groundwater 

withdrawals through the North Fork Eagle Creek wells (pumping volumes in acre feet). 

Combined with precipitation and streamflow records over time, this metric would be used to 

develop an additional reliable indicator for modeling anticipated effects of groundwater 

withdrawals on surface resources within the North Fork Eagle Creek basin by accurately 

modeling the cone of depression.

2

2 The cone of depression is based on Figure 16 of Matherne and others (2011). Bedrock water level at piezometers MW-1B and MW1C are measured halfway between the pumping center and the North Fork gage. In March of 2009, MW-1B showed a drawdown of 

75 feet at a time when the pumping rate was approximately 600 acre feet per year. At 75 feet of drawdown, Figure 16 shows that the 

cone of depression has negligible effect in the vicinity of the North Fork gage. If drawdown at MW-1B or MW-1C is limited to 75 

feet, then effects to the upper reaches of the North Fork would be minimized. This water level maintenance would be independent of 

wet or dry periods, as the cone of depression would have the same shape whatever the pumping rate is to achieve it. However, 

Figure 16 makes note that the alluvial wells were dry in March of 2009, which will also need to be considered in the adaptive 

management for riparian areas. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 31

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

An initial adaptive management trigger (threshold) of 900 cumulative acre feet over any 3 

consecutive water years (300 acre-feet per year) would trigger a review by the Forest Service of 

the current thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or improving surface resource conditions. 

This threshold is based on 500 acre-feet per year recharge for the North Fork basin as determined 

by the chloride balance method described in the U.S. Geological Survey report (Matherne et al.

2011). If the water level elevations in the alluvial wells or at MW-1B are shallower than related 

adaptive management triggers, then greater pumping volumes may be allowed. If analysis results 

indicate that current thresholds and mitigations are not sufficient to maintain surface resource 

conditions, management of groundwater withdrawals would be adjusted to provide additional 

protections against further degradation of riparian and other surface resources within the North 

Fork Eagle Creek basin.

Adjustments in Management of Water Withdrawals 

As time and funding allow, we would conduct periodic North Fork project area site visits to 

observe facility operations, gages and wells, streamflow, and riparian conditions. Notes and 

photographs (if applicable) would be taken and added to the project file. Every 5 years that the 

permit is in effect, or when triggered by exceeding the water withdrawal threshold described 

above, the Forest Service would evaluate and document monitoring results to determine 

effectiveness of the adaptive strategy and determine whether an adjustment to the parameters of 

this adaptive management strategy are warranted. These 5-year evaluations would correspond 

with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (Office of the State Engineer) (Roswell 

District) 5-year water accounting periods. For water accounting purposes, the Office of the State 

Engineer water year runs from November 1 through October 31, and the year is numbered by the 

October date (e.g., Office of the State Engineer Water Year 2014 begins on November 1, 2013 

and ends October 31, 2014). Forest Service 5-year adaptive management evaluations would be 

conducted on a schedule that coordinates with the Office of the State Engineer accounting 

periods. 

• Even as hillslope conditions eventually restore to reasonably stable post-Little Bear Fire

conditions, a substantial amount of deposited sediment and debris is expected to move 

through the drainage system for decades. This will modify channel and bank conditions, 

streamflow occurrence and water levels, and gaging conditions. By tying adaptive 

management streamflow triggers to water level elevations, and by connecting monitoring 

locations to established elevation benchmarks, these flows, water levels and alluvial 

conditions can be tracked over time. 

• Based on the 5-year evaluations of the special use permit, the Forest Service may relax or 

further restrict specific parameters of this adaptive management strategy, with 

modification to the operating plan of the permit. These 5-year evaluations would 

coincide, if possible, with the State Engineer 5-year accounting periods for the Hondo 

Basin. 

• Adjusting these parameters would be based on USDA Forest Service determinations of 

the extent to which the North Fork well operations are consistent with the purpose and 

need and identified management objectives.

Adaptive management adjustments include limitations on groundwater withdrawal rates and 

cessation of pumping for short periods; increases in withdrawal rates could also occur depending 

on the results of monitoring. 

32 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Alternative 3 (proposed action) includes some additional mitigation and monitoring measures as 

described in the “Mitigation Measures” and “Monitoring” sections (below). Alternative 3 

(proposed action) addresses the purpose and need and the significant issues, as shown in the 

analysis in chapter 3 (and summarized in table 2 and table 3).

Mitigation Measures 

Forest Service staff have developed the following mitigation measures that would apply to 

implementation of the alternatives. Some would differ by alternative, as indicated below. 

Wildlife and Fish 

• All Alternatives: In the event that any mechanized equipment use that may be necessary 

for implementing repair, maintenance or operation activities of the wells/associated 

facilities, fencing activities around the wells, or for monitoring or adaptive management 

(or for well and facility removal under alternative 2 (no pumping)), this activity would 

not occur within 0.25 mile of the northern goshawk post-fledging area from March 1 to 

September 30 to minimize disturbance during the breeding season. The Village of 

Ruidoso would contact the Smokey Bear Ranger District for this location. 

• All Alternatives: In the event that any mechanized equipment use that may be necessary 

for implementing repair, maintenance or operation activities of the wells/associated 

facilities or for monitoring or adaptive management (or for well and facility removal 

under alternative 2 (no pumping)), this activity would not occur within 0.25 mile of the 

adjacent protected activity center during the Mexican spotted owl breeding season 

(March 1–August 31). 

Water, Soil, and Vegetation

• All Alternatives: USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region best management practices 

(USDA Forest Service 1982) for water quality management would be applied to any 

ground-disturbing activities under any of the alternatives related to maintenance and 

operation of the wells/associated facilities or for monitoring (or for well and facility 

removal under alternative 2 (no pumping)). These practices would ensure that any 

potential for increased soil erosion or vegetation disturbance would be minimized. 

• Alternative 3 (proposed action): The adaptive management triggers (monitoring 

indicators) described for this alternative serve as measures that would minimize the 

potential for adverse impact to water, soil, and vegetation resources.

• Alternatives 1 (continue current management) and alternative 3 (proposed action): 

The Village of Ruidoso would be required to develop and implement a water 

conservation strategy as part of the terms and conditions of their special use permit. 

Cultural Resources

• Alternative 2 (no pumping): The Lincoln National Forest archaeologist would be 

consulted prior to removal of any wells and associated facilities in order to ensure 

cultural resource protections are provided, as needed. No impacts are expected at this 

time since no known sites are located within the area of potential effect. 

• All Alternatives: If any human remains or artifacts determined to fall under the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act guidelines are unearthed during project 

activities, we would consult with all appropriate tribes. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 33
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Public Safety and Health 

• The Village of Ruidoso is responsible for ensuring all wells and associated facilities are 

safe and do not pose a danger to public health or safety. 

Monitoring 

The first eight monitoring measures described below for water resources and fisheries would be 

implemented for either alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action) (adaptive 

management). Monitoring is also recommended for alternative 2 (no pumping) and is described 

below as monitoring measure nine. 

These measures would be used in conjunction with those already identified as part of the 

alternative descriptions provided earlier in this chapter, including those discussed as part of 

adaptive management under alternative 3 (proposed action). 

Water Resources and Fisheries

1. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): The Village of Ruidoso

would rehabilitate existing monitoring wells, or construct new ones upstream and 

downstream of the well field, to ensure that only one individual water-bearing zone of interest 

is monitored within each screened zone. New alluvial monitoring wells would be constructed 

by the Village of Ruidoso adjacent to the North Fork of Eagle Creek, at the locations of the 

existing North Fork streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550) and Eagle Creek below 

South Fork streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). In order of increasing depth, the 

individual groundwater zones of interest in the well field area include the stream alluvium, 

shallower fractured and weathered zones within volcanic bedrock, and deeper bedrock zones 

within the same volcanic aquifer system. Well rehabilitation can include sealing off multiple 

completions with bentonite and/or grout as appropriate; or other means of isolating a source 

zone by adaptations of the wells already in place. In addition, if a pumping alternative is 

selected, deep, long-screen wells would be selected or newly constructed and monitored both 

upstream and downstream of the well field to track water table depths as part of monitoring. 

The screened portions of these two wells would be the same as the elevation range of the 

screened or open zones of the pumping wells. The results of this monitoring would be used 

(along with proposed riparian monitoring) to assist in determining potential effects to riparian 

vegetation by comparing to minimum rooting depths of facultative wetland species. 

2. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Using the re-configured as 

well as new monitoring wells completed from Monitoring Measure 1, the Village of Ruidoso

would conduct slug tests or aquifer pumping tests of the individual water-bearing zones of 

interest at the well field. The choice of tests would ultimately depend on the time and 

resources available, and on conclusions reached during coordinating efforts that would be 

completed between the Village of Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service. Comparable and 

contemporaneous tests would be completed for each water-bearing zone of interest, so that 

comparisons can be made between appropriate test results and a greater understanding of the 

hydrogeologic nature of the well field can be gained. Surface flow observations would also be 

made before, during, and after the groundwater tests at selected locations along North Fork 

Eagle Creek. 

3. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Monthly water quality 

field measurements would be made by the Village of Ruidoso at all three existing surface 

34 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

flow gages on the North Fork, South Fork, and Eagle Creek. An additional streamflow 

sampling location would be determined and marked or monumented immediately below the 

well field, at or near existing monitoring well MW-5 or wherever surface flow frequently 

occurs downstream. Field sampling constituents would include water temperature, air 

temperature, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance. If approved in 

writing by the USDA Forest Service, the frequency of sampling could be reduced to a 

quarterly basis after 1 year. All data records would be filed with the Lincoln National Forest 

Supervisor’s office on a quarterly basis.

4. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Daily mean flow and/or 

water level measurements would continue to be recorded by the Village of Ruidoso at the 

three stream gages or new monitoring wells, and at monitoring wells used in the U.S. 

Geological Survey program. Foundation conditions at the Eagle Creek stream gage would be 

ascertained, and if significant alluvial underflow occurs, then modifications would be 

implemented to either minimize or measure alluvial underflow past the gage. Rehabilitated or 

newly constructed wells described in measure #1 above may be substituted for existing 

monitoring wells as needed, and may be used to substitute for surface flow gages. Recording 

devices or methods, and measurement frequencies, would be determined cooperatively 

between the USDA Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso. Adding a transducer that would 

record hourly so diurnal variations could be accounted for would be considered. Flow or 

water level measurements would correspond to water quality field data collection efforts if 

conducted under Water Resources Monitoring Measure 3. Data would be reported on a 

monthly basis to the USDA Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, and stored in a publically available database maintained by one 

of these agencies as determined through further coordination and decisionmaking. Quarterly 

and annual data summaries and conclusions would be developed and made publically 

available by the Village of Ruidoso, with the USDA Forest Service acting in an agency 

review and approval capacity.

5. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Eight springs and seeps in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage would be identified and monitored by the Village of 

Ruidoso on a monthly basis for 1 year: priority locations would be such features alongside or 

in the channels in the upper North Fork Eagle Creek and Carlton Canyon. Locations are 

indicated on figure 2. Monitoring constituents would include flow rate, temperature, pH, and 

specific conductivity. Additional water quality constituents (e.g., carbonate, bicarbonate, 

chloride, sulfate) would be included if specified by the USDA Forest Service, and samples 

would then be retrieved and handled for laboratory analyses of those constituents if they were 

deemed necessary. 

6. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Stream gradient, planform, 

and stability indicators would be monitored and documented annually by the Village of 

Ruidoso between June 1 and July 15 at selected and benchmarked cross-section locations 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek for the first 5 years during the term of the permit. Crosssections would be located a minimum of every 1,000 feet downstream from the existing 

North Fork Eagle Creek streamgage location to the Eagle Creek below South Fork 

streamgage location, below major tributary junctions, and at selected sharp bends. Stream 

channel width, bank height and angle, aggradation or degradation of sediment or debris, 

longitudinal profile, flow estimates, pool locations, and other selected geomorphic 

characteristics would be documented in the field by the Village of Ruidoso and submitted in 

an annual summary report to the USDA Forest Service that includes data forms, summary 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 35
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

tables, photographs and figures, and interpretations. After the first 5 years of the term of the 

permit, The Village of Ruidoso would measure these parameters at these same locations every 

3 years (instead of every year), between June 1 and July 15. 

7. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): Snowpack on Sierra 

Blanca would be monitored by the Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration through access 

to the Natural Resources Conservation Service data portal. Anticipated dry, average, or wet 

spring seasonal moisture conditions will be ascertained monthly and documented by monthly 

memoranda to the Forest Service for the months of January, February, March, and April every 

year. At least one precipitation gage along the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed divide 

would be maintained by the Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration in cooperation with 

the U.S. Geological Survey, and monthly total precipitation accumulations would be reported 

to the USDA Forest Service on a quarterly basis every year.

8. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): The Village of Ruidoso

would develop and calibrate a site-specific groundwater computer model in cooperation with 

the USDA Forest Service and other selected, qualified parties representing appropriate 

stakeholder interests along the North Fork of Eagle Creek. The model will be developed and 

calibrated during the initial three years of the term of the permit, and used through the 

continuation of the permit term to further inform adaptive management of surface and 

groundwater relationships along the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

9. Under alternative 2 (no pumping): Surface water monitoring would continue at the existing 

Eagle Creek below South Fork gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600), and water levels 

would be monitored at a selected well downstream of the existing well field in the vicinity of 

MW-5. Recording devices or methods, measurement frequencies, and reporting provisions 

would be determined cooperatively between the USDA Forest Service and U.S. Geological 

Survey. Adding a transducer that would record hourly so diurnal variations could be 

accounted for would be considered; this monitoring would be conducted as time and funding 

allowed and would be used to determine possible changes in flow due to discontinuation of 

pumping. 

Riparian Vegetation

1. Under alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action): The 2010 baseline riparian 

vegetation survey would be repeated every 5 years, as described in the adaptive management 

strategy description of alternative 3 (proposed action) earlier in this chapter. Annual 

monitoring of riparian obligate tree species (e.g. willows, boxelder) and other facultative 

wetland species within the project area would also be used to detect short-term changes in 

condition and canopy cover. This monitoring would be coordinated with stream geometry and 

stability monitoring as described above for “Water Resources and Fisheries”. 

2. Under alternative 2 (no pumping): The 2010 baseline riparian vegetation survey would be 

repeated at 5-year intervals, as time and funding allows.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required by the NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). 

36 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

We received comments from the public on our proposed action during the scoping period and 

many of these offered suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 

For an alternative to be analyzed in detail in an EIS, it should meet the purpose and need for 

action, address one or more significant issues, and reduce the potential for significant impacts. 

Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic 

standpoint; they do not necessarily have to be within USDA Forest Service jurisdiction to 

implement. Alternatives not considered in detail in an EIS may include, but are not limited to, 

those that fail to meet the purpose and need, are technologically infeasible or illegal, or would 

result in unreasonable environmental harm. We also considered applicable USDA Forest Service

direction as summarized in chapter 1. 

The following sections describe the comments we received form the public related to alternatives 

and why these were not carried forward for detailed analysis in this document. 

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – General

No-flow days (days where there is zero flow in North Fork Eagle Creek) should 

be eliminated entirely from the proposed action - assure that the stream flows 

every day. 

The no pumping alternative will be analyzed in detail and is the alternative with the best potential 

to eliminate no-flow days. This alternative would “leave downstream flows in the same state that 

they would be absent the pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek wells” which is required for the 

EIS analysis as part of the stipulation agreement. 

As stated in the U.S. Geological Survey report and summarized in chapter 2 of the EIS, although 

years of below average precipitation were recorded during the time period before the wells began 

pumping and after the wells began pumping, there were no days of zero flow recorded at the 

Eagle Creek gage from 1969-1980. A total of 789 no-flow days were recorded in 11 years of the 

20 years analyzed after 1988, with 8 of the last 10 years having no-flow days. No-flow days 

occurred during periods of both below and above average precipitation during the study period 

but no-flow days did not occur during periods of below average precipitation before 1988. It is 

important to note that the Eagle Creek gage measures flow from both the North Fork and South 

Fork.

The “Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) and Thompson (2014) 

illustrates that we do not have the authority in New Mexico to establish a minimum instream flow 

and that certain Forest Service manual direction related to instream flow does not apply to this 

particular project. Requiring zero no-flow days as part of the proposed action would not be 

consistent with these conclusions or our interpretation of New Mexico state law. 

The purpose and need for taking action and the management objectives outlined for this project 

would not be achieved with eliminating no-flow days completely. The proposed action proposes 

to reduce the number of no-flow days to an average of 20–30 days or less per year, roughly half 

of the average number of no-flow days experienced between 1989 and 2011. This would allow 

pumping to occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure 

protection of forest resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. 

For these reasons, this suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely was not added to the 

proposed action, but will be addressed by the no pumping alternative. However, the predicted 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 37
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

number of no-flow days per year may be used as an indicator in the “Water Resources” section of 

chapter 3 in order to compare and contrast alternatives in the EIS.

The term of the permit should be 10 years with an option to renew (instead of the 

stated 30 years). There should be a review of the permit every 4 years, not every 

5 or 10 years as stated.

The term of the permit has been revised slightly in the description of the proposed action since 

public scoping, as follows: “The new permit could be authorized for up to 20 years, with 

stipulations for frequent reviews and verification of the permit terms and conditions. These could 

occur as often as every year, but would occur at least every 5 to 10 years.” 

We changed the term of the permit from 30 years as originally stated to 20 years and also added 

in a provision for annual reviews based on a review of Forest Service manual and handbook 

direction regarding special use permitting. 

Stipulations for review and verification of the operating plan of the permit are important at 

regular intervals during the administration of a permit; this is stated in the description of the 

proposed action. Keep in mind that the alternative that is ultimately selected for implementation 

in the record of decision would be inserted into the new permit authorization. One of the terms 

will be an operating plan which would include mitigation measures, monitoring, and adaptive 

management details. The USDA Forest Service and the Village of Ruidoso would develop an 

operating plan each year to guide management for that year. As also stated in the proposed action, 

the permit and its operating plan would go through frequent reviews possibly as often as every 

year, but at least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the permit’s annual operating plan (including 

any need for changes in adaptive management monitoring) could be made as a result of these 

reviews to ensure forest resource protection is being achieved. 

Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis since it is very similar to 

the revised proposed action. 

Don’t authorize well #2 and decommission it since it is not being used and never 

has – this is required by the State Engineer Office water regulations.

The Village of Ruidoso does not use well #2 because it is not equipped, is not tied into the main 

line, and does not have power. However, the proposed action includes mention of this well in the 

Village of Ruidoso’s permit in order to authorize its presence on National Forest System land. If 

we did not mention this well in the permit, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to cap it or 

remove it from National Forest System land. Removal of an existing well also has the potential to 

impact water rights associated with the well. Removal of an existing well would result in ground 

disturbance and additional environmental impacts that would need to be carefully evaluated. 

Capping the well permanently would preclude its use in the future for other management needs 

such as monitoring. 

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin pumping water from well #2 at some point in the 

future, this use would still be guided by all the parameters established for the well field as a 

whole. If any new impacts not analyzed in the EIS would result from this new use of well #2, new 

or additional environmental analysis may be necessary at that time.

38 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

For these reasons, we feel permitting well #2 is appropriate in the proposed action and would 

provide the most flexibility for future management without resulting in any additional 

environmental impacts. This alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Don’t authorize well #3 since it is damaged and is not currently being used.

As stated above, the proposed action includes mention of this well in the Village of Ruidoso’s 

permit in order to authorize its presence on National Forest System land. If we did not mention 

this well in the permit, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to cap it or remove it from 

National Forest System land. Removal of an existing well also has the potential to impact water 

rights associated with the well. Removal of an existing well would result in ground disturbance 

and additional environmental impacts that would need to be carefully evaluated. Capping the well 

permanently would preclude its use in the future for other management needs such as monitoring. 

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin pumping water from well #3 at some point in the 

future, this use would still be guided by all the parameters established for the well field as a 

whole. If any new impacts not analyzed in the EIS would result from this new use of well #3, new 

or additional environmental analysis may be necessary at that time. 

For these reasons, we feel permitting the presence of well #3 is appropriate in the proposed action 

and would provide the most flexibility for future management without resulting in any additional 

environmental impacts. This alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Suggestions for Changes to the Proposed Action – Monitoring and 

Adaptive Management

Install a bedrock saturation switch instead of using a depth to water threshold.

We developed the depth to water threshold as described in the proposed action in order to define 

water table depth based on an average over several years so as to allow for natural fluctuations in 

precipitation and runoff. Once the average is identified, the monitoring wells would be used to 

provide water table depth indicators; these wells would provide this information nearly as quickly 

as a bedrock saturation switch. 

Using this switch to shut off the pumps whenever the bedrock is not saturated is very similar to 

the suggestion to not allow any no-flow days under the proposed action. The aquifer in 

communication with the stream needs to remain saturated, or the stream will lose flow to the 

aquifer. For the reasons described above for not eliminating no-flow days from the proposed 

action, we do not feel that the requirement for saturated bedrock before any pumping can occur 

meets the purpose and need for action or the management objectives for this project. 

Under the proposed action, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain water table 

depth at or above the identified threshold (threshold would be identified after 5 years of data are 

collected) over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells results in a declining trend in the average water table depth over any 3-year period, the 

Village of Ruidoso would be required to reduce pumping until the average water table depth is 

reestablished and the USDA Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without 

creating further departures over a 3-year period. Use of this threshold would allow pumping to 

occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure protection of 

forest resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 39
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

For these reasons, this suggestion to maintain saturated bedrock and to use a switch to detect this 

condition so that pumps are turned off when it is not achieved was not added to the proposed 

action, but will be addressed by the no pumping alternative. Detailed prescriptions from the 

alternative (identified in the record of decision) which is ultimately selected for implementation 

would be inserted into the operating plan for the permit. This includes mitigations, monitoring, 

and adaptive management actions. The USDA Forest Service and the Village of Ruidoso would 

develop an annual operating plan each year based on the terms and conditions of the permit to 

guide management for that year. As also stated in the proposed action, the permit would go 

through a review and renewal at least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the operating plan of the 

permit (including any need for changes in adaptive management monitoring) could be made 

during any of these steps to ensure forest resource protection is being achieved; they may require 

additional environmental analysis. 

All monitoring information should be relayed electronically to the Forest Service 

and then made available to the public via the Web.

Having all monitoring information available electronically would be beneficial for management 

and would make it easier to disseminate this information to those who are interested. However, 

the specifics regarding how monitoring information is collected, stored, analyzed, and otherwise 

made available is outside the scope of this environmental analysis. The EIS will evaluate the 

effects of various well pumping alternatives on forest resources and socioeconomics; how data 

are relayed and made available for any of the alternatives would not result in any differences in 

effects to forest resources or socioeconomics. 

For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further detailed analysis. However, the 

USDA Forest Service will consider this suggestion when deciding how best to implement 

whatever alternative is ultimately selected in the record of decision.

All monitoring should be conducted by the Forest Service or the Office of State 

Engineer and not the Village of Ruidoso. 

As discussed above, the specifics regarding how monitoring is conducted is outside the scope of 

this environmental analysis. The EIS will evaluate the effects of various well pumping 

alternatives on forest resources and socioeconomics. While monitoring is a large component of 

the proposed action and has the potential for some effects (i.e. primarily labor implications and 

cost), exactly who would conduct the monitoring is not relevant to the environmental analysis. 

For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further detailed analysis. However, the 

USDA Forest Service recognizes the importance of monitoring to this project and the desire for 

objective evaluations and adherence to whatever monitoring plan is ultimately selected in the 

record of decision. Any actions included in the operating plan of the USDA Forest Service special 

use permit must be authorized and approved by the USDA Forest Service. It is common practice 

for certain special use permit terms and conditions or the operating plan provisions (such as 

monitoring) to be conducted by the USDA Forest Service or an approved contractor or third party 

and paid for by the Village of Ruidoso. 

40 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Adaptive management monitoring should be on a 5-year rotation/

Adaptive management monitoring should be on a 4-year rotation.

The proposed action includes verifying the success of the adaptive management strategy every 5 

years, so that adjustments would be made within 5 years if needed to ensure protection of forest 

resources. Therefore, the suggestion for a 5-year rotation is achieved by the proposed action. 

Shifting this verification to every 4 years instead of every 5 years would not likely result in any 

measurable difference in “on-the-ground” effects to forest resources due to the similarity between 

a 4-year review and a 5-year review and the variability in forest resource measurements over a 1-

year period. As described previously, special use permits are to be managed with multiple levels 

of review and adjustment. Detailed prescriptions from the alternative (identified in the record of 

decision) which is ultimately selected for implementation would be inserted into the permit. The 

USDA Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso would develop an annual operating plan each year 

based on the mitigation measures of the permit. As also stated in the proposed action, the permit 

would go through a review at least every 5 to 10 years. Changes to the terms and conditions of the 

permit (including any need for changes in adaptive management monitoring) could be made 

during any of these steps to ensure forest resource protection is being achieved; they may require 

additional environmental analysis. For these reasons, this suggestion was dismissed from further 

detailed analysis.

Depth to water threshold should be based on a pre-well baseline and not on a 

post-well baseline, as is currently described.

The USDA Forest Service developed the depth to water threshold as described in the proposed 

action in order to define water table depth based on an average over several years so as to allow 

for natural fluctuations in precipitation and runoff. Once the average is identified, the monitoring 

wells would be used to provide water table depth indicators. However, we recognize that any post 

pumping water table surface is curved (within the cone of depression) and is transitory and is not 

the same as the pre-well pumping baseline.

Using a pre-well baseline for average water table depth instead of the 5-year post-well average is 

very similar to the suggestion to not allow any no-flow days under the proposed action or to use a 

bedrock saturation switch. The pre-well average water table depth was likely close to the stream 

channel, but we have no way of knowing exactly what the water table depth was before pumping 

began; this can only be inferred based on Eagle Creek gage information and some other factors as 

described in the U.S. Geological Survey report. For the reasons described above (for not 

eliminating no-flow days from the proposed action and not requiring bedrock saturation) in the 

proposed action, we do not feel that establishing a water table depth based on pre-well conditions 

meets the purpose and need for action or the management objectives for this project. We intend to 

use the average water table depth threshold as a baseline for comparison; a datum by which 

current conditions are compared. It is a method for measuring relative change. 

Under the proposed action, the Village of Ruidoso would be required to maintain water table 

depth at or above the identified threshold (threshold would be identified after 5 years of data are 

collected) over 3 consecutive water years. If groundwater pumping of the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells results in a declining trend in the average water table depth over any 3-year period, the 

Village of Ruidoso would be required to reduce pumping until the average water table depth is 

reestablished and the Forest Service determines that pumping may resume without creating 

further departures over a 3-year period. Using this threshold, in combination with the other 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 41
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

identified indicators, would allow pumping to occur under a closely monitored adaptive 

management strategy designed to ensure protection of forest resources while providing needed 

municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. For these reasons, this suggestion to use a pre-well 

baseline for water table depth was not added to the proposed action, but will be addressed by the 

no pumping alternative. 

There should be no limit on pumping during drought – you should use 

precipitation and projected streamflow instead. 

Not instituting any control over pumping during drought situations would not meet the purpose 

and need for action. The thresholds for water table depth, streamflow, riparian conditions, and 

pumping volumes in the proposed action include using 3-year running averages. This considers 

historic trends and allows for natural fluctuations in precipitation and snowmelt runoff, and 

periodic short-term drought cycles. While we recognize that water demand may be highest during 

times of below average precipitation, this is also the time when water-dependent resources are 

also stressed. Use of the thresholds identified in the proposed action would allow pumping to 

occur under a closely monitored adaptive management strategy designed to ensure protection of 

forest resources while providing needed municipal water to the Village of Ruidoso. For these 

reasons, this suggestion was not added to the proposed action but will be addressed by the no 

action (no change) alternative.

The 5-year monitoring requirement for water table depth before making 

adjustments is too long.

The proposal to base the water table depth threshold on the average depth based on 5 years of 

data collection was developed to allow for natural fluctuations in precipitation, snowmelt runoff, 

recharge, and periodic short-term drought cycles. We do not think that using 5 years of data is too 

long since it is important to ensure the average depth is based on a long enough time period to 

capture these natural fluctuations. However, we recognize that waiting until a decision is made on

this project to initiate the last 3 years of this needed monitoring is not ideal at present, it appears 

feasible for the USDA Forest Service to conduct monthly water table depth monitoring on 

monitoring well MW-1B beginning immediately. If this occurs, this means that the average water 

table depth could be determined prior to a decision on this project. 

This statement in the proposed action has been revised slightly to capture this. 

Using the 5-year water level average is not accurate. This should be removed 

since it is not supported by the U.S. Geological Survey study.

Please see the response above regarding use of the average water table depth based on 5 years of 

data. We do not agree that developing an average water table depth based on multiple years of 

data (and not just the 2 years collected during the U.S. Geological Survey study) is in conflict 

with the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey study. The U.S. Geological Survey study used a 

5-year moving average to analyze the precipitation trend, so it is consistent with that approach, 

especially since we are concerned about the relationship between drought and water table depth.

Groundwater withdrawals should be based on 50 percent of the streamflow 

measured at the North Fork gage.

The proposed action includes monitoring streamflow as follows: “If there are more than 20 days 

per year of no surface flow (less than 0.01 cubic feet per second) over a period of 3 consecutive 

42 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

water years at the Eagle Creek gage, or more than 30 no-flow days within any single water year 

(October 1–September 30), the Village of Ruidoso must reduce groundwater withdrawal rates 

from these wells. If either of those thresholds is exceeded, then groundwater withdrawals from 

the North Fork wells would be limited to 50 percent of the volumetric rate of surface flow at the 

North Fork gage (which is upstream from the wells) until surface flow at the Eagle Creek gage 

resumes.” 

The proposed action includes basing groundwater withdrawals on 50 percent of the flow 

measured at the North Fork gage, as you suggest, if the thresholds for no-flow days is reached. 

Weekly field checks should be added to the monitoring strategy. 

We recognize the value in periodic visual inspections during the course of implementation of any 

adaptive management strategy. While visual observations would not contribute to the data needed 

to verify the adaptive management triggers (monitoring indicators), it could provide anecdotal 

information on flow patterns, flood events, gage and well conditions, and vegetation condition 

and recreational use, to name a few. Conducting periodic visual observations has been added to 

the proposed action under the adaptive management strategy. However, we do not agree that 

mandatory weekly field checks are necessary to ensure an effective monitoring strategy. With 

limited funding and personnel, this would be difficult to implement. 

If there are violations to the stipulations, immediate actions should be taken until 

artesian flow regimes are regained.

We recognize that in successfully implementing the new permit, there must be consequences in 

the event the Village of Ruidoso does not comply with the terms and conditions. However, this is 

outside the scope of this environmental analysis. This EIS evaluates the effects of various well 

pumping alternatives on forest resources and socioeconomics. Effects are analyzed on the 

assumption that all the components of any alternative (including mitigations, monitoring, and 

adaptive management strategies) are implemented as described. In other words, it assumes full 

compliance. If the Village of Ruidoso is in noncompliance with applicable statutes or regulations 

or the terms and conditions of the authorization, the USDA Forest Service would handle it 

administratively per Federal Regulations. 36 CFR 251.60 (B). For these reasons, this alternative 

was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

The water table depth monitoring should be based on information from NF-1, NF3 and NF-4 and MW-1B, not just MW-1B as is currently stated.

We agree that the wording in the explanation of how monitoring well MW-1B would be used for 

monitoring water table depth is not entirely accurate. We agree that all available information 

should be used and this may include data from the other monitoring wells and water supply wells. 

This clarification has been added to the proposed action. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 43
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Comments on Stream Augmentation 

Drop stream augmentation from any further consideration. It does not address the 

purpose and need and could result in adverse impacts by expanding the cone of 

depression and exacerbating these effects to forest resources and by introducing 

chemical properties of groundwater above the surface.

Stream augmentation has been proposed by the Village of Ruidoso as a way to mitigate the 

potential for adverse effects to streamflow due to well pumping. We recognize that there are 

advantages and disadvantages to the use of stream augmentation and that there is literature 

available on this topic. 

Stream augmentation with groundwater is sometimes used to provide surface flow where there 

would otherwise be little or none. This may be beneficial, as in the case of saving an endangered 

species; or it can create other issues. The most obvious of these being added lowering of the water 

table and the potential for surface water degradation. We considered the following factors in 

determining whether or not stream augmentation should be carried forward for detailed analysis: 

• Sommer and Horwitz (2009) made the observation that “. . . artificial augmentation will 

inevitably change the system in another direction, i.e. the ‘recovered’ state will be slightly 

different to the original state. In addition, it will require ongoing care, will use a valuable 

resource relatively inefficiently, and will not address the root causes of the problem, 

namely overextraction of groundwater and declining rainfall.” 

• Parasiewicz (2008) emphasized the importance of simulating the natural variable 

discharge that any stream will have throughout the year, minus the extreme spikes. 

Lowering the stream temperature in the summer or raising temperature in the winter by 

addition of groundwater may be detrimental to fisheries (Cowx 2004). Lower dissolved 

oxygen content of augmenting groundwater could also lead to asphyxiation of fish and 

invertebrate species (ibid.).

• Constituents generally not present or in very low concentrations in surface runoff may be 

highly enriched in groundwater which has equilibrated with the host aquifer. Utilizing 

groundwater to augment lakes in Florida resulted in significant increases in radium 

activity. The radium in this case was from the Floridian aquifer (Brenner et al. 2006). 

Water of high ionic strength potentially being released from aquifer storage and recovery 

projects for Everglades restoration was recognized as representing a “major ecological 

change” (National Research Council 2002).

• Additional pumping near a stream that is disconnected, or above the water table, can 

increase the length of the stream that is disconnected, resulting in more flow reduction 

(Brunner et al. 2011).

Any withdrawal of groundwater to augment the creek at any point would result in a cone of 

depression that would be in addition to whatever drawdown is being caused by water supply 

pumping. As documented in more detail in the project record, we evaluated two scenarios. For the 

first, the transmissivity was set at 2,941 square feet per day and the storage coefficient was set at 

0.0014 (these numbers were taken from Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985). Based on this rough 

calculation under this scenario, water table drawdown would be approximately 2 feet within 50 

feet from the pumping well after 1 year. For the second, the transmissivity was set at 1,250 square 

feet per day and a storage coefficient was set at 0.002 (these numbers were taken from Balleau 

44 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Groundwater, Inc. 2004). Based on this rough calculation under this second scenario, drawdown 

would roughly be 4 feet within 50 feet from the pumping well after 1 year. 

These two simulations assume the aquifer is homogenous. Any barriers, such as faults or areas of 

lower hydraulic conductivity would serve to increase these drawdown effects. And again, these 

estimated drawdowns would be additive to any drawdown resulting from water supply pumping. 

The deeper the cone of depression formed due to water supply pumping or stream augmentation, 

the longer it would take for the water table to recover. 

Another aspect of evaluating this alternative is ensuring that we can describe it in enough detail 

so it can be meaningfully evaluated and compared to the other alternatives. In order to determine 

these specific parameters (e.g. When would we decide to augment flow? How long would it be 

used? How would we decide to stop augmenting flow?), the Village of Ruidoso proposed a pilot 

study to us and the New Mexico Surface Water Quality Bureau. The Surface Water Quality 

Bureau stated that this type of study falls under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection 

Agency and requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The 

Environmental Protection Agency stated that the use of groundwater is inconsistent with surface 

water and that North Fork Eagle Creek needs to be managed for aquatic systems and the Surface 

Water Quality Bureau considers it swimmable/fishable. This implies that this action could result 

in adverse effects to water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Because of these factors, the Village of 

Ruidoso would need to go through a lengthy permitting process with the Environmental 

Protection Agency, effectively eliminating the opportunity to conduct a pilot study in time to 

inform the EIS. 

The Village of Ruidoso initially filed a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit 

application to conduct a pilot test to the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 office on 

October 27, 2011, with the final filing occurring on November 28, 2011. The Village of Ruidoso 

is currently awaiting action on this application (Atkins Engineering Associates 2014).

Without a pilot study, we do not have any measurable parameters for how, specifically, this 

alternative would be implemented. Using the adaptive management triggers from the proposed 

action would be unrealistic since these are based on groundwater maintenance. The pilot study 

was to be used to assist in determining some of these parameters and to see if streamflow could 

be maintained. We would need these parameters in order to effectively analyze this alternative in 

the EIS.

Implementing stream augmentation would not meet the purpose and need for taking action or the 

management objectives for this project because of the potential for adverse impacts to forest 

resources, expansion of the cone of depression, and lack of detail regarding how stream 

augmentation would be used on North Fork Eagle Creek. It also would not address any of the 

significant issues for analysis. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further 

detailed analysis. 

Add a pilot test of the stream augmentation adaptive management option to the 

proposed action so this can be tested for feasibility early on in the permit.

We removed stream augmentation as a potential adaptive management adjustment in the proposed 

action upon further examination of the range of alternatives and the desire for each alternative to 

stand alone. As discussed above, stream augmentation was initially considered as a stand-alone 

alternative and we recognized at that time the value of conducting a pilot test. After the Little 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 45
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Bear Fire we reevaluated this option to see if changes due to the fire would allow us to test stream 

augmentation without negatively affecting other resources. However, as stated above, because of 

the potential for adverse impacts to forest resources, possible expansion of the cone of depression, 

and the lack of detail regarding how stream augmentation would be used on North Fork Eagle 

Creek, stream augmentation would not meet the purpose and need for taking action or the 

management objectives for this project. It also would not address any of the significant issues for 

analysis. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Keep stream augmentation. It will enhance riparian vegetation.

See responses above. 

The current description of the stream augmentation alternative does not make sense. 

How will thresholds for groundwater maintenance be used to determine when to 

augment streamflow? 

Following the release of the notice of intent, the interdisciplinary team realized that the way in 

which the stream augmentation alternative was described may not be implementable. There is a 

disconnect between how the monitoring thresholds would be used to decide when to augment 

streamflow. As currently written, exceeding the thresholds for streamflow, water table depth, and 

riparian vegetation would trigger augmentation of streamflow by pumping groundwater into the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek stream channel to mitigate adverse impacts to surface resources. 

As we explained in the responses above, we do not have information on what thresholds could be 

used to determine when to augment streamflow. Initially, a pilot test was proposed to identify 

these parameters and thresholds. However, there is not enough time to complete a pilot test within 

a reasonable timeframe for this EIS analysis. Because of this and the other reasons described 

above, this alternative has been dismissed from further detailed analysis.

Suggestions for New Alternatives 

Ensure that the range of alternatives includes all reasonable alternatives (and no 

less than one) that leave downstream flows in the same state they would be 

absent pumping, to be in compliance with the stipulation agreement.

This is addressed by alternative 2 (no pumping). The no pumping alternative would leave 

downstream flows in the same state they would be absent pumping and is currently in the range 

of alternatives for detailed analysis. This alternative will provide a very valuable comparison to 

the other alternatives to show the effects well pumping has on forest resources and economics. It 

is within the discretion of the decision maker for this project to select this alternative following 

their review of the final EIS and all public comments received. 

We could not identify any other reasonable alternatives besides the no pumping alternative that 

would also meet the purpose and need for action, the management objectives, and be consistent 

with our manual direction, as summarized in the separate “Manual Direction Summary” 

document (USDA Forest Service 2011) and in chapter 1. For these reasons, no additional 

alternatives were developed to meet this criterion. We feel this is consistent with the stipulation 

agreement. 

46 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Build a water purification plant.

This suggestion is outside the scope of this project. While we recognize the value in reclaiming 

and reusing wastewater for municipal water needs, the specifics of how, when, and where this is 

done is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. However, we will ensure the Village 

of Ruidoso is aware of this suggestion. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from 

detailed analysis.

Add more storage capacity to the system.

This suggestion is outside the scope of this project. While we recognize the value in additional 

water storage, the specifics of how much, when, and where this is done is outside the jurisdiction 

of the USDA Forest Service. 

Having additional water storage would allow the Village of Ruidoso to pump water from the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek during high flow periods and store the water so it could then be used 

during dry periods. Removing excess water from the system during high flow periods and 

limiting pumping during low flow periods would provide for forest resource needs and municipal 

water. It could also minimize the need for extensive mitigations, monitoring, and adaptive 

management actions. However, adding more storage to the system would be difficult due to the 

high volume of storage needed to meet demand and the logistics and cost this would entail. 

Based on some rough calculations, the Village of Ruidoso requires approximately 41–42 million 

gallons of water during the typical dry season to meet the demand for municipal water. 

A household’s average water use was estimated to be 0.5 acre feet per year. This is 163,000 

gallons of water per household. According to the census Web site, the Ruidoso/Ruidoso Downs 

metropolitan area has the equivalent of 4,600 households needing 2,300 acre feet (750 million 

gallons) per year. Three weeks of storage would amount to about 42 million gallons. The largest 

storage tanks are about 2 to 3 million gallon capacity, which would require 14 to 21 of the largest 

tanks, or a 13-acre surface reservoir with an average 10-foot depth. 

In speaking with one company that supplies water storage tanks (Aquastore tanks and domes), 

each tank would cost about 2.8 million dollars, for a total cost of approximately 40 million 

dollars. Besides the cost, there is added difficulty in determining if there is a feasible location.

Constructing a new dam impounding 50 acre feet (about 16 million gallons) would cost from 2.5 

to 3.5 million dollars, based on some rough estimates. A new dam in this area would be 

considered “high hazard” since it is most likely that people would be living downstream of it. 

Expansion of an existing dam, such as Alto Reservoir, is a complex undertaking. A 50-acre-foot 

dam would typically be about 25 feet high. An alternative to a single large reservoir could be a 

series of smaller dams, which would lessen the hazard, but would cost about the same.

Adding more storage capacity to the system to address water shortage during times of drought is 

typically not feasible due to economic considerations. During times of drought, source production 

would be the main limiting factor for water quantity. If the source cannot produce enough water, 

it is not economical to add additional water storage capacity if demand does not change during 

times of drought. 

Water storage capacity for a drinking water system is based upon several calculations such as 

pressure requirements, maximum flow velocities within the piping, piping sizes, and most 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 47
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

important, peak hourly demand, and maximum fire flow requirements. These are specific to the 

water system design. The need for additional storage during dry periods is not typically 

incorporated into the calculations for a water system because of the economic factors of 

overbuilding. The water system would need to be evaluated to determine capacity, if additional 

water treatment methods would be necessary (per New Mexico Environment Department 

regulations), and if the water system infrastructure would have the capacity to distribute the 

additional water. This evaluation would need to consider additional engineering, design, and 

construction implications for the water system infrastructure. Environmental impacts related to 

the ground disturbance associated with added infrastructure would also need to be considered. 

For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. We will ensure 

the Village of Ruidoso is aware of this suggestion.

Clear vegetation on private land to improve the water table and increase fire 

protection.

How vegetation is managed on private land is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service 

and outside the scope of this project. However, we recognize that upland vegetation can influence 

the water table. The EIS includes an evaluation of the effects of forest density (and any changes 

in forest density over time, if known) within the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage to water 

availability, as a component of the cumulative impacts analysis. For these reasons, this alternative 

was dismissed from detailed analysis.

Don’t build any more golf courses or other new developments.

This suggestion is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service and outside the scope of 

this project. While we recognize the value in reducing future demands on the municipal water 

supply through limiting new development, the specifics of how, when, and where this is done is 

outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. However, we will ensure the Village of 

Ruidoso is aware of this suggestion. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from 

detailed analysis.

Minimum Instream Flow Alternative

The components of this suggested alternative are included below: 

• Install new gage on North Fork Eagle Creek above the confluence with South Fork Eagle 

Creek

• Install electronic monitoring switches on pumps and gages 

• Establish a minimum instream flow (we suggest 1.2 cubic feet per second based on the 

U.S. Geological Survey study) 

• When flows are below the minimum instream flow measured at the new gage, stop 

pumping (the switches on the pumps will automatically shut off) 

• When flow is greater than the minimum instream flow, continue pumping 

• Add storage capacity to the system so that more water can be pumped and stored during 

high flows 

• Authorize a 10-year permit term with options for renewal

The basis for this alternative is in establishing and then managing for a minimum instream flow at 

all times. The flow suggested (1.2 cubic feet per second) is supported by the U.S. Geological 

48 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Survey study if our desired condition is continuous flow. Here is the excerpt from the U.S. 

Geological Survey Report Abstract:

If it is assumed that, without pumping, the bedrock aquifer would be saturated to 

the base of the alluvium, then a discharge of only 1.2 cubic feet per second 

required to saturate the alluvium in its thickest and widest reach would be needed 

to sustain continuous flow in the stream. During the study period, a discharge of 

1.2 cubic feet per second was equaled or exceeded at the North Fork gaging 

station 8 percent of the time. Based on the discharge record at the Eagle Creek 

gage, given alluvium and channel configurations similar to those described in this 

study, streamflow in some part of the stream channel between the North Fork and 

Eagle Creek gages was likely discontinuous during part of the year during both 

time periods. 

We compared the number of months per year when flow was less than 1.2 cubic feet per second

during the early period (August 1969 through December 1980) and after pumping began (April 

1988 through 2011), as shown in table 1. 

Before pumping began, flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage was greater than 1.2 cubic feet 

per second about 54 percent of the time, or for approximately 6.5 months out of every year. Since 

pumping began, flow has been greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second about 30 percent of the time 

or for approximately 3.5 months out of every year. To manage pumping to maintain this minimum 

instream flow continuously would mean that we would be managing for a condition that did not 

exist before the wells began pumping. 

We recognize flow has changed since pumping began and that dry periods have increased. We 

reanalyzed this data to make interpretations regarding all available data, which is presented in the 

water resources section of chapter 3. 

Table 1. Streamflow before 1980 and after 1988, measured at the Eagle Creek gage

Flow Measured at Eagle Creek Gage Percent of Time Months per Year

Early Period (1969-1980)a

Time dry 0.0 percent 0.0

Flow greater than 0.12 to 1.2 cubic feet per 

second

46.1 percent 5.5

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 53.9 percent 6.5

Late Period (1989-2011)b

Time dry 12.3 percent 1.5

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per 

second

57.2 percent 6.9

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 30.5 percent 3.7

a - Data used for this calculation came from 1969-1980; this results in slightly different figures than that reported in table 5

because 2 additional years were used (1969 and 1970); however the results are similar. 

b - Data used for this calculation came from 1989-2011; this results in slightly different figures than that reported in table 5

because 2005 data were used; however the results are similar.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 49
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

As stated in our response to the suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely from the 

proposed action, the USDA Forest Service does not have the authority in New Mexico to 

establish a minimum instream flow and the relevant sections of our Forest Service Manual do not 

apply to this project since North Fork Eagle Creek does not meet certain criteria (see separate 

“Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) for further information). 

Therefore, requiring the Village of Ruidoso to manage for a continuous minimum instream flow 

is not consistent with these conclusions and is outside the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service 

in New Mexico. 

As stated in the purpose and need for taking action, the management objectives outlined for this 

project, and the desired conditions for the project area, we are not striving to attain continuous 

flow in North Fork Eagle Creek. Rather we are striving to: (1) attain increased flow (measured by 

a reduction in no-flow days), consistent with the intermittent nature of North Fork Eagle Creek in 

the project area; (2) ensure groundwater discharge sustains base flows and is a source of water for 

springs and seeps and water-dependent ecosystems; and (3) ensure riparian vegetation is 

maintained or improved and that streamside recreation opportunities are available. 

We recognize the value in having a separate stream gage for North Fork Eagle Creek. This would 

simplify the necessary calculations between the Eagle Creek gage and the South Fork gage and 

would provide easily obtainable flow measurements continually for North Fork Eagle Creek 

flows in the project area. However, there are already three gages installed on this system; 

installing a fourth would require additional funding (estimated between $18,000 and $100,000 in 

addition to annual maintenance costs; the North Fork gage cost $32,608 to install), additional 

time and labor, additional manpower for monitoring, and added stress to the system. Gages have 

impacts on stream habitat. While these effects can be minimized, they need to be considered 

before installing any new structures in streams. As one example, they can result in barriers to fish 

movement. There is already concern that the various gages and road crossings on North Fork 

Eagle Creek are limiting the ability for fish passage and movement within and upstream from the 

project area. Finally, finding a suitable location for a gage upstream from the confluence with the 

South Fork would be difficult due to the width of the channel here and the depth of the alluvium. 

The USDA Forest Service agrees that using electronic monitoring switches would be beneficial 

for management and would minimize monitoring efforts. This type of system would only work 

with establishing a minimum instream flow, and as stated above, this is outside the jurisdiction of 

the Forest Service and would not meet the purpose and need for action. 

Adding additional storage capacity to the system and evaluating different permit term lengths 

have been addressed in previous responses. For these reasons, the minimum instream flow 

alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Limited Restrictions Alternative 

The components of this suggested alternative are included below: 

• Instead of using the 300 acre-feet per year threshold per year, use the 2009-2010 pumping 

volume of 738 acre-feet per year. The 300 acre-feet per year threshold (which is based on 

490 acre-feet per year annual recharge rate from the U.S. Geological Survey study based 

on the chloride mass balance method). This should instead be based on 1,950 acre-feet 

per year (which is the mid-range based on the annual groundwater recharge rate 

50 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

computed by U.S. Geological Survey using the basin yield method and acknowledges the 

range of error). Using 738 acre-feet per year is more in keeping with the 1,950 number. 

• Do not apply the requirement for no more than 20–30 no-flow days per year during times 

of drought. Instead use measured annual precipitation and projected streamflow. 

• Allow stream augmentation during drought conditions to benefit riparian vegetation. 

• Do not use the 5-year average water table depth as a monitoring indicator as it does not 

take into account the fluctuating nature of the aquifer during drought and subsequent 

recharge during precipitation events. There is no evidence of an expanding cone of 

depression outside of National Forest System lands. Remove the riparian monitoring 

threshold. 

• Allow groundwater diversions to continue at 2009-2010 water year levels at least until 

the Village of Ruidoso has been granted approval to move their water rights and allow 

sufficient diversion of municipal water rights off of National Forest System lands. 

• Account for Office of the State Engineer required reporting per the Hondo Basin duty of 

water special master report. 

The 300 acre-feet per year threshold per year was based on the 500 acre-feet per year recharge for 

the North Fork basin as determined by the chloride balance method described in the U.S. 

Geological Survey report. The recharge rate from the chloride balance method was used instead 

of the rates calculated using the basin yield because of less certainty in evapotranspiration 

estimation. The chloride balance method also gives a maximum value for recharge because the 

rocks may contribute chlorine. We do not agree that calculating the recharge rate and then the 

acceptable well pumping threshold based on the basin yield method is appropriate since the 

proposed action includes adaptive management to achieve the desired conditions. The use of the 

recharge rate determined by chloride balance is a safe starting point because it should represent a 

maximum groundwater recharge rate method. 

That being said, the initial threshold of 900 cumulative acre feet over any 3 consecutive water 

years (300 acre feet per year) is not a stand-alone threshold. As stated in the proposed action, 

hitting this threshold would trigger a review by the USDA Forest Service of the other current 

thresholds and mitigations at maintaining or improving surface resource conditions. We would 

decide, based on evaluation of all monitoring indicators, if changes would be needed. 

We are also unclear regarding the suggestion to use 1,950 acre-feet per year; this amount would 

exceed the current water right for 1,692 acre-feet per year (based on the 2010 Consent Order) 

which is based on maximum pumping. 

We recognize that the 300 acre-feet per year threshold was only a starting point based on the best 

available information at the time the proposed action was developed. We have since re-evaluated 

this number based on additional reanalysis of all available information (as recently discussed at 

the hydrologist technical meeting held in April 2011 and the results of which are documented in 

chapter 3) and conclude that it still valid based on the best available science. However, the 

proposed action includes adaptive management strategies that would allow for additional 

monitoring results to be used to continually review and refine these thresholds based on new 

information. 

For these reasons, the suggestion to use the 2009-2010 pumping volume of 738 acre-feet per year

as the well pumping volume threshold was dismissed from further detailed analysis but will be 

addressed by the no action (no change) alternative. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 51
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

The other suggestions for removing the no-flow day thresholds, removing the average water table 

depth threshold, removing the riparian thresholds, and allowing groundwater diversions to 

continue at 2009-2010 levels are essentially a description of the no action (no change) alternative. 

The no action (no change) alternative will be analyzed in detail in chapter 3. 

The suggestion to use stream augmentation is addressed in the previous responses to stream 

augmentation earlier in this document. 

In regards to the request for Office of the State Engineer reporting, we defer to them in the 

allocation, adjudication, and transferability of water, even on public lands. The USDA Forest 

Service as a federal entity recognizes fully adjudicated basins and the apportionment of waters of 

a designated district by a Water Master.

The Village of Ruidoso would be allowed to pump up to 50 percent of the 

volumetric rate of surface flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second, up to a 

total of 300 acre-feet per year, measured at the North Fork gage upstream of the 

wells.

We considered whether this alternative would meet the purpose and need for action. While it 

would likely meet the second need statement (protecting natural resources on the national forest 

by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of these 

wells) it would not likely meet the first need statement (authorizing, under a special use permit, 

the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells on National Forest System land, as a substantial component of the municipal water supply 

system (attributable, at times, to providing up to 75 percent of the municipal water supply) that 

Village of Ruidoso residents and visitors rely upon). While this alternative would continue to 

provide the Village of Ruidoso with water access, it would not likely continue to contribute 

substantially to the municipal water supply.

The occurrence of flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second at the North Fork gage is quite 

limited (often occurring less than 4 percent of the time). Calculations based on a cutoff of 1.2 

cubic feet per second at the North Fork gage from September 2007 through November 2011 data, 

show that: 

• The Village of Ruidoso would be able to divert 300 acre-feet per year (or more, if 

allowed) during average or wetter years under this alternative. The ability to divert, 

however, would be much more severely limited during dryer years. It is possible that in 

some years, the well field would produce less than 10 acre-feet per year under these 

proposed criteria. 

• The average available water for pumping would be approximately 152 acre-feet per year

(based on these 4 years of available data only), which would be substantially less than the 

Village of Ruidoso’s current average (569 acre-feet per year based on data from 2002-

2010). 

Thus, this suggested alternative is very narrow and does not provide the needed flexibility to 

respond to the first need statement; it could result in an immediate and significant reduction in 

current levels of use. 

52 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

The basis for this alternative is in establishing and then managing for a minimum instream flow at 

all times, measured at the North Fork gage. The flow suggested (1.2 cubic feet per second) is 

supported by the U.S. Geological Survey study if our desired condition is continuous flow. As 

stated in our response to the suggestion to eliminate no-flow days completely from the proposed 

action and to our response to the minimum instream flow alternative (see previous responses to 

these suggested alternatives earlier in this section), the USDA Forest Service does not have the 

authority in New Mexico to establish a minimum instream flow. Certain sections of our Forest 

Service Manual do not apply to this project since North Fork Eagle Creek does not meet certain 

criteria (see separate “Manual Direction Summary” document (USDA Forest Service 2011) for 

further information). Therefore, requiring the Village of Ruidoso to manage for a continuous 

minimum instream flow is not consistent with these conclusions and is outside the jurisdiction of 

the USDA Forest Service in New Mexico. 

For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Described in the DEIS

Alternative 3 (proposed action) described in this document is not exactly the same as the 

proposed action that was described in the DEIS and distributed for public comment, although 

they are quite similar. Since the distribution of the DEIS we have made a few adjustments to 

address anticipated conditions due to the Little Bear Fire and the ability for successful adaptive 

management and monitoring into the future, as well as public input on the DEIS. The intent of the 

proposed action, however, is the same and it includes similar adaptive management triggers and 

monitoring to the proposed action described in the DEIS. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a summary of the primary alternative components and how well the 

alternatives achieve the purpose and need (table 2) and summarizes the effects of implementing 

each alternative (table 3). The effects of implementing each alternative are described in detail in 

chapter 3.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 53
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Summary of alternative components

Components Alternative 1 – No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Permit New permit issued and authorized for up to 20 

years, with stipulations for frequent reviews and 

verification of the permit terms and conditions. 

These could occur as often as every year, but 

would occur at least every 5 to 10 years.

No permit issued; wells and 

associated facilities would no 

longer be authorized and all use 

would be discontinued.

Same as alternative 1.

Wells Used Four wells authorized under permit (three equipped 

and one unequipped); wells #1 and #4 would 

typically be used.

If the Village of Ruidoso proposed to begin 

pumping water from wells #2 or #3, permit terms 

and conditions would be reviewed; new 

environmental analysis may be necessary. 

None - wells would be removed 

from National Forest System land 

within 6-12 months

Same as alternative 1.

Associated 

Facilities

Permit includes operation and maintenance of 

existing monitoring wells, well house control 

station, underground pipeline and power line, and 

National Forest System Road 127A road 

maintenance between NM 532 and gate below 

summer home area.

None – associated facilities would 

be removed from National Forest 

System land within 6-12 months. 

Same as alternative 1.

Annual Well 

Pumping 

Volumes

Approximately 740 acre feet per year, with highest 

use between March and September (ranging from 

a combined total of 60 to 117 acre feet per month); 

between 2002-2010, use averaged 569 acre-feet 

per year and ranged between 433 and 807 acrefeet per year. 

None Approximately 900 cumulative acre feet or less 

over any 3 consecutive water years (300 acre 

feet per year or less). May vary based on 

monitoring results of other adaptive 

management triggers. This would be 

implemented as a starting point only and could 

be adjusted (up or down), depending on the 

results of monitoring.

Gages It is assumed that the North Fork, South Fork and 

Eagle Creek U.S. Geological Survey gages would 

remain in place and would continue to be 

periodicaly monitored by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

North Fork gage would possibly 

be removed; South Fork and 

Eagle Creek gages would 

possibly remain and would be 

monitored by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Same as alternative 1. However, the adaptive 

management strategy also identifies the use of 

new alluvial monitoring wells as an integral 

component of this alternative.

54 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Components Alternative 1 – No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Monitoring The Village of Ruidoso would provide monthly reports 

to the USDA Forest Service including bimonthly static 

and pumping water levels, well operation schedules, 

and daily pumping quantities (summarized for the 

month) for the month in acre-feet.

As described in more detail in the monitoring section 

(beginning on page 34) in this chapter, several 

monitoring measures would be implemented for 

alternative 1:

#1: Existing monitoring wells would be rehabilitated 

or new ones constructed upstream and downstream 

of the well field. New alluvial monitoring wells would 

be constructed by the Village of Ruidoso adjacent to 

North Fork Eagle Creek, at the locations of the North 

Fork stream gage and Eagle Creek stream gage. 

#2: Using the reconfigured and new monitoring wells 

from measure #1, the Village of Ruidoso would 

conduct slug tests or aquifer pumping tests of the 

individual water-bearing zones of interest at the well 

field. 

#3: The Village of Ruidoso would take monthly water 

quality field measurements at all three existing 

surface flow gages on the North Fork, South Fork, 

and Eagle Creek, and one additional streamflow 

sampling location immediately below the well field or 

wherever surface flow frequently occurs downstream. 

#4: The Village of Ruidoso would continue to record 

daily mean flow and water level measurements at the 

three stream gages or new monitoring wells and 

monitoring wells used in the U.S. Geological Survey

program. 

#5: The Village of Ruidoso would identify and monitor 

eight springs and seeps in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek drainage on a monthly basis for 1 year. 

Surface water monitoring would 

continue at the existing Eagle Creek 

below South Fork gage (U.S. 

Geological Survey 08387600), and 

water levels would be monitored at 

a selected well downstream of the 

existing well field in the vicinity of 

MW-5. Recording devices or 

methods, measurement 

frequencies, and reporting 

provisions would be determined 

cooperatively between the USDA

Forest Service and U.S. Geological 

Survey. Adding a transducer that 

would record hourly so diurnal 

variations could be accounted for 

would be considered.

The 2010 baseline riparian 

vegetation survey would be 

repeated at 5-year intervals, as time 

and funding allows.

Same as alternative 1, but with the following 

additional monitoring indicators which would be 

used to inform the adaptive management triggers 

described under alternative 3 (beginning on page 

27): 

Baseline: An initial survey traverse with 

appropriate closure would be conducted at the 

start of the monitoring program to correlate 

channel and bank elevations, gage datums and 

stages, and monitoring well water level 

elevations between the North Fork gage location 

(U.S. Geological Survey 08387550), all 

monitoring wells, and the Eagle Creek gage 

location (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600).

Cross-sectional elevation surveys would be 

conducted annually at the permanently-located 

transects (at the North Fork gage, MW-1A, MW5A, and the Eagle Creek gage locations) to 

identify ongoing modifications in streambed and 

bank levels and locations.

#1: Surface flow volume would be measured 

at the Eagle Creek gage and North Fork 

gage and/or alluvial water elevations 

measured at new wells located at the Eagle 

Creek gage and North Fork gage.

#2: Water table depth in monitoring wells 

and water wells would be measured monthly 

and reported.

#3: Annual monitoring of riparian obligate 

species (e.g. willow and boxelder) would 

occur. 

Trends in riparian condition, vegetation 

canopy cover, and composition would be 

evaluated and documented at least every 5 

years.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 55
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Components Alternative 1 – No 

Change (Continue Pumping)

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

#6: The Village of Ruidoso would monitor and 

document stream gradient, planform, and stability 

indicators annually between June 1 and July 15 at 

selected and benchmarked cross-section locations 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek for the first five (5) 

years of the permit term. After the first five years of 

the permit term, these parameters would be 

measured every three years during the permit term.

#7: The Village of Ruidoso would monitor snowpack 

on Sierra Blanca for the permit duration. At least one 

precipitation gage along the North Fork Eagle Creek 

watershed divide would be maintained, monitored 

and reported on by the Village of Ruidoso for the 

permit duration to the USDA Forest Service on a 

quarterly basis every year.

#8: The Village of Ruidoso would develop and 

calibrate a site-specific groundwater computer model 

in cooperation with the Forest Service and other 

selected, qualified parties representing appropriate 

stakeholder interests along the North Fork of Eagle 

Creek. 

An implementation plan with schedule, tasks, 

responsible parties, reporting requirements, quality 

control measures, and costs would be developed.

Daily pumping quantities in cubic feet would be 

collected and reported monthly. 

An implementation plan with schedule, tasks, 

responsible parties, reporting requirements, 

quality control measures, and costs would be 

developed.

56 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 3. Summary of environmental effects by alternative

Water Resources - Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and water table) and surface water (streamflows, 

wetlands, springs and seeps). Surface water and groundwater availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. Water resources over 

time can also be affected by climate change.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Estimated duration 

of no surface flow 

conditions at the 

Eagle Creek Gage 

One to 2 weeks a year during average 

precipitation periods; 8 to10 weeks a year during 

drier periods 

Zero no-surface flow periods at the 

Eagle Creek gage

No more than 4 weeks a year, or 3 weeks a 

year over 3 years, based on implementation of 

adaptive management triggers, regardless of 

dry or wet year

Estimated 

occurrence of 

flows equal to or 

greater than 1.2 

cubic feet per 

second at the 

Eagle Creek Gage 

Forty-six percent of the time during an average 

precipitation year, or about 5.5 months per year; 

19 percent of the time during a below-average 

precipitation year, or about 2.3 months per year

Fifty-seven percent of the time, or about 

6.8 months per year during an average 

precipitation year

Would likely range from 47 percent to 57

percent of the time, regardless of dry or wet 

year 

Impacts to springs

and seeps based 

on drawdown 

Two springs are within the area of projected 

drawdown (figure 7 and figure 8 in chapter 3) and 

could be affected; effects would likely range from 

moderate to severe. Other existing groundwater 

modeling indicates that more extensive 

drawdown could occur (Balleau Groundwater

2004). Under those conditions, a number of other 

springs or seeps in the upper North Fork 

drainage could be similarly adversely affected

No spring or seeps affected Decreased drawdown and shorter water-level 

recovery times would also decrease the 

duration and extent of drawdown, reducing

impacts to springs and seeps compared to 

alternative 1. Impacts would be local and long

term, but minor to moderate since some 

recovery would be provided during dry periods.

Impacts to 

domestic wells 

based on 

drawdown

Two domestic wells are within the area of project 

drawdown (figure 7 and figure 8 in chapter 3) and 

could be affected; effects would likely range from 

moderate to severe. Other existing groundwater 

modeling indicates that more extensive 

drawdown could occur (Balleau Groundwater

2004). Under those conditions, a number of other 

domestic wells in the upper North Fork drainage 

could be similarly adversely affected

No domestic wells affected Decreased drawdown and water level recovery 

times would also decrease the duration and 

extent of drawdown, reducing the impacts to 

domestic wells compared to alternative 1. 

Impacts would be local and long term, but 

minor to moderate since some recovery would 

be provided during dry periods.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 57
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Success of the 

alternatives over 

time considering 

possible climate 

change

If climate change predictions occur, streamflow

quantities may decline; spatial extent and 

duration of no-flow conditions and flow conditions 

below 1.2 cubic feet per second could increase; 

stream temperatures could increase; springs, 

seeps, and domestic wells may experience 

declining flows or water levels at a faster pace 

under potential changing climatic conditions over 

the long term. 

If predicted changes in temperature, 

precipitation and runoff conditions 

occur, they could continue to create 

long-term declines in North Fork flows, 

even without pumping. Water 

temperatures may rise overall; this 

could be particularly noticeable during 

summer low flows. Springs, seeps, and 

nearby domestic wells may eventually 

experience declines or go dry. 

Qualitatively, these effects could occur 

at a slower pace than under alternative 

1. This could allow greater flexibility and 

time for resource management to adapt 

to changing conditions, if they occur.

Predicted effects of climate changes may still 

occur over the long run, as described for 

alternative 1 and 2. However, adaptive 

management strategies could reduce the 

timing and severity of these effects to the 

extent possible, when compared to alternative 

1. If they occur, increased temperatures, 

reduced snowpack, and accelerated snowmelt 

would require ongoing adjustments in adaptive 

strategies to maintain streamflows and 

groundwater availability. However, experience 

gained through adaptive management could 

allow more informed strategies to be 

developed for water resources management 

under changing climatic conditions, if they 

occur.

Updated Direct

and Indirect 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Short Term 

Over the short term (until water recovery occurs 

in about 2019), continued pumping would reduce 

streamflow and groundwater. While increased 

soil moisture and streamflow are possible due to 

reduced transpiration losses, these are likely to 

be offfset by increased runoff and reduced 

infiltration and groundwater recharge.

The accumulation of sediment and debris could 

increase depth to saturated conditions. In some 

locations, greater thickness of newly deposited 

alluvium could reduce the presence of surface 

flow or pooling; continued pumping at historic 

levels could further reduce the occurrence of 

surface flow or pools.

Over the short term (until water 

recovery occurs in about 2019), effects 

of no pumping would encourage the 

occurrence of streamflow and 

increased groundwater levels. Large 

portions of the stream would remain 

intermittent during periods of average 

precipitation.

The accumulation of sediment and 

debris could increase depth to 

saturated conditions. In some locations, 

greater thickness of newly deposited 

alluvium could reduce the presence of 

surface flow or pooling, even without 

pumping. If this occurs, it would be less 

frequent or extensive than under either 

alternative 1 or 3.

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), water resource impacts 

from implementing alternative 3 would be 

limited by the application of pumping 

restrictions. During this period, impacts of 

natural post-wildfire recovery would override 

some of the pumping impacts and some of the 

adaptive management effort. During the short 

term post-wildfire recovery period, pumping 

effects would be limited to the extent possible 

through an iterative and adaptive approach as 

the landscape, stream channel, and 

groundwater recharge processes adjust to the 

fire disturbance. 

58 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Direct

and Indirect 

Effects due to 

Little Bear Fire: 

Long Term

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), 

watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer 

stands burned at moderate to high severity 

convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water yield and 

groundwater availability. Effects from 

implementing alternative 1 over the long term

would be the same as, or potentially slightly less 

than, those described above for each indicator 

for the pre-wildfire assessment.

In the long term (after post-wildfire

recovery), watershed conditions are 

expected to return to approximate prewildfire conditions. If conifer stands 

burned at moderate to high severity 

convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water 

yield and groundwater availability. If this 

occurs in the absence of pumping 

under alternative 2, aquatic habitats 

could be enhanced and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian 

conditions would result.

Over the long term, the Village of Ruidoso 

would be able to pump its municipal supply 

from the North Fork Eagle Creek most of the 

time, and would be able to pump at reduced 

levels during some, but not all, of the restricted 

periods. During dry years, adaptive 

management would improve flow conditions 

and reduce the amount of no-flow days along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to 

surface flows and alluvial groundwater levels, 

an approximate middle ground between 

alternative 1 and 2 would be attained during 

average precipitation years under alternative 3.

Drawdown effects may still occur at springs, 

seeps, and domestic wells, but are anticipated 

to be less than those expected under 

alternative 1. If climate changes to warmer and 

drier conditions occur, ongoing adjustments in 

management strategies to maintain 

streamflows, alluvial groundwater levels, and 

Village of Ruidoso water supplies would be 

required. Experience gained through adaptive 

management would allow more informed water 

resources strategies if climatic changes occur. 

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), 

watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer 

stands burned at moderate to high severity 

convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water yield 

and groundwater availability. If this occurs with 

adaptive management of North Fork Eagle 

Creek pumping under alternative 3, aquatic 

habitats could be enhanced and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian conditions 

could result.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 59
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Cumulative Effects Cumulative water resources impacts would 

involve ongoing reductions in flow and water 

quality along Eagle Creek within the cumulative 

impact area, due primarily to reduced 

groundwater recharge. These would be adverse, 

long-term and regional impacts that would range 

in severity from moderate to severe. Additional 

water supply developments in the region would 

create further impacts to surface water, 

groundwater, and associated resources.

Beneficial cumulative recharge effects 

to aquifers, springs and seeps, and 

possibly stream baseflows may result 

within parts of the Eagle Creek 

drainage. The magnitude and extent of 

these effects is unknown, since it is 

likely that the Village of Ruidoso would 

continue to exercise its water rights and 

make withdrawals elsewhere in the 

Eagle Creek system. Impacts from such 

activities could offset beneficial impacts 

from no pumping at the North Fork 

Eagle Creek well field. 

Cumulative water resources impacts would 

include flow and water quality reductions in 

Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact area. 

Water supply pumping for the Village of 

Ruidoso is conducted at five water wells along 

lower Eagle Creek and the Village of Ruidoso

diverts surface water from the stream a short 

distance below the Eagle Creek gage. As a 

result, groundwater recharge in downstream 

alluvial and bedrock aquifers would still be 

adversely affected, but to a lesser extent than 

under alternative 1. Implementing alternative 3 

would have minor effects on these impacts, as 

pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek would 

generally be permitted most of the time.

Updated 

Cumulative Effects 

due to Little Bear 

Fire: Short Term 

Over the short term (until water recovery occurs 

in about 2019), continued pumping under 

alternative 1 would add cumulatively to 

downstream water resources impacts from the 

fire as well as other water uses outside the forest 

boundary, resulting in reductions of downstream 

baseflows and groundwater levels. Adverse 

effects to streamflows would be masked by 

accelerated surface runoff, erosion and debris 

flows, channel geometry changes, and reduced 

water quality, however. Other water users in the 

cumulative impact study boundary would affect 

surface drainage and groundwater levels.

Depending on the timing and volumes of these 

other water withdrawals and returns, all these 

factors would combine to largely obscure the 

downstream effects of North Fork Eagle Creek

pumping.

Over the short term (until water 

recovery occurs in about 2019), the 

cessation of pumping under alternative 

2 would contribute beneficially to 

downstream baseflows and 

groundwater levels outside the forest 

boundary. Beneficial effects to 

streamflows could be masked by 

accelerated surface runoff, erosion and 

debris flows, channel geometry 

changes, and reduced water quality, 

however. Other water users in the 

cumulative impact study boundary 

would affect surface drainage and 

groundwater levels. Depending on the 

timing and volumes of these other 

water withdrawals and returns, these 

factors could obscure some of the 

beneficial effects from alternative 2 in 

the short term. 

Over the short term (until water recovery 

occurs in about 2019), management of 

pumping under alternative 3 would contribute 

beneficially to downstream baseflows and 

groundwater levels outside the forest 

boundary. Beneficial effects to streamflows 

could be masked by accelerated surface 

runoff, erosion and debris flows, channel 

geometry changes, and reduced water quality, 

however. Other water users in the cumulative 

impact study boundary would affect surface 

drainage and groundwater levels. Depending 

on the timing and volumes of these other water 

withdrawals and returns, these factors could 

obscure some of the beneficial effects from 

alternative 3 in the short term. 

60 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated 

Cumulative Effects 

due to Little Bear 

Fire: Long Term

Over the long term, cumulative effects would be 

the same as those described above for the prewildfire assessment; potential cumulative effects 

on streamflows and groundwater would not be 

restricted to water uses by the Village of 

Ruidoso, as described in detail in chapter 3.

Over the long term, additional 

streamflow and groundwater would 

pass downstream from North Fork 

Eagle Creek into the cumulative impact 

study area resulting in beneficial 

recharge effects to aquifers, springs 

and seeps, riparian condition, and 

possibly stream baseflows. Due to the 

number of other water users in the 

cumulative impact study area, the 

magnitude and extent of these effects is 

unknown.

Implementing alternative 2 would 

preclude the use of the North Fork 

Eagle Creek well field for municipal 

water which would create additional 

demands and associated pumping 

drawdown effects on other water 

resources in the Eagle Creek drainage 

or nearby.

Over the long term, post fire cumulative 

impacts would be the same as those described 

above for the pre-wildfire assessment. 

Potential cumulative effects on streamflows 

and groundwater would not be restricted to 

water uses by the Village of Ruidoso, as 

described in detail in chapter 3. 

Implementing alternative 3 would occasionally 

create temporary demands by the Village for 

other water sources. It is likely that the Village 

would met those demands by pumping 

groundwater supplies elsewhere, by additional 

leasing of existing water rights, by developing 

additional storage facilities, by enacting further 

water use limitations beyond its current 

practices, or some combination of these. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 61
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Aquatic Habitat and Fish - Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. Lowering streamflow may 

increase temperatures and temperature-related fish mortality. Quantity, quality, and water flow availability that mirrors natural flow patterns are important for 

aquatic habitat and fish. Suitable water quality and temperatures, which are partially based on water depth and channel conditions, are necessary to support 

fish populations. Sufficient water supplies must also be available during summer months to provide water temperatures needed for survival of aquatic species.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Streamflow quality 

and quantity 

indicators for 

water resources 

and implications 

for aquatic habitat 

and fish

The North Fork Eagle Creek below the well field

to the Eagle Creek gage was probably never a 

high quality fishery and has always been limited 

by the intermittent nature of the creek. There are 

now fewer fish in North Fork Eagle Creek and 

fewer opportunities for recreational fishing along 

North Fork Eagle Creek than there were before 

1988. This is probably due, at least in part, to 

reduced streamflow as a result of North Fork 

Eagle Creek well pumping. This trend would 

continue by implementing alternative 1. 

Improved surface flow, eliminated or 

reduced no-flow days and reduced

duration of stream temperatures above 

68 degrees Fahrenheit would improve 

aquatic habitat and fishing potential. 

While this segment of North Fork Eagle 

Creek is not considered a high quality 

trout fishery and this would not change 

with implementation of alternative 2, 

aquatic habitat conditions would 

improve over the long term and provide 

higher quality fish habitat over time and 

fish recovery would be enhanced.

Effects would be similar to alternative 2 

because surface flow would improve, no-flow 

days would be reduced (but not eliminated) 

and there would be a reduction in the duration 

of stream temperatures above 68 degrees F; 

these changes would result in improved 

aquatic habitat and fishing potential, but these 

changes would be less than those for 

alternative 2 but greater than those for 

alternative 1. 

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Short 

Term 

No fish were observed in the upper perennial 

reaches (upstream of the North Fork gage) 

during surveys conducted in 2013 after the fire. 

Aquatic invertebrates typically decline 

immediately after a fire. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, channel 

morphology changes, and deeper alluvial 

deposits due to the fire would continue to reduce 

the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the project 

area while the watershed is recovering. Pools 

and stretches of surface water may be reduced 

and this would affect aquatic habitat and fish 

presence. Continued pumping under alternative 

1 during the short term is expected to continue to 

limit the potential for fish and aquatic habitat 

improvement. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, 

channel morphology changes, and 

deeper alluvial deposits due to the fire 

would continue to reduce the fish and 

aquatic habitat quality in the project 

area while the watershed is recovering. 

The effects of no pumping, however, 

would encourage the occurrence of

streamflow and increased groundwater 

levels (more so than under alternative 

1) although large portions of the stream 

would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools 

and stretches of surface water may be 

reduced and this would affect aquatic 

habitat and fish presence. Under 

alternative 2, the potential for fish and 

aquatic habitat improvement will 

continue to be limited but not as much 

as under alternative 1. 

In the short term, reduced water quality, 

channel morphology changes, and deeper 

alluvial deposits due to the fire would continue 

to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in 

the project area while the watershed is 

recovering. During the short term post-wildfire

recovery period, pumping effects would be 

limited to the extent possible through an 

iterative and adaptive approach as the 

landscape, stream channel, and groundwater 

recharge processes adjust to the fire 

disturbance. Under alternative 3, the potential 

for fish and aquatic habitat improvement will 

continue to be limited but not as much as 

under alternative 1. 

62 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Long 

Term

Over the long term, after post-wildfire recovery, 

watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. Aquatic 

invertebrates could respond positively to 

increased stream productivity but the timeframe 

for this recovery is difficult to predict. Water yield 

and groundwater availability may improve as 

shown in the water resources analysis and debris 

flows could result in a more dynamic channel 

environment benefiting fish habitat. However, 

continued pumping would obscure some of these 

potential benefits. Therefore, adverse effects 

from implementing alternative 1 over the long 

term would be the same as, or slightly less than, 

the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 1.

Over the long term, after watershed 

recovery, effects from no pumping 

would be the same as those described 

in the pre-wildfire assessment for 

alternative 2. Aquatic invertebrates 

could respond positively to increased

stream productivity but the timeframe 

for this recovery is difficult to predict. 

Water yield and groundwater availability 

may improve as shown in the water 

resources analysis and debris flows 

could result in a more dynamic channel 

environment benefiting fish habitat. 

With the cessation of pumping, these 

potential benefits could be increased 

Therefore, beneficial effects from 

implementing alternative 2 over the 

long term would be the same as, or 

slightly more than, the pre-wildfire

assessment for alternative 2.

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive 

management would improve flow conditions 

and reduce the amount of no-flow days along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to 

surface flows and alluvial groundwater levels, 

an approximate middle ground between 

alternative 1 and 2 would be attained during 

average precipitation years under alternative 3.

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), 

watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer 

stands burned at moderate to high severity 

convert to grass or shrubs, less 

evapotranspiration could improve water yield 

and groundwater availability. If this occurs with 

adaptive management of North Fork Eagle 

Creek pumping under alternative 3, aquatic 

habitats could be enhanced and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian conditions 

could result. Therefore, beneficial effects from 

implementing alternative 3 over the long term

would be the same as the pre-wildfire

assessment for alternative 3.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 63
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Riparian Vegetation - Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. These water quantity changes could 

indirectly affect quantity and quality of riparian vegetation along the stream corridor.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Predicted 

qualitative shifts in 

communities over 

time 

Since the spatial extent and duration of no-flow 

conditions and flows less than 1.2 cubic feet per 

second would increase over time (climate change 

combined with continued pumping), there would 

be less water available in the alluvium for plant 

growth and sustenance. If groundwater levels 

lower beyond current levels, there would be an 

increase in xeric, upland species and a decrease 

or loss in riparian species dependent on shallow 

groundwater, over the long term. 

Project design features minimize any 

direct effects to riparian vegetation 

during well and facility removal. 

Indirectly, improved groundwater and 

surface flow would increase available 

moisture for riparian vegetation and 

could result in maintenance or 

expansion of the riparian zone over 

time; slight increases in communities 

featuring facultative wetland species is 

possible, but may not be fully realized 

due to the possibility of continued 

climate change-related drying trends, 

over the long term. 

Indirectly, improved groundwater and surface 

flow would increase available moisture for 

riparian vegetation and could result in 

maintenance or expansion of the riparian zone 

over time; slight increases in communities 

featuring facultative wetland species is 

possible, but may not be fully realized due to 

the possibility of continued climate changerelated drying trends, over the long term. 

Effects would be more similar to alternative 2 

than alternative 1 due to improvements in 

water availability. 

Predicted 

qualitative shifts in 

riparian tree 

species 

Box elder, Pacific willow and other riparian tree

species would show signs of stress and reduced 

canopy cover over time due to reductions in 

groundwater and streamflow. It is likely that 

Pacific willow would eventually die out and would 

no longer occur along North Fork Eagle Creek 

below the well field over the long term (Pacific 

willow upstream of the North Fork gage would 

not be affected).

Project design features would minimize 

any direct effects to riparian trees 

during well and facility removal. 

Indirectly, increased water availability 

would likely not result in measurable 

changes in box elder but Pacific willow 

would likely experience increased 

seedling recruitment and could expand; 

however, this may not be a substantial 

change over the current condition 

considering the possibility of continued 

climate change-related drying trends, 

over the long term. 

Indirect effects to box elder and Pacific willow 

would be more similar to alternative 2 than 

alternative 1 due to improvements in water 

availability.

64 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Effects 

due to Little Bear 

Fire: Short Term 

In the short term, fire effects are likely to result in 

a shifting of sediment and cobble. This channel 

instability could result in some riparian areas 

being buried and an increase in alluvium that 

would reduce surface flow. However, these 

adverse effects to riparian tree species and 

communities could be offset by the opportunity 

for species such as willows to colonize new 

areas. 

In the short term, fire effects are likely 

to result in a shifting of sediment and 

cobble. This channel instability could 

result in some riparian areas being 

buried and an increase in alluvium that 

would reduce surface flow. However, 

these adverse effects to riparian tree 

species and communities could be 

offset by the opportunity for species 

such as willows to colonize new areas.

The effects of no pumping would 

encourage the occurrence of 

streamflow and increased groundwater 

levels (more so than under alternative 

1) although large portions of the stream 

would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. Pools 

and stretches of surface water may be 

reduced and this could affect riparian 

habitat. Under alternative 2, the 

potential for riparian habitat 

improvement will continue to be limited 

but not as much as under alternative 1.

In the short term, fire effects are likely to result 

in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian 

areas being buried and an increase in alluvium 

that would reduce surface flow. However, 

these adverse effects to riparian tree species 

and communities could be offset by the 

opportunity for species such as willows to 

colonize new areas. 

During the short term post-wildfire recovery 

period, pumping effects would be limited to the 

extent possible through an iterative and 

adaptive approach as the landscape, stream 

channel, and groundwater recharge processes 

adjust to the fire disturbance. Under alternative 

3, the potential for riparian habitat 

improvement will continue to be limited but not 

as much as under alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 would encourage the occurrence 

of streamflow and increased groundwater 

levels (more so than under alternative 1) 

although large portions of the stream would 

remain intermittent during periods of average 

precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface 

water may be reduced and this could affect 

riparian habitat.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 65
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Effects 

due to Little Bear 

Fire: Long Term 

Over the long term, water yield and groundwater 

availability may improve as shown in the water 

resources analysis, benefiting riparian habitat. 

However, continued pumping would obscure 

some of these potential benefits. Therefore, 

adverse effects from implementing alternative 1 

over the long term would be the same as, or 

slightly less than, the pre-wildfire assessment for 

alternative 1.

Over the long term, after watershed 

recovery, effects from no pumping 

would be the same as those described 

in the pre-wildfire assessment for 

alternative 2.

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive 

management would improve flow conditions 

and reduce the amount of no-flow days along 

the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to 

surface flows and alluvial groundwater levels, 

an approximate middle ground between 

alternative 1 and 2 would be attained during 

average precipitation years under alternative 3. 

Over the long term, after watershed recovery, 

effects from implementing an adaptive 

management strategy would be the same as 

those described in the pre-wildfire assessment 

for alternative 3.

Socioeconomics - Effects on water available for diversion have potential to affect local social and economic conditions. Well pumping may result in changes in 

groundwater and surface water availability. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has potential to alter municipal water supply, affect streamside recreational 

use (public use of streams for streamside recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing), and affect private land (availability of water for domestic wells).

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Municipal water 

supply (overall 

and during 5-

month summer 

resort period)

Average annual contributions from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide from 

25 to 29 percent percent of the Village of 

Ruidoso water supply if current trends in total 

diversion and North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion continue; past trends in North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells diversion during the 5-month 

summer resort period would also continue (38 to 

58 percent in 2006 and 2004, respectively). 

Consideration of additional contributions 

attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well 

diversions (50 percent return flow credit) North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 

36-43 percent to the municipal water supply 

overall, and 57-87 percent during the summer 

months. 

Annual diversions in the future could average 

approximately 569 acre-feet per year. 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells would not 

contribute 25-29 percent of the 

municipal water supply or 38-58

percent during the summer months; this 

need would have to come from another 

water source

There would be no water diverted; this 

water would need to come from another 

source.

There would be periodic restrictions on 

pumping, particularly during the summer. 

Based on the streamflow adaptive 

management triggers, North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would provide about 23-25 percent to the 

municipal water supply overall, and 25-57

percent during the summer. Including the 50 

percent return flow credit; North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells would continue to provide 34.5-

37.5 percent to the municipal water supply 

overall, and 37.5-85.5 percent during the 

summer months. Restrictions based on the 

streamflow triggers would likely be enacted 

fequently during below-average precipitation 

years but infrequently during average or above 

average precipitation years.

Annual diversions could average 236 acre-feet 

per year or more depending on how the 

adaptive management triggers were 

implemented 

66 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Projected 

production 

If average annual diversion from these wells 

continues they would contribute 11 percent of the 

projected adjusted diversion needs (5,097 acrefeet) for the year 2045. 

Without groundwater withdrawal, North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells would not 

contribute towards future Village of 

Ruidoso demand and their projected 

contribution (11 percent) in 2045 would 

have to come from another source.

Average annual diversion from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells would continue and they 

would continue to contribute towards future 

Village of Ruidoso demand; Based on enacting 

the streamflow adaptive management triggers, 

their projected contribution in 2045 would be 

0.1 - 1.3 percent less than under alternative 1. 

Streamflow quality 

and quantity and 

springs/seeps 

indicators for 

water resources 

and implications 

for streamside 

recreational use

With continued periods of no flow days, flows 

below 1.2 cubic feet per second, periods of 

stream temperatures above 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit and effects to springs/seeps (as 

shown in the water resources section), 

streamside recreational use would be negatively 

affected; the quality of this recreation experience 

would be less than that provided by either 

alternative 2 or 3.

With elimination of no-flow days and 

approximately 7 months annually with 

flows above 1.2 cubic feet per second, 

and no effects to springs/seeps (as 

shown in the water resources section), 

streamside recreational use would 

improve over current conditions and 

would be of higher quality compared to 

either alternative 1 or 3. 

With a decrease in the number of no-flow 

days, an increase in the duration of flows 

greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second, a 

reduction in times when stream temperatures 

are above 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and a 

decrease in the potential effect to 

springs/seeps, streamside recreational use 

would improve over current conditions and 

over that provided by alternative 1, but would 

be of lower quality than that provided by 

alternative 2.

Domestic wells 

indicator for water 

resources and 

implications for 

private land water 

supply

The potential for adverse effects to the 

availability of domestic well water are greatest 

under this alternative compared to alternative 2 

or 3; up to two domestic wells could be directly 

affected. 

Because no domestic wells would be 

directly affected by groundwater 

drawdown under this alternative, there 

would be no effect to the availability of 

water for domestic use.

Decreased drawdown and water level recovery 

times would decrease the duration and extent 

of drawdown, which would lessen the impacts 

to domestic wells. The potential for adverse 

effects to the availability of domestic well water 

would be less than alternative 1 but greater 

than alternative 2. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 67
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Values, attitudes 

and beliefs 

Quality of life as it relates to municipal water 

supply would remain unchanged under this 

alternative; quality of life associated with the 

quality of recreation experience and the 

availability of domestic well water would remain 

unchanged; the Lincoln National Forest would 

continue to support quality of life at levels 

experienced currently.

Quality of life as it relates to municipal 

water supply would be adversely 

affected since North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would no longer contribute to the 

water supply; quality of life associated 

with the quality of recreation experience 

and the availability of domestic well 

water would be improved over current 

conditions; the Lincoln National Forest 

would continue to support quality of life 

in the area but less than currently 

supported from municipal water supply 

and more in terms of the quality of 

recreation experience and the 

availability of domestic well water.

Quality of life as it relates to municipal water 

supply would be less than experienced 

currently due to restrictions on North Fork 

Eagle Creek well pumping. However, quality of 

life associated with the quality of recreation 

experience and the availability of domestic well 

water would be improved over current 

conditions; the Lincoln National Forest would 

continue to support quality of life in the area 

but less than currently supported from 

municipal water supply and more in terms of 

the quality of recreation experience and the 

availability of domestic well water.

Environmental 

justice (effects of 

agency programs 

that 

disproportionately 

impact minority 

and low income 

populations)

There would be no disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental effect on 

minority or low-income populations. Quality of life 

related to water supply, recreation and domestic 

well water would remain unchanged from current 

conditions. 

There would be no disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or 

environmental effect on minority or lowincome populations. While adverse 

effects to total municipal water 

diversions are anticipated they are 

expected to be distributed amongst all 

segments of the Village of Ruidoso

population since water diversion from 

the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

cannot be attributed to supply certain 

areas of the Village of Ruidoso. 

Consequently, effects are not 

considered disparate since effects 

would occur to communities regardless 

of racial, ethnic or poverty status. 

There would be no disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental effect 

on minority or low-income populations. While 

adverse effects to total municipal water 

diversions are anticipated they would be the 

same as those described for alternative 2.

68 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Cumulative effects Since there are no direct and indirect effects 

(conditions would remain unchanged), there 

would be no cumulative effects. 

Regardless of the contributions of the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells to the 

water supply, future water supply needs 

exceed existing supply and existing 

water rights, even with implementation 

of utility use reduction and 

conservation. Without North Fork Eagle 

Creek contributions, the potential for 

adverse cumulative effects to municipal 

water supply would be greater under 

this alternative than either alternative 1 

or 3. However, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to the quality of 

recreation experience would be less 

under this alternative than alternative 1 

or 3. Similarly, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to nearby domestic 

wells would be less under this 

alternative than alternative 1 or 3. 

Regardless of the contributions of the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells to the water supply, 

future water supply needs exceed existing 

supply and existing water rights, even with 

implementation of utility use reduction and 

conservation. With limited North Fork Eagle 

Creek contributions, adverse cumulative 

economic effects to municipal water supply 

would be greater under this alternative than 

under alternative 1but less than alternative 2. 

Adverse cumulative economic effects to the 

quality of recreation experience would be less 

under this alternative than under alternative 1 

but more than alternative 2. In addition, the 

potential for adverse cumulative economic 

effects to nearby domestic wells would be less 

than under alternative 1 but more than 

alternative 2. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 69
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Direct, 

Indirect and 

Cumulative Effects 

Due to Little Bear 

Fire 

Implementation of alternative 1 would achieve 

the first need statement regarding the Village of 

Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert 

groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells because it would continue to provide water 

to the Village of Ruidoso. 

Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire

levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will 

have made water supply adjustments in order to 

meet water supply demand and their reliance on 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be 

less.

While the short-term effects of implementing 

alternative 1 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis are uncertain during the 

watershed recovery period, the long-term effects 

are the same as those described above for the 

pre-wildfire assessment. 

Alternative 2 does not address the first 

need statement and would not provide 

any contribution to the municipal water 

supply. Without groundwater 

withdrawal, the North Fork wells would 

not provide their pre-fire share of 

Village of Ruidoso water supply and 

would not contribute toward future 

demands for water diversion. 

While the short-term effects of 

implementing alternative 2 to other 

aspects of the socioeconomic analysis 

are uncertain during the watershed 

recovery period, the long-term effects 

are the same as those described above 

for the pre-wildfire assessment.

Implementation of alternative 3 would achieve 

the first need statement regarding the Village 

of Ruidoso’s ability to access and divert 

groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells because it would continue to provide 

water to the Village of Ruidoso. 

However, alternative 3 may not provide the 

pre-wildfire share of water as would alternative 

1. Regardless, when additional indirect 

contributions attributable to the 50 percent 

return flow credit are considered under 

alternative 3, North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 percent 

of municipal water supply during the 5-month 

summer resort period.

Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire

levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will 

have made water supply adjustments in order 

to meet water supply demand. Consequently 

reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping may be less than depicted above.

While the short-term effects of implementing 

alternative 3 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis are uncertain during 

the watershed recovery period, the long-term 

effects are the same as those described above 

for the pre-wildfire assessment.

70 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Water Rights - Well pumping results in changes in dynamics of groundwater and surface water. Surface water and groundwater availability are linked and are 

limited not only by accessible available quantities of water, but also by available water rights. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has potential to alter 

municipal water supply and affect beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s total adjudicated water rights.

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Beneficial use of 

the Village of 

Ruidoso’s water 

rights

Without limitations on groundwater withdrawal, 

the Village of Ruidoso would be able to access 

and put to beneficial use their adjudicated water 

rights, which total 2539.34 acre feet per year. 

Without groundwater withdrawal at the 

current location, the Village of Ruidoso

would need to file application with the 

Office of the State Engineer to transfer the 

point of diversion of their water rights. If 

protests are filed the Office of the State 

Engineer would hold a formal hearing and 

decide the case. This decision could be 

appealed. These hearings can take 

months or years to complete. This is a 

state of New Mexico process that does not 

involve the USDA Forest Service.

With the potential for limited groundwater 

withdrawal at the current location, the

Village of Ruidoso would need to file 

application with the Office of the State 

Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of 

a portion of their water rights (as 

summarized for alternative 2).

Updated Effects

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Short 

Term 

The fire halted the production of both surface and 

groundwater diversions along Eagle Creek due 

to water quality and debris flow issues. This 

impacted water production and the Village of 

Ruidoso’s ability to access the return flow credits 

along the Rio Ruidoso. The shift from the Eagle 

Creek watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed 

created a temporary redistribution of water rights 

along the Rio Ruidoso (also impacted by water 

quality from the Little Bear Fire). Approved on an 

emergency basis by the Office of the State 

Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso received a 

temporary additional point of diversion, at the 

confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and Carrizo Creek 

to the south, to provide water to the Grindstone 

Dam for use in the municipal supply. This 

redistribution is anticipated to be short-term in 

nature. Lack of diversion due to emergency 

circumstances created by the Little Bear Fire in 

2012 is not expected to have a direct effect on 

the beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s 

adjudicated water rights.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 71
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire: Long 

Term 

Over the long term, historic water rights and 

allocation will remain as defined in the 2010

Consent Order. Therefore, the effects of 

implementing alternative 1 to the beneficial use 

of the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights is the 

same as that described in the pre-wildfire 

assessment above.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

72 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Non-Significant Issue - Vegetation (other than riparian)

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Invasive Plants 

(musk thistle) 

There would be no direct effects since there 

would be no ground disturbance. This species 

occurs in a wide enough range of conditions to 

be neither beneficially nor detrimentally affected 

by changes in water depth. Therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect effects on the 

increased risk of spread for musk thistle or other 

non-native invasive plants.

This alternative includes removal of 

facilities with the end of the permit. 

Although the area of the disturbance 

would be relatively small, this ground 

disturbance would still contribute to the 

increased likelihood of non-native plant 

spread, minimized by the 

implementation of mitigation measures.

Same as alternative 1

2013 Regional

Forester’s 

Sensitive Species 

(Wooton’s 

hawthorn and 

Sierra Blanca cliff 

daisy)

No effect to Regional Forester’s sensitive species 

determination. There would be no direct effects 

since there would be no ground disturbance. 

Because Sierra Blanca cliff daisy is not 

dependent on groundwater or surface water 

there would be no indirect effects to this species. 

Wooton’s hawthorn populations are stable to 

increasing in the project area and appear to have 

a wide enough range of conditions to not be 

indirectly affected by changes in groundwater or 

surface water. 

No effect to Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species determination. 

Mitigation measures would be 

implemented to ensure there would be 

no direct effects from ground 

disturbance associated with removal of 

wells and facilities. Indirect effects 

would be the same as those described 

for alternative 1.

Same as alternative 1

Upland Vegetation There would be no direct effects since there 

would be no ground disturbance. Indirect effects 

of water drawdown would reach into the North 

Fork Eagle Creek basin and would result in a 

reduction of available moisture for new growth. 

However, upland vegetation is not as sensitive to 

water fluctuation as riparian vegetation and 

would be resistant to changes in moisture; 

adverse effects would be minimal. Growth of 

individual trees may be stunted, but would not 

result in any measurable affects across the 

project area as a whole.

There would be no direct effects since 

ground-disturbing activities would be 

limited to the riparian corridor and 

project design features would minimize 

the effects to vegetation in the area of 

disturbance. Having more groundwater 

available in the North Fork Eagle Creek 

basin would provide added moisture for 

new growth. However, upland 

vegetation is not as sensitive to water 

fluctuation as riparian vegetation; 

beneficial effects would be minimal. 

Growth of individual trees may 

increase, but would not result in any 

measurable affects across the project 

area as a whole.

There would be no direct effects since there 

would be no ground disturbance. Indirect 

effects would be the same as alternative 2.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 73
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Updated effects to 

Vegetation due to 

the Little Bear Fire 

Upland vegetation burned by the fire is likely to 

experience additional stress due to effects from 

fire damage and therefore could be adversely 

impacted from reduced water availability due to 

drawdown from well pumping. Therefore, the 

potential for adverse impacts from alternative 1, 

as described above, could be somewhat greater 

than predicted above, post-wildfire. Because 

upland vegetation is less sensitive to 

groundwater drawdown effects from pumping 

than vegetation in the riparian zone, these 

differences between pre-wildfire and post-wildfire

effects are likely negligible to minor. 

The impacts to Wooton’s Hawthorn and Sierra 

Blanca cliff daisy are the same as those 

described for the pre-wildfire assessment above.

All musk thistle populations were burned in the 

project area and increases in occurrences in the 

project area are likely as a result of the wildfire. 

Native seeding was undertaken following the 

Little Bear Fire to reduce further noxious weed 

spread (USDA Forest Service 2012). Project 

design features would minimize spread. 

Therefore, the impacts to invasive plants are the 

same as those described for the pre-wildfire 

assessment above.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

74 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Non-Significant Issue - Wildlife

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Federally listed

species (Mexican 

spotted owl) 

No effect determination under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act; nearest nesting area is 

0.75 miles from North Fork Eagle Creek; no 

suitable nesting/roosting or critical habitat within 

action area. There would be a mitigation 

measure to avoid disturbance activities to 

Mexican spotted owl during breeding and nesting 

season from March 1 to August 31.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

2013 Regional 

Forester’s 

Sensitive Species

No effect to Regional Forester’s sensitive species

(Northern goshawk, Sacramento mountains 

salamander, Ruidoso red squirrel). Nearest 

northern goshawk nesting area is 0.1 mile from 

action area; nearest known salamander location 

is 0.4 mile from action area; no known 

populations of Ruidoso red squirrels in project 

area There would be a mitigation measure to 

avoid disturbance activities to northern goshawks 

during the breeding season. 

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

Management 

Indicator Species 

No management indicator species for riparian 

habitat are known to occur in the project area; 

management indicator species for mixed conifer 

(pygmy nuthatch), aspen (hairy woodpecker), 

high quality browse (mule deer), mixed conifer 

(elk and Ruidoso red squirrel) would not be 

affected; Forest-wide habitat and population 

trends as a whole would not be affected due to 

the small size of the project area. 

Same as alternative 1; the increase in 

available surface water and indirect 

benefit to riparian vegetation could 

result in improved water availability 

(particularly for elk and deer) and 

habitat quality 

Same as alternative 1

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 75
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Measurement 

Indicators

Alternative 1 – No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Alternative 2 – No Action 

(No Pumping)

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

(Adaptive Management)

Migratory Birds There would be no impact to migratory bird 

species or their habitats There would be no 

unintentional take of adults, eggs, and/or chicks 

and no ground or habitat disturbance for 

migratory birds. The mitigation measure to avoid 

disturbance activities to northern goshawks and 

Mexican spotted owls during the breeding 

season would also minimize the potential for 

effects to migratory birds. 

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1

Updated Effects 

due to the Little 

Bear Fire

While impacts from the Little Bear Fire to

threatened, endangered and sensitive species, 

management indicator species, migratory birds,

and their habitats are not known with certainty, it 

is likely that some of these species were affected 

to some degree, at least in the short term. 

However, based on supplemental analysis, 

implementation of any of the alternatives postwildfire should not contribute to any additional 

direct or indirect adverse impacts (see the wildlife 

section in chapter 3). The effects from 

implementing alternative 1 are the same as those 

for the pre-wildfire assessment.

Same as alternative 1 Same as alternative 1 

76 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives 

chapter. Significant issues (water resources, aquatic habitat and fish, riparian vegetation, 

socioeconomics, and water rights) are discussed first, followed by nonsignificant issues. 

Where there are differences in the affected environment and environmental consequences of the 

alternatives due to the Little Bear Fire, these are noted. 

Figure 4 is a map of the project area and the cumulative impact analysis area. Figure 5 depicts the 

boundary and burn severities of the Little Bear Fire in relation to the North Fork project area. 

Methodology 

The impact analysis and conclusions contained in this chapter were based on Lincoln National 

Forest staff knowledge of the resources and site, reviewing of existing literature and agency 

studies, information provided by specialists within the USDA Forest Service, other agencies and 

contractors, and professional judgment. The methodology section at the beginning of each 

resource heading describes any additional specific data collection/analysis or other methods used 

for that resource.

Potential impacts in this chapter are described in terms of type (direct, indirect, cumulative and 

are the effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the effects site specific, local, or even 

regional?), duration (are the effects short term or long term?), and intensity. 

Direct effects occur at the same time and in the same locations as actions that cause them. Indirect 

effects are those that occur at a later time or in a different location than the actions that were their 

cause. Cumulative impacts result from the additive impacts of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in or near the area. 

For purposes of this analysis, short-term effects are those expected within the next 1 to 10 years 

and long-term effects are those that are expected between 10 and 20 years or more unless 

specifically defined in individual resource sections below. 

The analysis we present for alternative 3 (proposed action) in each resource section assumes that 

all adaptive management triggers are implemented as described in the description of the proposed 

action in chapter 2. The analysis we present for all alternatives in each resource section assumes 

that all mitigation measures and monitoring specific to each alternative (as described at the end of 

chapter 2) are implemented. 

The methodology section in each resource section later in this chapter includes a summary of any 

changes to the methods used for analysis based on the Little Bear Fire. 

The specialist reports used in preparation of this chapter are:

• Water Resources Report for the DEIS (AECOM 2012) and Supplemental Water 

Resources Report for the SDEIS (AECOM 2014) 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 77
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Riparian Vegetation Report and Botanical Resources Report for the DEIS (Miller 2012a 

and Miller 2012b) and Supplemental Vegetation Report and Supplement Botanical 

Resources Report for the SDEIS (Miller 2014a and 2014b) 

• Fish and Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Biological Assessment 

for the DEIS (Bright 2012a and Bright 2012b) and Supplemental Fish and Wildlife 

Report and Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Assessment for 

the SDEIS (Bright 2014) 

• Socioeconomics Report for the DEIS (Eichman 2012) and Supplemental Socioeconomics 

Report for the SDEIS (Eichman and Loughery 2014) 

• Water Rights Report for the DEIS (Thompson 2012) and Supplemental Water Rights 

Report for the SDEIS (Thompson 2014) 

78 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 4. Upper Eagle Creek drainage for cumulative impact analysis

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 79
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 5. Little Bear Fire

80 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The baseline used for cumulative effects analysis is the no action alternative. The cumulative 

effects analysis; while it includes some consideration of past human actions; does not fully 

quantify all effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action 

basis. By looking at current conditions, we capture residual effects of past human actions and

natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. The 

Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, 

regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into 

the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also 

consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)). For these reasons, while 

some past actions are listed and considered, the focus of the cumulative analysis is based on 

current environmental conditions, and to the extent possible, the no action (no pumping 

alternative). 

The North Fork Eagle Creek project area lies wholly within the 3,400-acre North Fork Eagle 

Creek basin, which is located within the larger 10,300-acre upper Eagle Creek drainage. The 

upper Eagle Creek drainage is a subset of the 37,200-acre Devil’s Canyon hydrological unit code 

6th field (HUC 6) watershed. We assessed watershed conditions within the Devil’s Canyon HUC 6 

as part of a nationwide effort (USDA Forest Service 2010) and these assessment results were used 

in evaluation of cumulative effects. 

We chose the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 4) for the cumulative impact analysis area 

because of the potential for impacts of multiple actions on the natural environment, particularly 

hydrologic resources, within this one drainage. As described in more detail in the “Water 

Resources” section later in this chapter, this smaller and more relevant drainage boundary was 

used instead of the larger Devil’s Canyon HUC 6 boundary in order to focus analysis on that 

portion of the Eagle Creek drainage above Alto Lake and within a few miles downstream of the 

lake, with the most potential to be affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping in 

combination with other actions in the same drainage. Alto Lake controls the flows downstream 

and is part of the Village of Ruidoso’s and Alto’s water supply. The drainage area below this is 

also quite different than the upper drainage in terms of climate, geology, and precipitation. 

However, the area of cumulative impact may differ depending on the resource affected. If a 

different cumulative impact area is chosen for a specific resource, we discuss this in that specific 

resource section later in this chapter. 

We received several comments during the public scoping period and subsequent comment periods 

related to the size and boundary of the cumulative impact study area, as shown in appendix A and 

C but we continue to feel confident in the size and configuration of the cumulative impact study 

area as depicted in figure 4 and figure 5, for the reasons described above. The list in table 4 and 

the actions shown on the map in figure 4 have been updated since the 2012 DEIS. 

The upper Eagle Creek drainage is comprised of approximately 66 percent National Forest 

System land (6,750 acres), 11 percent Bureau of Indian Affairs land (1,150 acres on the 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 81
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mescalero Apache Reservation) and 23 percent private land (2,360 acres). Populated 

communities within the upper Eagle Creek drainage include Alto and portions of the Village of 

Ruidoso. Generally, the major use of private property located within the drainage is for the rural 

residential lifestyle. Many residences are seasonally occupied. 

A catalog of certain actions (ones that are contributing effects to affected resources analyzed) 

occurring within the upper Eagle Creek drainage is summarized in table 4 below. In progress or 

planned actions, known as of this writing, are also included and were compiled from the “Lincoln 

National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions” (queried in August 2011 and again in May 2014), 

input from the district staff, New Mexico State Forestry Division, and applicant. 

As shown in table 4, approximately 3,406 acres within the 10,300-acre upper Eagle Creek 

drainage (or 33 percent) have been treated or are planned for treatment in the foreseeable future 

with fuel reduction, road work, or facility construction. Approximately 6,700 acres (or 65 percent 

of the drainage) has been burned in past wildfires, including the recent 2012 Little Bear Fire. 

There are currently no reasonably foreseeable future plans for vegetation treatments on National 

Forest System lands within the drainage but one New Mexico State Forestry project is planned in 

the next 1–2 years. 

The “Affected Environment” sections for each resource later in this chapter discuss the current 

conditions in the project area. Cumulative watershed effects analysis assumes all planned projects 

have been completed. 

The “Water Resources” and “Socioeconomics” sections of this chapter provide additional detail 

related to the municipal water supply and how this is currently managed and plans for future 

management. 

82 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 4. Past, in progress and planned activities within the Upper Eagle Creek drainage 

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Forest Service in progress or planned 

projects

El Capitan mineral exploration Test core drilling/planned No

Hale Lake and East Hale Lake grazing 

allotments management

Livestock grazing/ongoing No

Stokes Easement and road 

construction/reroute of National Forest 

System Road 256

Acquisition of an easement to cross private land and reroute portion of 

National Forest System Road 256

No

NM 532 road realignment Rebuilding of three curves on NM 532 is planned for FY12. Yes 2 miles

Integrated Non-native Invasive and 

Native Invasive Plant Project 

Vegetation management Yes

Divide Grazing allotment management Livestock grazing No

Grindstone Wetland Development Watershed management No

Merchant Grazing allotment 

management

Livestock grazing No

Skinner Grazing Allotment Livestock grazing No

Seven Cabins Road Realignment Road management No

Ski Apache Postfire Rehabilitation Special Use Management Yes 80 acres

Ski Apache Recreation Enhancement Special Use Management Yes 40 acres

West Mountain Push Units 7-9 Fuels Management No

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 83
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Forest Service ongoing, routine 

management activities

Outfitter/guide permittees Outfitter/guides utilize the Eagle Creek area for access to trails and 

dispersed camping.

Yes

North Fork wells maintenance Routine maintenance of the municipal North Fork well field and 

pipeline

Yes 4 acres

National Forest System Road 127A 

maintenance

Routine maintenance of National Forest System Road 127A for 

access to dispersed camping, well field, and Summer Homes Tract.

Yes 2 miles

National Forest System Road 117 

maintenance

Routine maintenance of National Forest System Road 117 for access 

to national forest.

Yes 7 miles

Forest Trail T-12 maintenance Routine maintenance of T-12 in the Summer Home Tract. This trail is 

located directly above the Eagle Creek well field. 

Yes 2 miles

Relevant Forest Service past activities 

U.S. Geological Survey gage installation U.S. Geological Survey installed weirs in Upper Eagle Creek and at 

the confluence of the north and south forks. A flume was also installed 

along the south fork. 

Yes 0.25 acre

National Forest System Road 127A road 

work

The first low water crossing was rebuilt after a flood event in 2008. Yes 0.25 acre

Village of Ruidoso surface diversion The Village of Ruidoso surface diversion for collection of water along 

Eagle Creek. 

Yes 0.25 acre

1 surface 

diversion along 

Eagle Creek

Village of Ruidoso municipal well field

installation 

The Village of Ruidoso municipal well field and pipeline were installed 

in the early 1980s for access to groundwater rights supplemental to 

the surface diversion. 

Yes 4 acres

Eagle Creek Summer Homes domestic 

well installation

A series of six domestic wells were installed at the summer home tract 

for drinking water in 2009. 

Yes 6 domestic wells

84 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Eagle Creek Summer Homes septic tank 

installation

A series of septic tanks were installed at the summer home tract for 

waste disposal in 2009. 

Yes 0.5 acre

NM 532 road reconstruction Reconstruction of NM 532 at mile marker #3 due to flood in 2008. Yes 0.5 mile

Burned Area Emergency Response 

Treatment 

Trash bars installed at mouth of Carlton Canyon in response to Ski 

Run Fire.

Yes 0.25 acre 

Eagle II thin and hand pile projects Thinning, hand piling, and burning projects. Yes 1,770 acres

Oak Grove Host site Construction of a host site at Oak Grove Campground above the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek.

Yes 0.25 acre

Ski Run Wildfire Wildfire in 2003 located between Carlton and Johnson Canyons. Fire 

bisected by NM 532. Area burned to around 1 mile of Eagle Creek 

Summer Home Tract.

Yes 265 acres

Cree Wildfire Yes – a 

portion

912 acres

Little Bear Fire Wildfire in 2012 Yes 5498 acres

Thinning in southeast corner of project 

area

Yes – a 

portion

2 acres

Firewood sales Firewood treatments Yes – a 

portion

89 acres

Burned Area Emergency Response 

(BAER) Activities for the Little Bear Fire

The placement of 150 feet of Jersey barriers along Eagle Creek; 

installation of 100 cubic yards Gabion baskets; installation of a 10 foot 

culvert extension and overflow drain; installation of concrete slope 

paving around each bridge; aerial seeding and mulching was 

accomplished in high-severity burned areas in the drainage and 

hillsides above the cabin areas. 

Yes 100 acres

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 85
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Past and ongoing activities outside of 

National Forest System lands

Eagle Creek RV Resort Installation of a privately owned campground 3 miles downstream 

from the North Fork Eagle Creek in 2010.

Yes 33 acres

Bottlehouse Cabin rentals Installation of cabins and rental units 1⁄4 mile south of well field on 

private land in 2009. 

Yes Unknown

Various domestic wells Approximately 20+ domestic wells at residences located below the 

Eagle Creek well field. 

Yes 1 acre

Water use – 

greater than 20 

domestic wells

Softball field Municipal softball fields are located on village land approximately 

3 miles below the Eagle Creek well field 

Yes 5 acres

Ruidoso Winter Park tubing area A private tubing area is located on private lands 3 miles below the 

Eagle Creek well field. Snow blowing machines utilizing private Eagle 

Creek water rights are used to supplement snowfall. The tubing area 

was installed in 2008 approximately. 

Yes 5 acres

water use

State Forestry projects Hazardous fuel reduction and wildland-urban interface biomass 

projects.

Yes 900 acres

State Forestry projects Hazardous fuel reduction and wildland-urban interface treatments 

(Moon Mountain and Lincoln Country Wildland-urban Interface). 

No

Village of Ruidoso water line The abandonment and relocation of a water line within Eagle Creek.

Requirement by the Dam Safety Bureau after the Little Bear Fire

Yes 5 acres

Village of Ruidoso wells Rehabilitation of North Fork well #4 Yes 0.25 acres

Village of Ruidoso surface diversion Cleaning and maintenance of the Village of Ruidoso surface diversion Yes 1 acre

Village of Ruidoso wells Placement of jersey barriers around National Forest System well #4 

and Green well. New Mexico Environment Department requirement 

for security

Yes 0.5 acres

86 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Project Type/Timing

Within 

Upper Eagle 

Creek 

Drainage?

Approximate 

Acreage/miles 

within Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Drainage

Village of Ruidoso wells Deepening supplemental wells to 1,500 feet Yes 4 acres

Planned activities outside of National 

Forest System lands

State Forestry project Hazardous fuel reduction project planned for 2012–2013 Yes 300 acres

Village of Ruidoso wells Applications to pump from an additional 7 wells, supplemental to the 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

Yes 7 wells

Totals: 

Acreage/miles within Upper Eagle 

Creek Drainage

15 miles of road and trail maintenance

345 acres of past or ongoing ground disturbance due to structures or facilities

6,700 acres of area burned in previous wildfires 

1,861 acres of fuels reduction and firewood treatments (National Forest System lands) 

1,200 acres of state forestry fuels reduction treatments

Approximately 33 municipal water and domestic wells combined 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 87
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Significant Issues 

Water Resources 

The major issue addressed in this section is the effect that well pumping has on hydrologic 

resources in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage, including potential cumulative effects 

downstream in the larger Eagle Creek drainage. This issue encompasses multiple subjects that 

include understanding the connection between the stream, the alluvial aquifer, and the deeper 

groundwater that is extracted by the wells, as well as characterizing the effects that climate 

change may be playing in these processes.

Well pumping results in changes in the dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and 

water table elevations) and surface water (streamflows, wetlands, springs, and seeps). Lowering 

streamflow may increase surface water temperatures, and reduce the amount of water accessible 

to vegetation. Surface water and groundwater availability are linked and are limited not only by 

accessible available quantities of water, but also by available water rights. Water resources over 

time can also be affected by climate change. 

The Water Resources Report (AECOM 2012) provides a more detailed description of affected 

environment, methods, and environmental consequences for this project. The supplemental Water 

Resources Report (AECOM 2014) provides a more detailed description of affected environment, 

methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by the Little Bear 

Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in their 

entirety in the project record. 

Methodology 

The direct effects study area is the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 2) above the Eagle Creek 

gage. The cumulative impacts area extends through the Eagle Creek drainage to the location of 

the former U.S. Geological Survey stream gage named Eagle Creek near Alto, New Mexico 

(Eagle Creek near Alto, U.S. Geological Survey gage number 08387800) (figure 4). This area 

incorporates an additional approximately 7 stream miles of Eagle Creek below the direct effects 

study area.

The cumulative impact area occupies 15.7 square miles (including the project study area) and 

extends into lower elevations than the North Fork drainage. Eagle Creek near Alto gage, now 

discontinued, is located at approximately 6,840 feet above mean sea level. Major water features 

in the cumulative impact area, but outside the direct effects study area, include the Eagle Creek 

surface water diversion for the applicant; lower Eagle Creek; Alto Reservoir; several additional 

municipal water supply wells; and Alto Crest Water Treatment Plant No. 3. The Water Resources 

Report provides more details regarding why this area was selected (AECOM 2012).

Water supply pumping for the applicant is conducted at six water wells along lower Eagle Creek 

(figure 6), and the Village of Ruidoso diverts surface water from the stream a short distance 

below the Eagle Creek gage. Approximately 26 individual homes are located along the North 

Fork and upper Eagle Creek, a number of which are located downstream of the North Fork well 

field. 

The analysis methods we use here are based on a comprehensive review of existing hydrologic 

and geologic reports and memoranda, as well as data available for groundwater depths, aquifer 

88 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

characteristics, streamflows, and water chemistry. From this review, we have ascertained and 

described an understanding of the baseline hydrologic and geologic conditions. We determined 

causes and effects on the hydrologic system for the alternatives on a qualitative or semiquantitative basis. We used descriptive or analytical approaches for this effort, employing existing 

data that include known or assumed characteristics of aquifers, geologic factors, groundwater 

levels, streamflows, channel conditions, surface water and groundwater chemistry, wells, and well 

field pumping. No further groundwater modeling or data collection efforts were undertaken. 

The original impact assessment as documented in the 2012 DEIS was based on carefully-selected 

long-term data that included a pre-pumping baseline period (before the North Fork Eagle Creek 

well field was activated). By using extended periods-of–record in the original assessment, the 

effects of short-term natural variation were minimized when comparing potential pumping 

impacts. Short-term natural variation effects are believed to be substantial in the mountainous 

watershed setting, so the original assessment approach and its impact indicators are judged to 

remain appropriate for longer-term post-wildfire impact comparisons. Given the complications of 

limited post-wildfire data availability and quality, qualitative appraisals have been used as 

necessary in the post-wildfire water resources impact assessment.

We describe direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in terms of duration and extent. Short-term 

impacts include those that would be in effect over a relatively limited duration. For purposes of 

this assessment, short-term refers to a period of approximately 3 months or less. We have 

determined this on the basis of annual seasons and the general responses of surface water and 

groundwater conditions to seasonal variations. In addition, at the fairly high elevations and 

limited fair weather durations in the North Fork, perturbations to water resource conditions may 

have related effects on watershed condition, riparian communities, aquatic resources, and 

recreational uses in a 3-month period or less. We describe long-term impacts as those having 

effects greater than 3 months. Typically for this project, however, long-term impacts would affect 

surface water, groundwater, or their uses by water dependent resources for periods of years. 

We considered context and intensity when describing impacts. An action must be analyzed in 

several contexts—such as the immediate vicinity, affected interests, and locality. Intensity refers 

to the severity of the impact. Thus, we describe impacts in terms of negligible, minor, moderate, 

or substantial. Because of the complexity of the water resources setting and the level of 

quantification available from existing data and information in both the project study area and the 

cumulative impact area, the significance of potential impacts is qualitatively assessed. 

Professional judgment is involved here, with the goal of making an unbiased assessment that 

addresses USDA Forest Service management objectives and the project purpose and need. These 

findings may depart from other determinations based on differing information or viewpoints. 

The spatial extent of potential impacts is described as being site specific, local, and/or regional. 

For the purposes of this assessment, site-specific impacts are those that would occur at the North 

Fork Eagle Creek well field and in the immediate vicinity approximately one-half mile upstream 

(to the North Fork gage) or downstream. Local impacts would extend over the upper Eagle Creek 

drainage, defined as the drainage area upstream of the Eagle Creek gage. The Eagle Creek gage, 

with its long data history and location at the mouth of the drainage, serves as a logical limit of 

focus for local concerns and water resources characterization. Regional impacts would occur 

within the cumulative impact area, as shown in figure 4. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 89
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Updates to Methodology Due to the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire modified watershed conditions in the North Fork of Eagle Creek drainage 

area. Major wildfire effects that influence the water balance of the area include changes in the 

frequencies and magnitudes of surface runoff and groundwater recharge, modified snow 

accumulation and melt, shifts in evapotranspiration rates, and additional sedimentation and debris 

accumulation in the stream channel. Most of these factors will offset each other. However, the 

accumulation and movement of coarse sediment through the North Fork Eagle Creek valley and 

stream system is likely to occur for many years. This will affect the locations and time-spans of 

flow exposure in the open channel. 

Based on recent research, a transient or short-term wildfire recovery period may last roughly 

three to seven years from the summer of 2012 (when the Little Bear Fire occurred). During this 

transition, there is likely to be reduced infiltration, increased surface water runoff, and reduced 

partitioning of precipitation to groundwater recharge. After approximately four to eight years 

following the Little Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally 

resemble the pre-wildfire hydrologic setting.

If long-term stand conversions from coniferous forest to grass or shrubs occur extensively in the 

study area, decreased evapotranspiration could encourage greater water yield. The potential for 

this could be greater if more extensive grassland types become established in the watershed.

Preliminary results from ongoing regional studies also suggest that exceptional monsoonal 

moisture also may provide additional groundwater recharge in some areas where tree cover is 

reduced (Newton et al. 2012a, b). However, the North Fork Eagle Creek has a different geologic 

setting than the area in that investigation, so such recharge may not occur in the project study 

area. In short, once the transitional wildfire recovery period has passed, water yield from the 

North Fork Eagle Creek watershed is expected to be similar or at most, slightly greater than prewildfire conditions. On this basis, long-term post-wildfire impact characterizations are generally 

consistent with the pre-wildfire assessments.

Eventually, post-fire recovery is expected to return to the North Fork project area to approximate 

the pre-fire water resources conditions. For this reason, much of the original pre-fire impact 

assessments remain pertinent to long-term anticipated post-fire effects of the alternatives.

Measurement Indicators

We used the following measurement indicators to compare the potential impacts of implementing 

the alternatives. 

Streamflow Quantity: Compare the estimated durations of no surface flow conditions 

anticipated to occur at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. No-flow 

conditions are defined as 0.01 cubic feet per second or less in the stream at the gage.

Streamflow Quantity: Compare the estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2

cubic feet per second at the Eagle Creek gage during a year of average precipitation. 

Pre-wildfire Streamflow Quality indicator: Based on available surface water and air 

temperature data, analyze the Proposed Action, and compare it with project alternatives, for the 

anticipated occurrence of periods when the mid-day streamflow temperature during the growing 

season (May to October) would exceed 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Eagle 

Creek gage. After the Little Bear Fire, this impact indicator no longer applies. Soil erosion and 

90 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

nutrient changes, organic debris, and sediment and rubble transport will continue to modify North 

Fork Eagle Creek water chemistry, turbidity, and channel geometry (depth, width) over time after 

the wildfire. Based on this, the broad pre-wildfire trends in streamflow temperature at the Eagle 

Creek gage (or other locations) probably would not apply to general post-wildfire conditions, and 

post-wildfire data to modify this indicator are lacking. 

Springs and Seeps: Identify springs and seeps that may be affected by pumping as those within 

the area of projected drawdown (see figure 7 and figure 8).

Domestic Wells: Identify domestic wells that may be affected by pumping as those within the 

area of projected drawdown (see figure 7 and figure 8).

Success of the Alternatives over Time Considering Climate Change: This indicator involves a 

qualitative analysis without significance determination, based on a general review of the 

indicators above under possible climate change effects. Potential effects on water resources from 

climate changes may include reduced basin yield and recharge from changes in rainfall, reduced 

snowpack accumulation, evapotranspiration; more frequent early season snowmelt; later onset of 

winter, reduced seasonal peak flows, and/or shorter flow durations. 

We derived these measurement indicators on the basis of existing data, anticipated future data that 

may result with additional monitoring (see chapter 2), and the management objectives stated in 

more detail in chapter 1 and in the supplemental Water Resources Report (AECOM 2014). These 

indicators are oriented to flow presence in the North Fork, water availability for riparian 

vegetation and aquatic habitat, improving watershed condition, and maintaining domestic water 

uses along the North Fork. 

The climate change indicator was developed in response to USDA Forest Service policy 

requirements (Joyce 2008). It is based on a review of recent research and published agency 

viewpoints for the Southwestern U.S. Currently none of the alternatives are anticipated to have a 

noticeable effect on climate change. Actions that typically may have an effect on climate change 

are generally those that create substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the nature of the well 

field infrastructure (wells, pumps, electrical power, and pipelines), greenhouse gas emissions are 

expected to be negligible. Based on this, the anticipated effects of climate change are oriented to

potential effects on the project alternatives, rather than potential effects from the project 

alternatives.

We provide more detail regarding the rationale for the selection of these measurement indicators, 

and why others were not used, in the Water Resources Report (AECOM 2012) and supplemental 

Water Resources Report (AECOM 2014). We document below the process used to review each of 

these indicators following the Little Bear Fire. 

Updates to Measurement Indicators Due to the Little Bear Fire 

We reviewed fire effects on stream gage conditions and data records, of monitoring well data 

records, of precipitation data and well field pumping records. Sediment and debris adversely 

affected data collections at streamgages, and either wildfire effects and/or access restrictions 

appear to have adversely affected some of the monitoring well data. Interruptions in electrical 

power sources for data logging equipment may also have resulted from the Little Bear Fire. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 91
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In re-examining water resources impact indicators, an effort was made to compare pre-wildfire 

streamflow and monitoring well conditions to similar post-wildfire conditions. This effort was 

limited by the short post-wildfire data record, by compromised or missing data, and by the 

considerable natural variation of precipitation inputs to the hydrologic system over the relatively 

short pre-wildfire versus post-wildfire comparison periods. As described in more detail in 

AECOM 2014, periods selected for attempted comparisons of wildfire effects focused on 

generally similar precipitation inputs for a 2- or 3-month, season when stream flows would 

primarily reflect groundwater conditions, and lesser evapotranspiration effects. Based on this 

detailed exercise and other similar reviews, no consistent comparative impact indicators were 

developed for pre-wildfire versus post-wildfire conditions. In addition, the post-wildfire

watershed recovery period, estimated at approximately 3 to 7 years after the summer of 2012, is 

temporary enough to have minimal influence on the alternatives or decision-making. 

For these reasons, the original water resources impact indicators, with the exception of the 

streamflow water quality indicator, are valid for longer-term post-wildfire conditions. The former 

streamflow water quality indicator is not likely to apply either to short-term or long-term postwildfire conditions, since the North Fork Eagle Creek channel will transport and re-work 

sediment and debris for a considerable number of years. In the short-term, additional nutrient 

content in surface flows may enhance aquatic habitat conditions for some species. As stream 

deposits are re-worked over the long-term, additional turbidity and suspended organic carbon and 

silt will likely increase surface water temperatures and reduce oxygen availability as a result of 

the fire. Such re-working will likely occur periodically over the long term, due to intense rainfall 

or snowmelt events. During relatively stable interim periods, however, parts of the channel could 

reflect water quality similar to that before the fire. These areas would be pools and riffles that 

form and change over time as the channel geometry adjusts.

Incomplete or Unavailable Data

Although a substantial amount of surface water and groundwater data are available in the study 

area and the cumulative impact area, much of these data are sparse and/or have been retrieved at 

different times and locations. This prevents a thorough understanding of the hydrologic systems 

involved. In addition, some factors of interest (such as water quality) simply have too little data 

for anything other than cursory interpretations. The North Fork Eagle Creek hydrologic system is 

complex, and varies from season to season, from year to year, and from place to place. 

Characterizing this system by itself, as well as in the light of manmade perturbations, requires a 

consistent and extensive dataset both temporally and spatially. Information lacking in the water 

resources data and analysis include water quantity and quality information for surface water and 

groundwater; further definition of water-bearing zone characteristics; and a strong definition of 

the temporal and spatial relationships between pumping activities, groundwater levels in the 

various zones, and the extent, magnitudes, and durations of surface flows. We describe 

monitoring methods in chapter 2 that satisfy these information needs.

Updates to Incomplete and Unavailable Data Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Several factors complicated the original pre-wildfire assessment; and comparisons between 

pumping conditions and time periods were configured to treat these factors as similarly as 

possible between the pre-pumping period and subsequent pumping periods. Uncertainties in the 

approaches and the assessment results were clearly spelled out in previous resource 

documentation. It must be emphasized that impact assessments are founded on making 

comparisons between an undisturbed “baseline” condition (e.g., no pumping) and the potential 

92 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

disturbance being considered (e.g., pumping). If possible, comparisons should account for other 

variables in a consistent manner from one case to another. To encourage this, available data 

should be treated and used similarly across comparisons unless departures can be accurately 

defined. For example, in the pre-pumping data for Eagle Creek (approximately 1980 and earlier), 

there are no separate data available for flows from the South Fork tributary. South Fork 

contributions are essentially a random signal in that data set. In fact, South Fork flows are 

reflected in all Eagle Creek flow data. Specific South Fork data are only available for four years 

beginning in September 2007, approximately 30 years after the onset of pumping. For purposes of 

comparisons, removing the South Fork contribution from the Eagle Creek confluence gage data 

would require a convincing and accurate approach to projecting those tributary flows back to 

other time periods considered in the assessment (e.g., the baseline period, and other periods 

before September 2007). Such an approach would need to consistently explain what happens to 

South Fork flows when they are greater than the Eagle Creek flows, which occurs almost as 

frequently as the lesser condition, and then treat (i.e., modify) all data through time with a 

consistent and convincing quantification of tributary watershed responses and variations in 

gaging conditions. Or, impact comparisons could (and did) treat South Fork contributions to the 

Eagle Creek gage consistently, as essentially a random signal in all the downstream flow data 

used in the assessment.

Alluvial underflow at the surface water gages is probably a factor influencing Eagle Creek 

streamflow records. After the original water resources impact assessments were completed in 

2011, the USDA Forest Service and AECOM learned from the Village of Ruidoso that the Eagle 

Creek gage had been moved downstream from its original location in the mid-1980s. The original 

gaging site is not specifically known. More importantly, it is not known if alluvial underflow at 

the old U.S. Geological Survey gage location was greater than, less than, or equal to conditions at 

the new location. For this and other data-based reasons, uncertainties and approximations in the 

assessments were identified in the pre-wildfire water resources text. The Little Bear Fire has not 

changed those. Uncertainty remains as to the long-term average groundwater recharge volume in 

the North Fork Eagle Creek basin. This is discussed in greater detail in other sections, in the U.S. 

Geological Survey project study (Matherne et. al. 2011), in several consulting documents, and in 

the alternatives discussion section in chapter 2 of the DEIS and SDEIS. This uncertainty is largely 

caused by year-to-year natural variation, and by differences in measurement and estimation 

techniques between investigators. The Little Bear Fire has not modified that situation. 

During supplemental document preparation following the occurrence of the Little Bear Fire, 

additional background information was collected from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Western 

Regional Climate Center, the Village of Ruidoso (including Shomaker and Associates and others), 

and Balleau Groundwater (Balleau 2014). Information provided by the Village of Ruidoso 

consisted of water level data collected from ongoing measurements at monitoring wells along the 

North Fork Eagle Creek, daily pumping records for recent years, and a summary of water supply 

issues related to the Little Bear Fire (Peery 2013, Atkins 2014). Information from the U.S. 

Geological Survey consisted of their post-wildfire debris flow probability report (Tillery and 

Matherne 2013) as well as additional monitoring data for streamflow and local precipitation.

Western Regional Climate Center information consisted of additional precipitation, snowfall, and 

temperature data for recent years. This additional information is largely discussed in the previous 

supplemental Affected Environment text. 

Reduced water quality and debris flows resulting from the Little Bear Fire adversely affected 

Village surface diversions and storage facilities. Significant sediment as well as suspended and 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 93
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

dissolved organic matter prevented surface water treatment. In addition, reduced aquifer recharge 

adversely affected the North Fork Eagle Creek well field capacity (Atkins 2014). New pump 

installations were completed in North Fork wells NF-1 and NF-4 to maintain sufficient 

groundwater supply in light of these issues. Reduced surface water and groundwater production 

along Eagle Creek also created the need by the Village of Ruidoso to increase diversions of both 

surface water and groundwater from the Rio Ruidoso. Surface water from that source was 

similarly contaminated by the Little Bear Fire, or was unavailable due to drought. At the same 

time, water for the Village of Ruidoso in storage at Grindstone Reservoir was at historic lows 

(Atkins 2014). After the recent drought and the Little Bear Fire, surface water diverted from 

Eagle Creek has been non-existent or extremely polluted with ash and silt during flash flood 

events (Atkins 2014). This water is not treatable in the Village of Ruidoso’s existing facilities.

Since 1966, the Village of Ruidoso has been authorized by the New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer (Office of the State Engineer) to divert part of its water supply from the Rio Ruidoso by 

discharging (“returning”) treated municipal wastewater to that stream. Some of that discharged 

water is originally diverted from the Eagle Creek drainage (both surface water and groundwater) 

for Village supply. The surface water diversion on Eagle Creek is downstream of the North Fork 

Eagle Creek; currently used water wells are both within and downstream of the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. After use and treatment, Eagle Creek water is released to the Rio Ruidoso for effluent 

credits, allowing additional diversion from the latter system. All of these diversion points and 

wells are metered, and daily readings are reported monthly to the Office of the State Engineer. 

The Rio Ruidoso has greater surface water and groundwater availability, and is a primary source 

of Village supply. Additional details on Village water supplies are presented in the Water Rights 

and Socioeconomics reports. 

The Little Bear Fire reduced the Village’s ability to divert adequate supplies from the Eagle Creek 

drainage and maintain return flow credits on the Rio Ruidoso. Historically, water from the North 

Fork Eagle Creek well field has significantly contributed to the Eagle Creek/Rio Ruidoso credits 

(Atkins 2014). To meet municipal demand under the post-wildfire circumstances, the Village has 

relied on basic water rights to divert from the Rio Ruidoso system. These basic rights are being 

depleted at a rate that will exhaust them well before the end of their associated five-year 

accounting period ending on October 31, 2016 (Atkins 2014). By October 31, 2013, the Village 

of Ruidoso’s five-year basic rights accounting totals on the Rio Ruidoso had been substantially 

expended. At that time, basic water rights remaining for diversion in the Rio Ruidoso drainage 

had been depleted to only 865 acre-feet for the remainder of the accounting period. The Village 

will have diverted all of its basic rights on the Rio Ruidoso by approximately the end of August 

2014 (Atkins 2014). 

In addition to these supply concerns, the need to lease and temporarily move water rights has 

created additional costs to the Village for the leases, Office of the State Engineer permitting, and 

related litigation. The Village anticipates that a number of years will pass before the Little Bear 

Fire effects are sufficiently reduced to allow a return to full use of Eagle Creek surface water and 

groundwater, as well as diversion credits for return flows on the Rio Ruidoso. A substantial 

contributor to the Eagle Creek/Rio Ruidoso credits historically has been the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field (Atkins 2014).

The Village of Ruidoso continues to rely on the Eagle Creek well field and drainage area for its 

water supply. Following a Memorandum of Agreement and settlement with Rio Hondo Land and 

Cattle Company, the Village’s right to water diversion within the drainage consists of 

94 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

approximately 1,624 acre-feet per year of groundwater, approximately 761 acre-feet per year of 

surface water, and supplemental groundwater from all Eagle Creek wells on and off National 

Forest System lands. In addition, the Village has an approximately 137 acre-feet per year 

groundwater right in the H-1497 and S wells, for a total of approximately 2,523 acre-feet per 

year, plus return flow credit from diversion of approximately 2,386 acre-feet per year. Some of 

these water rights have priority dates as early as 1882 (Atkins 2014).

Information provided by Balleau Groundwater, Inc. further described the local and regional 

groundwater modeling work being done by that firm. Preliminary simulations conducted by 

Balleau Groundwater for long-term post-wildfire conditions indicate that pumping the North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells for a 20-year period would create drawdown and stream depletions at the well 

field. The potential for more extensive regional pumping effects was also discussed in Balleau 

Groundwater investigations and supporting material (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2013). 

If the Forest Service approved a special use permit allowing North Fork Eagle Creek well field

pumping, an important tool resulting from the Balleau Groundwater modeling work is that, over 

the post-wildfire long term, North Fork Eagle Creek well field pumping rate and North Fork 

Eagle Creek stream depletion can be correlated. Their modeling indicated a time-lag (in years) 

between pumping adjustments and water levels in the well field; in addition, some simulations of 

well field management indicated dry conditions along the North Fork Eagle Creek much of the 

time (Balleau 2014).

The cumulative study area for water resources was determined by reviewing available

streamgaging data along the Eagle Creek drainage, the increasing complexity of the geologic and 

water resources setting at greater distances from the mountain front, the availability of data within 

that setting, and the substantial expansion of water uses and returns, water rights, infrastructure, 

and related data requirements downstream of National Forest System lands. The USDA Forest 

Service has no jurisdiction for permits, monitoring, or mitigation outside its own boundaries. So, 

while water use and supply issues are regional concerns in south-central New Mexico, they are 

difficult to address due to USDA Forest Service jurisdictional issues. 

It should be noted that there are considerable differences of opinion between credible, qualified 

water resource specialists about the potential effects of pumping the North Fork Eagle Creek well 

field. For example, see the discussions in this report under “Extent of Pumping Drawdown” and 

“Mountain-Front Recharge. Other investigators note that assumptions used in calculating stream 

depletions frequently lead to overstating actual effects, and that lack of data often leads to overlyconservative analysis (Finch 2014). Because of these discussions, an additional measure to 

include groundwater model development, calibration, and application through stakeholder 

cooperation has been added to chapter 2 of the EIS (see “Monitoring; Water Resources and 

Fisheries; Item 8). If implemented, that measure would enhance the potential for informed well 

field management if a special use permit is issued by the Forest Service. 

This recommended modeling measure would likely provide valuable management tools. If 

implemented, modeling would require cooperative development and documentation of the inputs, 

the calibration criteria, and the interpretation of outputs for well field management purposes. 

Other recommended adaptive management practices, monitoring, and mitigation measures (see 

chapter 2) would be implemented during the modeling timeframe if a special use permit for 

continued pumping is approved through a selected alternative. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 95
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Pre-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment

Climate and Geology 

The study area encompasses approximately 8.1 square miles and has a total relief of over 2,900 

feet. The North Fork drainage covers an area of 5.3 square miles and confluences with Eagle 

Creek just upstream from the Eagle Creek gage at 7,610 feet in elevation. It is a steep-sided 

drainage (slopes approaching 50 percent in areas) consisting of evergreen forest, with a riparian 

corridor up to several hundred feet wide that flanks the stream channel in the lower reaches near 

the confluence with the South Fork (Matherne et al. 2011) (We describe riparian vegetation more 

fully in the “Riparian Vegetation” section of this chapter). North Fork Eagle Creek stream 

channel gradient ranges from over 1,400 feet of rise per mile of run (27 percent slope) in the 

headwater reaches to less than 190 feet per mile (4 percent) in the lower reaches. The average 

gradient along the North Fork channel upstream from the confluence as defined by the U.S. 

Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic map is approximately 470 feet per mile (9 percent).

Precipitation varies with altitude, varying from an average 37 inches per year or more at the 

Sierra Blanca climate station (10,280 feet above mean sea level) to 14 inches per year at Fort 

Stanton climate station (6,220 feet above mean sea level) and lower averages at other stations at 

lower elevations (Matherne et al. 2011, Western Regional Climate Center 2011). Precipitation 

consists mainly of winter snow and summer monsoonal rains. On average, 65 percent of the 

annual precipitation falls as monsoonal rains from mid-June through October. Precipitation not 

only varies significantly by elevation and time of year, but also from year to year. The Ruidoso 

climatic station (6,930 feet above mean sea level) averaged 21.8 inches per year from 1942 

through 2010, with a range of values from 34.81 inches (1965) to 12.27 inches (1970) (National 

Climatic Data Center 2010, Western Regional Climate Center 2010). 

The study area lies within the Sierra Blanca Structural Basin with Permian and Cretaceous 

sedimentary rocks that are overlain by up to 3,000 feet of Tertiary volcanic flows and flow 

breccias. The lower part of the North Fork drainage is comprised of the Tertiary Sierra Blanca 

volcanics, which consist of andesitic lava flows and pyroclastic deposits up to 3,000 feet thick 

(Matherne et al. 2011, Rawling 2009, Allen and Kottlowski 1981). 

The geology underlying the alluvium and volcanic rocks is not well defined. Outside the study 

area but within the cumulative impacts area, significant geologic changes occur along the reach 

between Alto Reservoir and the old gage location (see figure 4 where there is a substantial 

geologic fault system – the Ruidoso Fault Zone (Rawling 2009).

Based on data compilation and evaluation of the best available information (as described in detail 

in AECOM 2012), the Tertiary volcanics are fractured and there may be a number of major 

fracture sets that have not been previously recognized in field mapping. These fractures have the 

potential to control groundwater flow and may allow for connection between groundwater in the 

Tertiary volcanics and surface waterflow in the North Fork. 

Groundwater

The groundwater system in the North Fork drainage consists of a fractured volcanic rock aquifer 

overlain in some locations by discontinuous alluvial aquifer along the North Fork. The volcanic 

aquifer outcrops in the area near and directly downstream of the North Fork gage. The alluvial 

aquifer is present where the river valley widens in the general area of the village well field, 

96 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

beginning near the location of monitoring well MW-1A and extending to the confluence with the 

South Fork with volcanic bedrock outcrops in areas below the well field forcing any alluvial 

water to the stream.

Both the volcanic system and the alluvial system are recharged by streamflow. The volcanic 

system is recharged through fracture zones in outcrops along the stream channel, including near 

the North Fork gage. Recharge of the alluvial system in the area of the well field exhibits some 

amount of dependence upon whether the volcanic aquifer’s water level is depressed. If the water 

level is depressed, a streamflow between 0.8 and 1.2 cubic feet per second is necessary to 

overcome the induced infiltration occurring at the volcanic outcrop before alluvial recharge can 

occur. The alluvial system easily transmits water horizontally, where it discharges back to the 

stream in the form of base flow, but does not readily transmit water vertically into the underlying 

volcanic aquifer.

The aquifer tests of the volcanic system by Atkins-Landfair (1985) and Shomaker (1989) have 

yielded a range of estimates for the hydraulic properties of the village well field along the North 

Fork. The best estimate for transmissivity seems to be in the range of 1,200 to 1,500 feet squared 

per day. This is the range found in the reanalysis of the Atkins-Landfair (1985) data and in the one 

radial flow plot found by Shomaker (1989). The storage coefficient estimates range from 0.0001 

to 0.006. Probably, the best estimate is in the range of 0.001 to 0.002. 

The Village of Ruidoso wells in the volcanic aquifer show both radial flow and fracture flow. 

Most of the wells show fracture flow early in the drawdown history and this can change over to 

radial flow with time. The key is the proximity of the well to a fracture and whether the well is a 

pumping or monitor well. As noted by Shomaker (1989), fracture flow will give way to radial 

flow as water is drained from the fracture. In a few cases, we noticed the unit slope on a radial 

flow plot and this can be interpreted as indicating a boundary condition that forces the well to 

draw water from the aquifer as if it were draining a closed volume. Because of the limited 

duration of the pumping tests, the different screened intervals within the volcanic aquifer for the 

village wells, the dominant effect of fracture flow, and the fact that none of the village wells are 

fully penetrating, we should view any interpretation of boundary effects with caution. The aquifer 

in the Tertiary volcanics is not confined, is not homogeneous, and does not meet the limiting 

assumptions used in developing type curves for the hydraulic properties of an aquifer. Thus, the 

results of the aquifer tests by Atkins-Landfair (1985) and Shomaker (1989) need to be used with 

caution and treated as a general approximation of the behavior of the aquifer in the Tertiary 

volcanics in response to pumping. Storage in fractured volcanic aquifers is generally lower than 

for porous media equivalents, with the exception of the upper weathered zone; and though the 

hydraulic conductivity may be high, a unit volume of such an aquifer only holds a small 

percentage of water.

Multiple springs and seeps have been mapped or documented in the study area and are depicted 

on figure 8. These range in elevation from 8,020 feet to nearly 8,400 feet. A group of springs are 

present near the summer home area just upstream of well DW-3 along the North Fork and another 

group approximately 0.25 mile up the side canyon that enters from the southwest in that area. A 

spring is located in Telephone Canyon, Carlton Canyon, and two in the South Fork drainage 

(USDA Forest Service 2007, Chaves County District Court 1979). These springs may or may not 

be connected to the more extensive groundwater system that provides stream base flows, 

depending on whether they are associated with a perched aquifer; more information is necessary 

to determine this.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 97
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Surface Water

North Fork Eagle Creek is classified on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic map 

as an intermittent stream, which indicates flow during wet seasons and times when the 

groundwater table is higher than the stream, contributing to the surface flow. In its upper reaches 

upstream of the North Fork well field, perennial streamflow conditions are maintained in years of 

average and higher precipitations by springs fed by groundwater (Matherne et al. 2011). Both the 

South Fork and Eagle Creek below the confluence were originally classified as perennial streams 

with year-round flow (U.S. Geological Survey 1963). In general, at the well field and 

downstream, the North Fork Eagle Creek flowed intermittently in most years prior to pumping. 

The extent and duration of surface flow has since been reduced along the North Fork by pumping. 

We ascertained general relationships between flow in the North Fork and pumping using 

consistent, fairly long-term data periods. These are summarized below from the preceding text 

sections, but described in detail in AECOM (2012).

We derived water balance estimates and reviewed flow frequencies for three separate time periods 

of the same length before the Little Bear Fire. The first time period, from 1971 to 1980, was a 

period prior to the Village of Ruidoso’s well field installation. This period’s overall precipitation 

was slightly above average based on regional meteorological data. The second time period, from 

1989 to 1998, was after the village had begun pumping. The overall precipitation for this second 

period was again slightly above average. The third period, from 2000 to 2010 (excluding water 

year 2005 due to a lack of gaging data) was a period of pumping during overall below average 

precipitation. Severe back-to-back drought years and a few wet years characterized this latter 

period. 

We made general qualitative comparisons between these pre-wildfire periods from the water 

balance approximations, as follows. 

When comparing the first two periods—where the major difference in watershed conditions was 

the onset of well field pumping—the latter period (with pumping) shows somewhat reduced 

overall streamflow, reduced average base flow, and an increase in total estimated average 

recharge plus pumping. These conclusions are consistent with independent findings by Finch et 

al. (2004) and Balleau Groundwater (2004).

The last period (2000–2010) indicates generally lower average basin yield than the preceding 

periods, due to droughty conditions in the late 1990s/early 2000s and vacillating wet/dry 

conditions later in the period. During this back-and-forth climatic condition, mean annual base 

flows generally appear to decline still further when compared to the previous two periods. 

Similarly, further reduction in overall mean annual streamflow has apparently occurred, beyond 

the amount that might be anticipated by reduced basin yield. However, this is complicated by the 

occurrence of drought. 

Complicating factors in the water balances mainly include: estimating basinwide precipitation 

from point precipitation data, potential changes in forest canopy evapotranspiration over time, 

and relocation of the Eagle Creek stream gage in 1988 to a site that may allow more alluvial 

underflow. In addition, there may be a slight regional groundwater effect from snowmaking 

withdrawals at Ski Apache wells in the nearby Rio Ruidoso watershed. Basinwide precipitation 

estimates were derived consistently for all of the time periods examined. Forest canopy changes 

are known to have occurred since the late 1800s; the change between analysis periods beginning 

in 1971 is unknown. The stream gage relocation may have had a slight effect on flow 

98 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

measurements; more information on this would be needed if future flow monitoring is done. 

While it is possible that there may be interbasin groundwater transfer (based on the nature of the 

fractured volcanic aquifer), the fact that Ski Apache wells are outside the Eagle Creek watershed 

reduces the likelihood that those diversions have affected flow at the Eagle Creek gage. While 

these factors and others contribute some quantitative uncertainty to the comparisons, well field

pumping remains the dominant hydrologic influence between comparison periods. 

In general, some reduction in streamflows and increases in recharge factors result on the North 

Fork from pumping during average to wet years. These effects are somewhat moderated during 

multiple years of average or greater precipitation. During drought years or more extended dry 

periods, pumping effects on North Fork streamflows and groundwater conditions are more 

noticeable. In either case, the greatest pumping influences on surface water, over longer periods 

of time, appear to be on the occurrence of lower flow rates in the North Fork. These flows in 

particular are reduced so that the presence of water in deeper pools, or in isolated stream portions 

that flow over bedrock, is less likely now than before pumping began. 

We did not discover any direct correlation between pumping and streamflow over shorter time 

steps (e.g. daily, weekly or monthly), even when considering multiple variables, as discussed in 

more detail in AECOM (2012). This result is likely due to data limitations and the wide variation 

in hydrologic factors at shorter time periods. 

Streamflow and Pumping Correlation Based on Geology and Water Chemistry

We evaluated the potential effect of village well pumping on North Fork streamflow through 

examination of the village wells, the geology of the North Fork area, the aquifer properties of the 

Tertiary volcanics, and the chemistry of surface and groundwater. We discuss this approach in 

detail in AECOM (2012). We describe conclusions from this evaluation here.

The study of Finch et al. (2004) of monitored flow along the North Fork Eagle Creek shortly after 

the village wells had been shut off and were recovering, showed a definite loss of streamflow in 

the range of 0.3 to 0.69 cubic feet per second while the water table was depressed over 200 feet 

below the base of the stream. This study used five flow measurement locations along the stream 

reach near the village wells. Flow measurement techniques were not documented, but results 

suggest streamflow loss by induced infiltration. This hypothesis would be consistent with the 

geology of the North Fork area and also the water chemistry. Matherne et al. (2011) also showed 

that there are periods when the water table in the volcanics can rise even when the village wells 

are pumping and conversely, the water table can fall when the village wells are not pumping. This 

suggests that the key to streamflow loss along the North Fork is the depth of the water table 

below the base of the stream. The village wells can certainly affect the water table depth when 

they are pumping, but other factors can depress the water table, even when the wells have been 

shut off. 

Balleau and Silver (2010) estimated the potential base flow capture by the village wells by 

comparing prepumping flows along the North Fork as recorded at the Eagle Creek gage with 

flows since the onset on pumping and for the period from approximately 1989 to 2010. Their 

analysis showed that the wells capture about 0.7 cubic feet per second of flow along the North 

Fork on an average annual basis. The maximum capture would be the pumping rate, which is 

approximately 0.8 cubic feet per second on an average annual basis (Balleau and Silver 2010).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 99
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Geochemistry of Surface and Groundwater 

Groundwater tapped by village wells NF-4 and NF-3 and the monitor wells MW-4B and MW-4C 

near these village wells is distinct from groundwater tapped by village wells NF-1 and NF-2 and 

the monitor wells MW-1B and MW-1C. This may be due to the somewhat deeper well screens in 

NF-4 and NF-3 and their associated monitor wells. NF-1 (as shown in figure 8) has never been 

used by the applicant; it is not equipped nor tied into the main line and it does not have power. 

If there is any interaction between surface water and groundwater along the North Fork, it is near 

village well NF-1. Groundwater near this well may be the result of infiltration of surface water 

and reaction of the surface water with the minerals in the surrounding rock. Groundwater near 

NF-4 does not interact with surface water, except possibly in MW-4B due to a fault that connects 

to lower Carlton Canyon (Matherne et al. 2011). Groundwater along the North Fork has an 

isotope signature for deuterium and oxygen-18 that is distinct from surface water; deuterium and 

oxygen-18 isotopes suggest that surface water does not directly recharge groundwater. The 

isotope signatures are distinctly different, even though groundwater is mostly less than 30 years 

old. 

Domestic and Municipal Water Use

Downstream from the North Fork, the majority of water rights along Eagle Creek are for 

domestic and municipal uses, with some irrigation use and a few commercial uses. Surface 

diversions have historically occurred just outside the study area downstream on Eagle Creek 

below the confluence of the North and South Forks prior to 1985 and through to present time. 

Existing water rights in the project area are discussed in more detail in the “Water Rights” section 

later in this chapter.

Roughly 20–30 individual domestic water wells occur in the upper Eagle Creek drainage and 6 of 

these are located in the Eagle Creek summer home area upstream from the North Fork well field

(Medlock 2011 and Forest Service files). The available well log information indicates that, for 

wells along the North Fork with recorded construction details, recent installations were completed 

in fractured basalt zones at depths ranging from about 50 to 60 feet, or through to deeper zones 

ranging from about 160 to 180 feet. Additional information (Midkiff 2002) indicates that some of 

the early private wells along Eagle Creek Canyon Road were originally less than 100 feet deep. 

Other early wells were about 110-feet deep (H. Puckett in Medlock 2011). Since the late 1990s, 

several historic wells have been deepened to between 200 to 400 feet (Midkiff 2002). Some wells 

may have shallower or deeper source zones. Original estimated yields varied broadly, on the order 

of 5 to 25 gallons per minute, and some wells may still deliver in the higher range of these yields. 

Substantial declines in well yields were noted around the year 2002 (Midkiff 2002).

It is assumed that most of the homes along the North Fork use septic systems. Self-supplied 

domestic demands for homes on septic systems are about 44 gallons per capita per day (New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer 2005). Assuming 3 individuals year around for each of 26 

assumed homes in the vicinity of the North Fork well field, the total demand from domestic wells 

would be approximately 1.25 million gallons per year (about 3.8 acre-feet per year). This is a 

negligible amount in comparison to well field pumping. 

Village of Ruidoso Water Supply 

The Village of Ruidoso water supply system provides supply from two subwatersheds, Devils 

Canyon (Eagle Creek) and Upper Rio Ruidoso, through surface water diversion and groundwater 

100 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

pumping in both. These two subwatersheds are both part of the larger Pecos River basin. The 

delivery system infrastructure consists of 2 raw water reservoirs, 2 surface water treatment plants, 

and 18 permitted wells, of which 11 are active wells, capable of together producing peak capacity 

of approximately 6 million gallons per day (Wilson and Company et al. 2005). Groundwater is 

combined with surface water at Alto Lake Reservoir and piped to the Alto Crest Water Treatment 

Plant (WTP 3) and treated before being pumped into the system. Potable water production from 

Alto Crest WTP 3 varies depending upon water demands from the system, averaging as much as 

2.3 million gallons per day (7.06 acre-feet/day), or as little as 0.5 million gallons per day (1.53 

acre-feet/day) for water supply (Wilson and Company et al. 2005). 

The Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage includes surface water from the 

Eagle Creek surface diversion (just downstream from the Eagle Creek gage), the four North Fork 

wells (although NF-1 is not used and is not tied into the system), four supplemental wells to the 

North Fork wells (located near Alto Lake), and both the brown well and green well (located near 

the surface diversion). Figure 6 illustrates this system. We provide more details regarding both the 

Eagle Creek and Rio Ruidoso water supply in AECOM (2012), the socioeconomics report 

(Eichman 2012), and the water rights report (Thompson 2012). Both the “Socioeconomics” and 

“Water Rights” sections of this chapter provide additional information regarding municipal water 

supply. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 101
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 6. Village of Ruidoso water supply in the Eagle Creek drainage

102 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Watershed Condition Classification

Regionally, watershed conditions have been recently classified by the USDA Forest Service 

according to a nationwide Agency program (the “Watershed Condition Framework,” USDA 

Forest Service 2011a) and its associated protocols (Potyondy and Geier 2011). Objectives of the 

program include integrating ecosystem-based approaches to managing watersheds; improving 

efforts to restore watersheds and aquatic habitats; and enabling priority-based resource allocations 

for restoration efforts. This program establishes a consistent approach to watershed assessment. 

Twelve indicators are scored (either good, fair, or poor and then averaged) by multidisciplinary 

agency teams, and used to classify watershed condition. These indicators represent underlying 

ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions and processes that can affect watershed 

condition. The major program emphasis is on aquatic and terrestrial processes and conditions that 

Forest Service management activities can influence on National Forest System lands (USDA 

Forest Service 2011a, Potyondy and Geier 2011).

These average scores are then further averaged between indicators to ultimately arrive at an 

overall score by which to assign watershed condition classes 1, 2, or 3 as follows: 

• Class 1 (functioning properly) scores of 1 to 1.6; 

• Class 2 (functioning at risk) scores from 1.7 to 2.2; and 

• Class 3 (impaired function) scores from 2.3 to 3 (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

Based on the “Watershed Condition Framework,” the North Fork and South Fork drainage areas 

on National Forest System lands have been classified as impaired function (USDA Forest Service 

2011b, Banks 2011). Watersheds classified at impaired function exhibit low geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition (Potyondy and Geier 

2011). Typically such drainages have exceeded some physical, hydrological, or biological 

threshold, and substantial changes to the factors that caused the degraded state are needed to 

restore proper functioning condition (Potyondy and Geier 2011). On National Forest System

lands in the study area, the lowest relative scores were received for aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, 

riparian/wetland vegetation, fire regime, and terrestrial invasive species.

Regional Extent of Pumping Drawdown 

Information from the U.S. Geological Survey and other investigators (Finch et. al. 2004, Balleau 

Groundwater 2004, Midkiff 2002) show that when groundwater is pumped from the North Fork 

wells, a temporary decline in the water table results, creating a cone of depression around the 

wells. This cone of depression deepens water levels in both the alluvium and underlying 

volcanics. Pumping and streamflow are related, in that pumping near a stream will deplete surface 

flows in a porous channel setting. This effect occurs within the North Fork Eagle Creek. As a 

result, the intermittent (seasonal) flows or pools that historically occurred from a short distance 

above the well field downstream to the Eagle Creek gage have been reduced in magnitude and 

extent by pumping. These effects are more pronounced during dry seasons or dry years. However, 

the degree of these connections and the nature of groundwater flow paths are complex in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek study area and have not been fully characterized. For this reason, the 

actual extent of long-term drawdown from pumping is unknown, as are the details of pumping 

effects on streamflows and groundwater levels. These conditions have been estimated by the 

investigations described above. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 103
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Because of the fractured nature of the Tertiary volcanics and limiting factors on drawdown 

migration, such as the Bonito Lake stock, estimating the approximate regional extent of 

drawdown due to Village well pumping requires simplifying assumptions. Balleau Groundwater 

(2004) developed some hypothetical cases for possible drawdown migration. One of those cases 

simulated the aquifer system with a line barrier boundary 1,100 feet northwest of the well field 

and a line recharge boundary (Eagle Creek) 5,000 feet southwest. Recharge and barrier 

boundaries were modeled to restrict north-south migration of the cone of influence. The aquifer 

was simulated with transmissivity of 1,250 feet per day, and it was assumed that there was no 

surface water capture. The well field was simulated to pump 570 acre-feet per year for 15 years. 

Resulting drawdown was about 40 feet at the well field at 15 years (Balleau Groundwater 2004). 

In actuality, the Tertiary volcanics in the area of the Village well field along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek are fractured, very heterogeneous, and the wells pump from different horizons within 

the volcanics. To develop an analytical model for estimating the regional effect of pumping on 

water levels in the volcanics requires the following assumptions: 1) the aquifer in the volcanics is 

homogenous and isotropic; 2) the Village wells pump from the same level in the volcanics and 

thus tap the same aquifer; and 3) the aquifer properties determined from pumping tests where 

radial flow was evident in some wells apply to all wells – thus ignoring the role of fracture flow. 

In addition, Balleau Groundwater (2004) assumed the volcanic aquifer was confined, when in fact 

it is unconfined.

Under current data conditions, analytical models of regional drawdown effects include a number 

of assumptions that produce different estimates of regional drawdown caused by the Village 

wells. From a data perspective, the U.S. Geological Survey made observations of drawdown 

during two separate occasions; these results are presented in figure 7, and have been projected on 

an area basis for this assessment in figure 8. 

Although a projected drawdown is indicated on figure 7 and figure 8, it must be recognized that 

with the existing monitoring data and available modeling inputs, there are substantial 

uncertainties in predicting groundwater drawdown in this hydrologic system under various 

conditions of pumping and precipitation. 

Based on the information available, the projection based on observed drawdown is of interest for 

ascertaining effects on springs, water available for riparian vegetation, and domestic well 

pumping. That drawdown is anticipated to remain within the Eagle Creek drainage. 

Pumping drawdown may be more extensive than indicated in figure 7 and figure 8, based on 

results of predictive groundwater models (Balleau Groundwater 2004). However, if a projected 

10-foot drawdown contour is accepted as reasonable sensitivity when making comparisons of 

pumping effects, then other existing modeling work indicates that the maximum extent of the 10-

foot drawdown impacts due to Village well pumping is limited to the Eagle Creek drainage. 

There are differences of opinion between investigators regarding the influence on water levels 

between regional (i.e., background) recharge versus induced (from pumping) recharge during 

monitoring. In addition, the monitoring that resulted in the ascertained cone of depression during 

the U.S. Geological Survey investigation took place after a major recharge period. Above-average 

precipitation occurred in the 2 years preceding the monitoring, and storms associated with 

Hurricane Dolly contributed to the flood of late July 2008. Monitored water levels continued to 

rise until winter in spite of continued pumping (Matherne et al. 2011). Then in March 2009, the 

104 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

stream channel was dry from a point just below Domestic Well #3 (DW-3) downstream to 

immediately above the Eagle Creek gage (Matherne et al. 2011). 

Based on field surveys and monitoring measurements, the U.S. Geological Survey is reasonably 

certain that the North Fork gage is outside the zone of influence of well field pumping. A number 

of other features, namely domestic wells, springs, and zones of existing or potential riparian 

habitat, occur outside the drawdown identified in U.S. Geological Survey monitoring. For 

purposes of assessing potential impacts, the observed and projected drawdown in figure 7 and 

figure 8 are thought to be appropriate. As indicated on figure 8, two springs, one in Carlton 

Canyon and another in an unnamed tributary to the South Fork, occur within the projected 

drawdown based on the U.S. Geological Survey observations. 

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Prior to the establishment of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, the volume of water 

withdrawn for use in the North Fork drainage was minimal. No municipal groundwater pumping 

occurred on the North Fork prior to 1985, when water rights were exercised by the applicant to 

construct the well field. 

Although actual data that characterized the prepumping conditions is limited to stream gage data 

at the Eagle Creek gage, there are multiple sources for personal accounts and anecdotal evidence 

to the conditions prior to installation of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 105
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 7. Measured water levels in alluvium and bedrock, September 2008 and March 2009

106 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 8. North Fork well field groundwater drawdown

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 107
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

While flows were generally perennial in upper reaches above the North Fork gage historically, 

anecdotal evidence of the North Fork Eagle Creek stream conditions indicates that, prior to 

pumping, flows further downstream were inconsistent, that the stream has been a marginal 

fishery, and that surface water availability for domestic purposes above the well field has often 

been scarce (McGlothlin 2011, Medlock 2011). Typically the stream disappears into the alluvium 

for some distance, resurfacing as streamflow when an impermeable obstruction is reached.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted studies from 2007 to 2009 to determine potential effects 

of the North Fork well field on streamflow in the Eagle Creek basin, and to provide data for the 

EIS. The U.S. Geological Survey report was released on October 21, 2010, and subsequently 

revised in November 2010. It concluded that, in parts of its upper reaches, the North Fork Eagle 

Creek is a perennial stream maintained by base flow from groundwater. It becomes intermittent in 

the 2 miles upstream from the Eagle Creek gage (Matherne et al. 2011). Without pumping, North 

Fork Eagle Creek would still be intermittent below the wells. About 1,600 feet downstream of the 

North Fork stream gage, streamflows sink into the channel alluvium and bedrock aquifer. As a 

result, this reach remains dry during dry periods, although water resurfaces from the alluvium in 

some downstream reaches (stretches ranging from 10 to 50 feet long). More extensive flow 

presence occurs along the stream during wet years or seasons. At other times, streamflow, when 

present, tends to occur in reaches where there are bedrock outcrops in the channel. 

As discussed previously in the “Surface Water” section, the Eagle Creek gage flow frequency was 

compared for two 10-year periods of similar precipitation, one during pre-pumping and one 

during post-pumping timeframes. Figure 9 depicts the flow frequency from 1971 to 1980 before 

pumping began, and figure 10 depicts the flow frequency from 1989 to 1998 after pumping had 

commenced. The frequency of a certain flow decreased from the pre-pumping to the postpumping period. Flows of 1 cubic feet per second or greater were experienced in the pre-pumping 

period approximately 60 percent of the time, and flows of 0.1 cubic feet per second or greater 

were experienced approximately 98 percent of the time; flows exceeded 0.01 cubic feet per 

second 100 percent of the time. During the post-pumping period, flows of 1 cubic feet per second 

or greater, 0.1 cubic feet per second or greater, and 0.01 cubic feet per second or greater were 

experienced approximately 52 percent, 96 percent, and 98 percent of the time, respectively, at the 

Eagle Creek gage below the confluence of the North and South Forks. An analysis of flow 

conditions generally similar to these are summarized in table 5. It should be noted that other 

calculations of flow frequencies may vary depending on the time periods used and the flow rates 

compared. In addition, unknown factors discussed previously for the water balance comparisons 

also apply to flow frequency comparisons.

These results indicate that prior to well field pumping, mean daily flows consistently occurred at 

the Eagle Creek gage. The stream never went dry at that location, although it likely was dry at 

various locations upstream where extensive alluvial deposits absorbed flow. Flows greater than 

1.2 cubic feet per second occurred approximately 57 percent of the time, or generally about 7 

months of the year. 

In a 10-year period having generally similar precipitation, but after the onset of pumping, the 

stream occasionally went dry at the Eagle Creek gage. This occurred about 2 percent of the time. 

The occurrence of flows in the lower range between 0.01 and 1.2 cubic feet per second increased 

somewhat, and the occurrence of flows above 1.2 cubic feet per second decreased somewhat from 

the prepumping period (table 5). 

108 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 9. Flow frequency from 1971-1980 before pumping began 

Figure 10. Flow frequency depicts the flow frequency from 1989-1998 after pumping had 

commenced 

The later 10-year period of pumping (2000 through 2010) was characterized by precipitation 

swings between drought and above average amounts. Larger changes in overall flow conditions 

occurred at the Eagle Creek gage as pumping continued. Flows ceased at the gage approximately 

22 percent of the time, and smaller flow rates occurred approximately 60 percent of the time. The 

general percentage of time that the larger flows (above 1.2 cubic feet per second) occurred at the 

gage, about 19 percent, continued to decline from previous 10-year periods. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 109
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 5. Streamflows measured at the Eagle Creek gage

Flow Measured at Eagle Creek Gage Percent of Time Months per Year

Prepumping 10-Year Period 

(1971 through 1980)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 0 0 

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 43.4 5.2

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 56.6 6.8

Early Pumping 10-Year Period 

(1989 through 1998)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 2.5 0.3

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 51.7 6.2

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 45.8 5.5

Later Pumping 10-Year Period 

(2000 through 2010, without data for 2005)

Time dry (flow 0.01 cubic feet per second or less) 21.6 2.6

Flow greater than 0.01 to 1.2 cubic feet per second 59.2 7.1

Flow greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second 19.2 2.3

From this analysis, it is clear that during average or above average precipitation periods, the 

effects of well field pumping are discernible but create generally minor differences from 

historical prepumping conditions at the Eagle Creek gage. Greater effects may or may not occur 

upstream. In less than average precipitation periods, however, the effects of pumping on 

streamflows are much more pronounced. The stream goes dry at the Eagle Creek gage for a 

substantial part of the time, and other flow rates are generally reduced below prepumping 

conditions. These effects translate into corresponding reductions of streamflow and near surface 

water availability up to and somewhat beyond the well field. 

Information from the U.S. Geological Survey and other investigators (Finch et al. 2004, Balleau 

Groundwater 2004, Midkiff 2002) show that when groundwater is pumped from the North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells, a temporary decline in the water table results, creating a cone of depression 

around the wells. This cone of depression deepens water levels in both the alluvium and 

underlying volcanics. Pumping and streamflow are related, in that pumping near a stream will 

deplete surface flows in a porous channel setting. This effect occurs within the North Fork. As a 

result, the intermittent (seasonal) flows or pools that historically occurred from a short distance 

above the well field downstream to the Eagle Creek gage have been reduced in magnitude and 

extent by pumping. These effects are more pronounced during dry seasons or dry years. As 

surveyed in combination, the North Fork and South Fork watershed condition classification on 

National Forest System lands has been listed at impaired function, exhibiting low geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to natural potential conditions. However, the degree of 

these connections and the nature of groundwater flow paths are complex in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek study area and have not been fully characterized. For this reason, the actual extent of longterm drawdown from pumping is unknown, as are the details of pumping effects on streamflows 

and groundwater levels. We estimate these conditions through the investigations described above. 

110 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

We conducted a further review exercise to compare, in a very general fashion, flow conditions at 

the Eagle Creek Gage to those of the Rio Ruidoso at Ruidoso (U.S. Geological Survey Gage 

08386505). While there are differences between the drainages these gages represent (e.g. size, 

elevation ranges, aspects, geology, channel length, alluvial deposits, vegetation), both drainages 

are fairly high elevation, forested drainages next to each other on the east side of Sacramento 

Mountains/Sierra Blanca region. For the purposes of general comparison, flow frequencies were 

developed for both drainages over a common period of record represented by mean daily 

discharge data at the gages. 

Results indicate that, in a general sense, unit-area discharges during a pumping period on Eagle 

Creek are substantially smaller than on the Rio Ruidoso, particularly in the lower flow ranges. 

For example, the Eagle Creek flow having a 50 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in a 

recent year is approximately 0.065 inches per day per 100 acres. On the Rio Ruidoso, the flow at 

the same frequency is approximately 0.5 inches per day per 100 acres, almost an order of 

magnitude greater than on Eagle Creek. Flows essentially cease on Eagle Creek whereas they 

continue on the Rio Ruidoso. Although there are differences in these drainages and sources of 

error in the gaging data, the results indicate substantial differences in recent flows even after 

adjusting for differences in basin area. It is likely that some of these differences result from 

pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek well field. 

Climate Change

There appears to be a general consensus currently among climate specialists that, regionally, the 

Southwestern United States is experiencing a drying trend. Modeling indicates that this is 

expected to continue well into the latter part of the 21st century (USDA Forest Service 2010). A 

slight warming trend observed over the past 100 years is anticipated to continue, with the greatest 

warming expected during winter. Snowpack monitoring suggests that increasing temperatures 

have generated snowmelt progressively earlier in the year, causing streamflows to deliver water 

to storage and water users in larger volumes earlier in spring (USDA Forest Service 2010). In 

western North America regionally, there is later onset of winter, spring snowpack has declined, 

and snowmelt timing has come earlier in the year (Knowles et al. 2006; Mote et al. 2005; Cayan 

et al. 2001; Stewart et al. 2005). Shorter winters, and less snowpack, may also affect the timing of 

peak river flows. In addition, as snowpacks shrink, seasonal stream temperatures could increase 

(USDA Forest Service 2008).

Changes in overall precipitation are more difficult to predict than temperature changes, because 

precipitation is more variable in time and space. Added complexities such as topography and 

monsoonal timing complicate precipitation predictions in the Southwest (USDA Forest Service 

2010). Southwestern precipitation may be reduced overall, and skewed toward fewer larger 

events. Increased frequency of drought could occur by mid-century (Enquist et al. 2009). 

However, predictions vary as to effects on runoff caused by broad regional precipitation and 

temperature changes. These potential effects deserve more investigation, particularly for small, 

high elevation headwater basins where most runoff is generated (Christensen and Lettenmaier 

2007). 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 111
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Post-Little Bear Fire Affected Environment 

Fire Extent and Severity

As summarized in chapter 1 and in figure 5, the Little Bear Fire burned approximately 35,300 

acres within the Smokey Bear Ranger District on the Lincoln National Forest in June of 2012 

(USDA Forest Service 2012b). Wildfire characteristics within the Eagle Creek watershed are 

summarized in table 6. 

Table 6. Little Bear Fire conditions in the North Fork and South Fork, Eagle Creek 

Watersheds 

Burn Severity North Fork Eagle Creek, 

Acres (Percent of Total)

South Fork Eagle Creeka 

Acres (Percent of Total)

High 877 (25.9) 176 (9.8)

Moderate 877 (25.9) 63 (3.5)

Low 905 (26.8) 128 (7.1)

Unburned/Very Low 723 (21.4) 276 (15.3)

Area Outside Wildfire

Perimeter 

0 (0.0) 1,157 (64.3)

Totals 3282 1,700

a - The South Fork listing includes the area between the South Fork and the streamgage at the confluence (U.S. 

Geological Survey Eagle Creek below the South Fork, #0387600).

Source: USDA Forest Service GIS information 2013.

The purpose of this section is to describe how hydrologic conditions have changed (or are 

expected to change) in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area and surrounding watersheds as a 

result of the wildfire. This Water Resources section is based on the detailed analysis provided in 

the supplemental Water Resources Report (AECOM 2014). This AECOM (2014) report, available 

in the project record, includes multiple tables, maps and figures to illustrate and support the 

information provided therein. Not all of these tables, figures and maps are included here in this 

section but are instead either referenced or the information summarized.

During and after the wildfire, Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) efforts were undertaken 

by the Forest Service to characterize resource conditions within the wildfire perimeter. The 

BAER reports (USDA Forest Service 2012a, b) and additional information from existing research 

form the basis for much of this supplemental description of affected water resources within the 

study areas. 

Extensive, damaging wildfire is widely acknowledged to be a major watershed disturbance, and 

to potentially create substantial changes in watershed dynamics and water balance factors. These 

modifications especially occur where large fires take place in coniferous mountain watersheds 

such as the Eagle Creek headwaters. Although the Little Bear Fire intensity varied over the study 

area watershed, BAER investigators identified water-repellent soils across intensity categories, 

and fires typically convert forest types on the Smokey Bear District. Hydrologic responses also 

vary according to complex relationships of slope and aspect, geology, and regional climate 

characteristics. In addition to information retrieved from the BAER reports, changes in 

hydrologic conditions are anticipated on the basis of research into large fires in the Southwest. 

112 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The following information focuses on the primary water balance factors affected by the Little 

Bear Fire, as determined from available data collections and ascertained from existing research. 

Other conditions that will likely affect water monitoring, mitigation and management also are 

considered. 

Precipitation and Snow Accumulation/Ablation

Precipitation continues to be monitored at several established Federal and state sites within the 

region (Natural Resource Conservation Service 2013; Western Regional Climate Center 2013). In 

addition, the U.S. Geological Survey installed a number of rain gages in or near the Eagle Creek 

watershed after the Little Bear Fire. The purpose of the U.S. Geological Survey network is to 

provide information related to the potential for high runoff and flooding, erosion, and debris flow 

conditions in response to precipitation events (oral communication with Dr. A.M. Matherne, U.S. 

Geological Survey, November 12, 2013); data collection began on July 16, 2013 (U.S. Geological 

Survey 2013). Major rainfall events recorded at the Buck Mountain near Alto gage, at elevation 

10,751 feet near the western divide of the study area watershed, occurred in roughly the second 

week of September. This also is reflected in other U.S. Geological Survey rain gages recently 

installed in the vicinity. Larger events recorded at Buck Mountain also included events in July, 

August, September and October 2013, as described in more detail in AECOM 2014. There is 

substantial variation in precipitation data including that discussed above and other data analyzed 

(variation from place-to-place, month-to-month, and year-to-year) and in many locations, data are 

missing. 

Beyond these additional data, current and expected future conditions reflect the influence of the 

Little Bear Fire. Large severe fires affect water balance factors such as snow accumulation and 

ablation, infiltration, surface runoff and groundwater partitioning, and evapotranspiration. 

Potential changes in snow accumulation and ablation (collective processes of snow removal) are 

perhaps the most directly related precipitation effects from moderate to severe wildfires; these are 

discussed here, and effects on evapotranspiration and other factors are discussed subsequently. 

A number of investigations have examined the effects of coniferous stand reductions (thinning, 

clearcutting, fire, beetle kill) on canopy interception, snowpack accumulation, and snow losses in 

the mountain west (Biederman and Brooks 2013; Harpold et al. 2013; Hibbert 1967; Pugh and 

Small 2011; Newton et al. 2012; Stednick 1996; Troendle 1983; Troendle and Meiman 1986). 

Early investigations into thinning or clearcutting effects indicated that, although snowpack in 

treated areas generally accumulated to greater depths, this was highly variable based on aspect 

and slope. In general, the peak water equivalent of the snowpack increased less than 12 percent in 

most studies based on small treatment plots. Larger treatments (up to 83 percent of stand 

reduction) in lodgepole pine resulted in a 20 percent increase in peak water equivalent within the 

snowpack (Wilm and Dunford as cited in Troendle 1983). However, in watershed-scale studies 

after clearcutting, increased snowpack ablation losses in the cleared areas (through additional 

solar radiation, sublimation, and winter melt) resulted in no significant gains in total seasonal 

water equivalent (Troendle 1983). 

Similarly, it is expected that in the study area there will be little or no additional water input from 

snow accumulation and melt after the wildfire. Recent studies in New Mexico indicate that after

the Las Conchas Fire (southwest of Los Alamos), a single snow event generated much greater 

accumulation in the burned area compared to unburned coniferous forest (Harpold et al. 2013). 

For single snow events, generally 25 to 45 percent of the snow was intercepted by the coniferous 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 113
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

canopy in the unburned area, compared to no interception in the burned area. However, over the 

longer term, seasonal ablation in the burned areas reduced snowpack there. Ablation during the 

winter reduced the snowpack in the burned areas by 50 percent prior to the onset of melt (Harpold 

et al. 2012). Ultimately, there was approximately 10 percent greater water available for melt in 

the unburned areas. These investigators also concluded that topography played an important role 

in post-burn snow conditions. Another study at Valles Caldera indicated that vegetation structure 

played a major role in snowpack distribution, and noted both greater snow accumulation as well 

as ablation in open areas (Molotch et al. 2009). The duration of snowpack was greater under the 

forest canopy. That study suggested that snow accumulation (and water availability) under the 

forest canopy was less sensitive to weather variations between years than in the open areas. 

These findings generally agree with investigations by Troendle and others. In summary, for 

cleared coniferous western forests, investigations indicate that snow losses from increased solar 

radiation and other factors will offset the potential snowpack gains and also accelerate melting of 

the remaining snow. There may be somewhat less water input from snow in the burned areas, and 

seasonal weather variations will have greater effect on water inputs from snow. 

Vegetation Changes and Evapotranspiration

The North Fork Eagle Creek project area contains a variety of vegetation communities, including 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and grassland vegetation types (Kuhar 2013). All 

of these are interspersed with patches of oak brush (Quercus spp.). Forest Service monitoring 

during 2006 and 2007 in the adjacent Bonito watershed has lately been used to characterize prewildfire conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area, which has similar elevations and 

vegetation types. On the sampled sites, grasses and forbs contributed to less than 50 percent of the 

total plot vegetation cover, and tree species were the dominant cover. The greatest proportions of 

grasses and forbs occurred in areas that had undergone large wildfires in the first half of the 

twentieth century (Kuhar 2013). 

Research indicates that stem densities in southwestern forest stands have increased (Covington 

and Moore 1994; Johnson 1994; Kilgore 1981). Historically, dry upland sites had more open, 

park-like stands, while stands in protected, moist areas tended to have dense, closed canopies 

(Kuhar 2013 and summarized in the Vegetation section later in this chapter). Current densities 

range between 1,700 to 2,900 trees per acre in dry upland mixed conifer stands, about 3,900 trees 

per acre in ponderosa pine stands, and about 6,800 trees per acre in pinyon juniper stands (based 

on the Bonito watershed sampling). Over 90 percent of these trees are less than 5 inches in 

diameter (Kuhar 2013). The U.S. Geological Survey noted that pre-wildfire tree-canopy cover 

ranged from 0 to 100 percent in all of the elevation bands in the study area vicinity; the average 

pre-wildfire canopy cover in the North Fork Eagle Creek Basin was about 69 percent; in the 

South Fork Eagle Creek Basin, it was about 65 percent; and in the Eagle Creek-below-confluence 

contributing area, pre-wildfire canopy cover was about 83 percent (Matherne et al. 2011). 

The timing of these changes in watershed vegetation is important to water balance 

characterization in the North Fork Eagle Creek hydrologic study area. Anecdotal information 

from Forest Service personnel indicate that the vast majority of this growth occurred in the last 

part of the 1800s and the first part of the twentieth century (written communication with Ms. Kim 

Kuhar, Lincoln National Forest, January 21, 2014). This would have been prior to streamgaging 

in the 1970s and the beginning of the Village well field utilization in the late 1980s. On this basis, 

114 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

since the 1970s, the most substantial changes in evapotranspiration and canopy interception 

within the study area watersheds are due to the Little Bear Fire. 

The USDA Forest Service study in the area indicates that historically, topography did not limit 

fires to discrete vegetation types. This is documented from the 3,600-acre wildfire in 1935 that 

burned through ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and some pinyon-juniper stands (Kuhar 2013). 

(This also is consistent with the Little Bear Fire, which burned through high-elevation mixed 

conifer to lower-elevation pinyon-juniper woodlands.) In addition, the study indicated that all 

larger fires were stand-replacing. Large-scale fires such as these on the Lincoln National Forest 

have typically converted coniferous forests to grass-shrubland associations. Based on both 

photographic evidence and monitoring data, these conditions can persist for multiple decades 

(Kuhar 2103). For example, a 3,000-acre wildfire in the nearby Bonito watershed in the 1930s 

converted the landscape to predominantly oak shrublands. Evidence of the wildfire could still be 

seen in 2002. Based on this local information, the wildfire-caused reduction in forest canopy and 

the shift to grass or grass-shrubland vegetation could modify evapotranspiration factors in the 

water balance of the North Fork Eagle Creek project area. Additional information about potential 

post-wildfire vegetation succession and fire return-interval is presented in the Fuels Specialist 

Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek EIS (Kuhar 2013). 

A number of investigators have studied the effects of forest canopy reductions on watershed yield 

(Hibbert 1967; MacDonald and Stednick 2003; Troendle and Meiman 1986). Most of these 

authors addressed watershed yield as equivalent to streamflow, and provided little or no analysis 

of groundwater conditions. Nonetheless, fairly consistent findings indicate that reducing forest 

canopies increases water yield, increasing forest canopies reduces water yield, and the responses 

to treatments are highly variable (Hibbert 1967; Stednick 1996). Latitude and solar radiation, 

precipitation patterns, and treatment types and extents are some of the major influences on 

changes in water yield produced by manipulating vegetation. 

General indications are that annual evapotranspiration rates in ponderosa pine stands range from 

about 10 to 20 inches, with more specific data indicating 17 inches annually in western interior 

ponderosa pine stands (Lull, section 6 in Chow 1964). Thompson (1974) indicated 19.4 inches 

per year in ponderosa pine on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona, so it appears 

that 17 to 20 inches is a reasonable range for ponderosa pine evapotranspiration in the region. 

Evapotranspiration rates in western mixed conifer stands were estimated at 22 inches annually, 

and approximately 14.5 inches annually for pinyon-juniper woodland types (Lull, section 6 in 

Chow 1964). Over several years, Johnston et al. (1969) investigated evapotranspiration on 

Gambel oak types underlain by herbaceous vegetation near Ephraim, Utah. They found rates 

ranging from about 13 to 16 inches per year in those communities, with the higher values at 

higher elevations of about 7,900 feet. Soils were thin and underlain by fractured rock; 

measurements in oak communities were based on depths drilled to 6 feet. At 9,200 feet, the grassherbaceous type had reasonably consistent evapotranspiration rates of approximately 11 inches 

per year (Johnston et al. 1969), substantially less than documented for the forest types.

In general, these findings indicate that there may be some net water gain in the long term in those 

parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed that undergo stand conversion from forest types to 

grass-shrublands. Fires typically convert forest types to oak shrublands on the Sacramento and 

Smokey Bear Ranger Districts. This is evident on multiple fires since the 1970s, such as the 

Burgett, Patos, Cree, Scott Able, Walker, Penasco fires, as well as fires documented in the Bonito 

River Corridor from the 1930s-50s (Kuhar 2012). If high and moderate severity burns convert 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 115
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

vegetation types, this could occur on 52 percent of the North Fork watershed (table 6). The 

occurrence and maintenance of post-wildfire grassland types likely would further reduce annual 

evapotranspiration losses from the water budget. 

In the southern Sacramento Mountains, preliminary results from ongoing hydrogeology studies 

related to the potential effects of tree thinning indicate that preferential flow paths in soils have a 

role in groundwater recharge (Newton et al. 2012a). This study examined the stable isotopic 

composition of soil water, and identified snowmelt water in soil storage that is slowly evaporated. 

In general, groundwater recharge and availability in the area heavily depends on snowmelt 

(Newton et al. 2012b). Research appears to indicate that in the spring, trees generally utilize this 

water in the soil. However, water in heavy monsoonal rains has a different isotropic signature, 

and infiltrates quicker and deeper through preferential flow paths. This water from exceptional 

monsoon events likely reaches underlying bedrock, and may recharge groundwater (Newton et al. 

2012a). After the beginning of monsoons, at least 50 percent of the water taken up by trees comes 

from this deeper infiltrating water. After the monsoon season, trees return to using the shallower 

soil moisture (Newton et al. 2012a). Thus, although a decrease in trees may increase soil 

evaporative losses, and regrowth of grass-shrubland vegetation may or may not substantially 

reduce water uptake, there may be water budget benefits from tree removal if more groundwater 

recharge is available through preferential flow paths. Newton et al. (2012b) noted that water 

effects from reducing tree stands are site-specific and variable, and depend on a number of factors 

such as geology, climate, vegetation types, and hydrogeologic setting.

Surface Runoff and Streamflow Gaging Data 

A frequent wildfire effect is the formation of water-repellent soils from the heating of organic 

resins, excessive drying, and changes in soil structure and pore space (Debano 1990; Luce 2005). 

Early characterization of this phenomenon was done in the 1940s by the USDA Forest Service in 

fire-prone chaparral watersheds in California. This effect also is known as “soil hydrophobicity”. 

Under such conditions, soils actually repel water (snowmelt, rainfall, overland flow) rather than 

infiltrating it. Coarse, sandy or gravelly soils tend to be more susceptible to water repellency than 

finer (silty or clayey) soils (Luce 2005). Surface runoff can be dramatically altered if fire-induced 

water repellency is extensive. Hydrologic responses such as reduced infiltration, irregular surface 

and subsurface wetting, preferential runoff pathways, and accelerated overland flow can result 

from soil hydrophobicity (Doerr and Moody 2004). In general, the hydrophobicity is broken up or 

is sufficiently washed away within 1 to 2 years after the wildfire (Robichaud 2000), but this is 

likely to vary considerably with site-specific factors. The BAER report and associated maps for 

the Little Bear Fire indicate that water repellent soils were inventoried in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek watershed (USDA Forest Service 2012a). Based on inspection of the fire severity/soil 

inventory maps, it appears that the severity of soil water repellency generally corresponds to fire 

severity for the Little Bear Fire overall. This is not entirely consistent, however. Within the North 

Fork Eagle Creek study area itself, the water repellency investigation plots and results are 

indicated in table 7. Investigators in Colorado found that strongly hydrophobic soils formed most 

commonly under moderate and severe fire intensities in ponderosa and lodgepole pine 

communities, they also occurred (but not as strongly) under low-intensity burns (Huffman, et. al. 

2001). Statistically significant differences between fire intensities and soil hydrophobicity were 

not identified due to the large variability within and between sites.

Variation in soil hydrophobicity at different spatial scales appears to be linked to the amount of 

hydrophobic organic matter in the soil, and the variability of macropores (e.g., root channels) 

116 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(Doerr and Moody 2004). Water repellency can occur at the surface, or at greater depths (usually 

less than 20 inches) in the soil (Doerr and Moody 2004; Ericksen and White 2008). Ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer and spruce/fir ecosystems have larger and thicker duff layers when compared 

to pinyon pine/juniper and grassland ecosystems. These heavier layers provide longer burn time, 

thereby enhancing the potential for hydrophobic soils (Clark 2001; USDA Forest Service 2012a). 

Soil and remaining ash layers above the water repellent layer can be more prone to erosion. 

Importantly, because of this and accelerated runoff conditions, erosion and sedimentation 

frequently increase under post-wildfire runoff conditions. This in turn reduces surface water 

quality. Runoff event modeling was conducted by the USDA Forest Service BAER team shortly 

after the Little Bear Fire (USDA Forest Service 2012b). The BAER hydrologists analyzed 25-

year, 50-year, and 100-year recurrence interval storms with durations of 6 hours. Runoff 

simulations used storm duration inputs of 6 hours, to reflect typical late summer high intensity 

monsoonal events that are considered the principal threat from these fires. The extent of the 

monsoonal convective design-storm generally does not exceed 5 square miles (3,200 acres) 

(USDA Forest Service 2012b). Continued rainfall or consecutive days with light precipitation will 

fill the remaining soil pore space (that is left above hydrophobic layers), to the point where a 

subsequent event could generate substantial peak flow rates and runoff volume. BAER modeling 

predicts that the storm event peak flows in the Eagle Creek area are expected to increase as 

indicated in table 8. 

Table 7. Water repellency classes in the North Fork Eagle Creek Basin

Site Id Hydrophobicity

(field points)

Burn Severity

CarltonCny_1 Low Low

CarltonCny_2C High Moderate

BuckMtn_1 High Unburned/Very Low

3_EagleCreek Low Low

Up_EagleCrk_1 Low Moderate

Source: USDA Forest Service 2012a. 

Table 8. Changes in storm event peak flows after the Little Bear Fire, Eagle Creek 

modeling locations

Watershed Area, 

Square 

Miles

Pre-Burn/

Post-Burn 100-

year, 6-hour 

peak, cubic feet 

per second

Change Pre-Burn/

Post-Burn 25-

year, 6-hour 

peak, cubic 

feet per 

second

Change

Upper North Fork 2.5 3,483/6,511 1.9x 2,007/4,468 2.2x

Lower North Fork 2.9 3,947/5,719 1.5x 2,378/3,774 1.6x

South Fork 2.8 3,388/4,911 1.5 1,966/3,202 1.6x

Confluence, North 

and South Forks

8.1 10,147/16,982 1.7x 5,949/11,088 1.9

Eagle Creek into 

Alto Lake

11.8 13,258/21,274 1.6x 7,523/13,751 1.8

Source: USDA Forest Service 2012b

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 117
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

From table 8, it is important to note that in general, the modeled peak flow rates expected after 

the Little Bear Fire are approximately 1.5- to 2-times the pre-burn estimates. Increases for more 

frequently expected storms such as the 10-year or 2-year, 6-hour storms, would likely be similar. 

These more frequent storms are more likely to occur in the period during which recovery of the 

watershed surface occurs. Other measurements in the Southwest indicate that post-wildfire peak 

flows from storms can be one or more orders of magnitude greater than pre-wildfire peak flows 

(Woodhouse 2004, Gottfried et al. 2003, Veenhuis 2002). In addition, the frequency of larger 

runoff events likely increases in response to wildfire, although precipitation inputs are not 

modified (Veenhuis 2002). Further, research has found that the change in the unit-area peak 

discharge is greater for the more frequent, lower-intensity rainfall events than for the less 

frequent, higher-intensity rainfall events (Moody and Martin 2001). Southwestern investigators 

also found that measurements of post-wildfire changes in storm peak discharges (which had 1.45-

fold to 870-fold increases) were much larger than measurements of post-wildfire changes in 

annual runoff (which had a 0.5-fold decrease to a 4.5-fold increase) (Moody and Martin 2001). 

These changes could occur in both severely-burned and moderately-burned watersheds (Neary et 

al. 2005).

A two- to 3-year period of vulnerability to debris flow occurrence on sideslopes within the study 

area watershed is estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Tillery and Matherne 2013). Soil 

hydrophobicity generally lasts 1 or 2 years, but may vary widely depending on fire and soil 

conditions. (Extreme durations of up to 6 years were recorded in DeBano 1981). Recovery of 

hillslope hydrologic conditions in the Little Bear Fire area may take 5 to 7 years (USDA Forest 

Service 2012b). On the basis of these estimates, hillslope hydrologic recovery may take as little 

as 2 to 5 years, or up to 6 or 7 years post-wildfire. For purposes of further discussion, an 

approximate period of 3 to 7 years is described as the post-wildfire hydrologic “short-term”. With 

this approximation, short-term effects on hillslope hydrology are anticipated to occur between the 

years 2012 to 2015, or possibly until 2019. 

Large, damaging fires do not modify the occurrence of precipitation, but do modify hillslope 

hydrologic processes. Since the frequency of larger runoff events is likely to increase (Veenhuis 

2002), incidental streamflows may increase over limited periods of several days or a couple of 

weeks. These flows will result from “flashy” runoff events - when flows increase and decrease, 

they will do so sharply. In general, however, given that there will be less infiltration and larger 

amounts of surface runoff during the 3 to 7 year period of transient post-wildfire hillslope 

recovery, less water from snowmelt and rain will be available to recharge the underlying aquifer 

zones, sustain low-flow period baseflows in the stream, and supply the well field. If the amount 

of precipitation input remains similar to pre-wildfire conditions, but more surface water runs off 

faster, the amount of water available to be partitioned to groundwater recharge will be less over 

the hydrologic short term. If groundwater recharge conditions lag hillslope conditions by a year, 

then overall hydrologic recovery to a resemblance of pre-wildfire conditions may take roughly 4 

to 8 years or so post-wildfire, generally estimated as sometime between 2016 to 2020. 

Current conditions at existing streamgages (illustrated in AECOM 2014 and also shown in some 

post-wildfire photos in appendix D) depicts between 4 to 6 feet of sediment infill. Repeated 

episodes of such infilling at the streamgages are anticipated for at least between 3 to 7 years after 

the wildfire, as the watershed slopes re-stabilize. In addition, sediment and debris (e.g., gravel, 

cobble, and wood) will be stored and routed through the North Fork valley over a considerable 

period of time. During that time, which may be several decades (oral communication with Mr. 

N.C. Myers, U.S. Geological Survey, November 12, 2013), the stream alluvium will be re-worked 

118 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and the channel may migrate within its floodplain. These dynamics will repeatedly pile sediments 

in the approaches to the gages. 

Without suitable flow approach conditions, streamgages are woefully inaccurate. Essentially 

streamgages measure the level of free-flowing open-channel flow in relation to a known datum, 

and then that level is converted to a discharge value through rating equation(s) specific to the 

measurement device. When sediment or debris collects in the gage approach or throat, what is 

actually measured is the water level within a porous medium with reduced cross-sectional area 

and additional energy losses. Although the water may be stagnant or nearly so, its level is still 

being measured and converted to an erroneous flow rate. Inaccuracies are particularly likely at 

high flows during scour and fill, and afterwards as new ratings need to be established. 

Because of the unstable channel and gaging conditions at the North Fork and Eagle Creek 

(confluence) surface flow gages, alternative means of monitoring along the stream will be needed 

in order to implement effective adaptive management or simply to collect reliable data for a 

future use. In order to obtain more reliable data and provide for stabilization and potential 

recovery of the riparian system, the expanded use of monitoring wells is advised. Otherwise, 

frequent surface gage inspection and maintenance would be required to provide monitoring data, 

and this would be time-consuming and expensive. In addition, surface flow data collected 

between maintenance activities would be suspect in such an active channel environment. Further, 

the problem of underflow bypassing the gages through porous alluvium would continue to 

challenge data assessments, unless monitoring wells were established as the basis for an adaptive 

management program or reliable data collection effort.

As shown in figure 38 in the water resources specialist report, located in the project record, 

indicates much of the tributary flow from the North Fork and South Fork, respectively, that 

contributes to the Eagle Creek gage below the confluence. Figure 39 in the water resources 

specialist report, located in the project record, indicates the flows, however inaccurate, being 

measured on the mainstem of Eagle Creek below the South Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 

08387600). Based on available U.S. Geological Survey data collected in early December 2013, 

flow measurements had ceased at the downstream gage (Eagle Creek below South Fork) in June 

2013, and had been zero for a considerable period beforehand (9 months - since October 2, 2012). 

New U.S. Geological Survey data downloaded in mid-January 2014 indicates late-summer 

monsoonal moisture effects on streamflow. These new records may reflect recent site 

maintenance activities and the time required for data review and approval. Using available data, 

general comparisons were made between the amounts of runoff generated by pre-wildfire versus 

post-wildfire summer storms. The events and seasonal conditions were selected on the basis of 

reasonably discrete periods of rainfall (recorded at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso) and streamflows 

recorded at the North Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 083875500) and Eagle Creek below South 

Fork (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). 

Comparisons did not include the South Fork since wildfire damage was much more limited in that 

watershed. Each period was selected on the basis of little or no rainfall or streamflow for several 

days before and after the timeframes inspected. Differences in pumping are described in the 

discussions below. For a fairly short 9 day rain period in July 2011 (July 17 to 26, 2011), the total 

rainfalls at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 1.0 and 0.8 inches, respectively. Total 

pre-wildfire streamflows over the period were approximately 0.6 acre-feet at the North Fork gage, 

and about 1.1 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek confluence gage. At the time, the Village of Ruidoso 

was pumping approximately 1.1 acre-feet per day from supply well NF-4. Over an 8-day postSDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 119
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

wildfire event (July 1 to 8, 2012), the total rainfalls at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were 

approximately 1.3 and 0.9 inches, respectively. Total post-wildfire streamflows over the period 

were approximately 9.6 acre-feet at the North Fork gage, and about 8.1 acre-feet at the Eagle 

Creek confluence gage. However, there was no pumping in July 2012 according to Village 

records, except 1.2 acre-feet pumped on July 26 from well NF-4. 

So, for somewhat more precipitation over similar durations, the amount of water estimated at the 

gages increased by roughly an order of magnitude from pre-wildfire to post-wildfire conditions. 

In neither case was there an unusual, 1-day downpour. The greatest daily precipitation during the 

pre-wildfire timeframe was 0.44 inches (recorded at Cloudcroft). The greatest daily precipitation

during the post-wildfire timeframe was 0.88 inches (also at Cloudcroft). However, there had been 

nearly constant well field pumping throughout July 2011, in comparison to essentially no 

pumping in July 2012. 

Over a more lengthy pre-wildfire period (July 11 to September 11, 2011), the total rainfalls at 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 9.8 and 8.5 inches, respectively. (Several days of 

data were missing at Ruidoso.) Total pre-wildfire streamflows over the period were 

approximately 43.1 acre-feet at the North Fork gage, and about 3.5 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek 

confluence gage. Pumping records indicate that approximately 1.1 acre-feet per day were 

withdrawn in July, 1.06 acre-feet per day in August, and about 1.3 acre-feet per day in September. 

Over a similar post-wildfire period (July 3 to September 12, 2012), the total rainfalls at 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso were approximately 7.7 and 4.9 inches, respectively. (Again, several 

days of data were missing at Ruidoso.) Total post-wildfire streamflows over the period were 

approximately 93 acre-feet at the North Fork gage, and about 73 acre-feet at the Eagle Creek 

confluence gage. There was essentially no pumping in July or most of August, but about 1 acrefoot per day was withdrawn in the last 10 days of August and through September. 

So, for even somewhat less post-wildfire precipitation over similar durations, the amount of water 

estimated at the gages increased by over a factor of two in the North Fork, and by a factor of 

roughly 20 at the confluence gage from pre-wildfire to post-wildfire conditions. The greatest 

daily precipitation during the pre-wildfire timeframe was 4.02 inches (recorded at Cloudcroft). 

The greatest daily precipitation during the post-wildfire timeframe was 1.85 inches (also at 

Cloudcroft). Flow conditions for these two periods are reflected in Figures 38 and 39 in the water 

resources specialist report. However, there were pumping differences between these periods, 

notably between the weeks in July and early August. There was continuous pumping in July and 

August 2011, but no pumping in July and the first 3 weeks of August, 2012. 

While these events or timeframes generally indicate the effects of the Little Bear Fire on surface 

runoff, there are several uncertainties involved in reviewing them. Available pumping well 

information indicates that there were differences in pumping activities between these comparison 

periods. Also, precipitation fields vary in mountainous terrain, so there is no assurance that these 

short-term data for Cloudcroft and Ruidoso represent rainfall over the study area. They probably 

do serve as indications, however. (U.S. Geological Survey raingages in and near the North Fork 

Eagle Creek watershed were not activated until July 2013). In addition, the water balance is 

clearly not preserved between the North Fork gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550) and the 

Eagle Creek confluence gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387600). For the short-term postwildfire event (July 1 through 8, 2012), there is a loss of about 1.5 acre-feet (15 percent) from the 

North Fork to the Eagle Creek confluence gage even without pumping. 

120 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In the July to September 2011 period, there is a tremendous pre-wildfire difference (about 12x) 

between the North Fork flow and the much smaller flow downstream at the Eagle Creek 

mainstem. Pumping occurred throughout this period. In the post-wildfire July to September 2012 

data, there are still approximately 20 acre feet lost (27 percent) between the gages. According to 

Village records, pumping occurred during approximately the last half of this period, and totaled 

approximately 20 acre-feet. Based on the shorter period of early July 2012, flow differences could 

also result from malfunctions at the surface water gages, seepage losses to groundwater, or both. 

Again, the expanded use of monitoring wells in a data collection program would resolve these 

issues in any future monitoring. 

Erosion and Debris Flows 

Investigations indicate that a major post-wildfire effect is the lack of effective ground cover, litter, 

and vegetation to intercept rainfall and attenuate overland flow. In general, erosion and runoff 

increase with a reduction in cover. This is true in the burned area (USDA Forest Service 2012a). 

In areas investigated within the Little Bear Fire perimeter, a thin ash layer was common on areas 

of moderate and severe burns where high winds and vertically rotating columns of air 

(whirlwinds) within the steep canyons may have blown ash away. Experience has shown that, 

regardless of the degree of water repellency, areas in the southwest that have short duration, high 

intensity storms produce extreme runoff events. Ash and soil is lost if most of the vegetative 

cover has been removed. 

The Forest Service BAER team estimated post-wildfire erosion losses and volumes using a 

standard approaches, the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model and the Erosion Risk 

Management Tool (ERMiT). Within the Little Bear Fire perimeter in general, the average prewildfire erosion rate was less than 1 ton/acre. Near the project area, the average post-wildfire

erosion rate for Ski Apache in high and moderate severity was estimated to be 114 tons/acre, and 

sediment delivery was estimated to be about 7,500 cubic yards per square mile (USDA Forest 

Service 2012a). In addition, past work indicates that post-wildfire erosion rates and sediment 

yields are underestimated from the WEPP model (USDA Forest Service 2012a). These projected 

losses can be considerably reduced by post-wildfire treatments, however, and treatments were 

applied in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area.

Sheet, rill and gully erosion of these magnitudes will form preferential overland flow paths that 

exacerbate flash flooding and greater rates of surface runoff. In addition to the suspended 

sediment and channel bedload from accelerated erosion, more severe debris flows are likely to 

occur within the project area and nearby. 

After the Little Bear Fire, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted debris flow probability modeling 

for lands within the wildfire perimeter (Tillery and Matherne 2013). Using a set of empirical 

hazard-assessment models, developed from data from recently-burned drainage basins throughout 

the intermountain West, general estimates of the probability and volume of debris-flows were 

made for selected drainage basins within the burn area. Several of the smaller sub-basins within 

the direct/indirect hydrologic study area watersheds were included in those selected for the U.S. 

Geological Survey analysis. The analysis indicates that debris flows are highly probable over 

much of the North Fork Eagle Creek study area, and also nearby over parts of the cumulative 

study area. Debris flow volume estimates were derived independently of the debris flow 

probabilities. Based on the empirical modeling, volume estimates indicate that the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek downstream of Telephone Canyon (i.e., downstream of a point about 0.2 miles 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 121
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

upstream of the North Fork streamgage) is anticipated to receive over 100,000 cubic meters (at 

least 3.5 million cubic yards) of debris from the watershed sideslopes in response to a 2-year 

recurrence interval 30-minute rainfall accumulation of about 1 inch (Tillery and Matherne 2013).

Relative hazard-rankings of post-wildfire debris flows were produced by summing the estimated 

probability and volume rankings to illustrate those areas with the highest potential occurrence of 

debris flows with the largest volumes (Tillery and Matherne 2013). The central part of the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek, from about 0.2 miles upstream of the North Fork streamgage to about 1/8 

mile downstream of Carlton Canyon, is ranked as one of the drainages having the highest 

combined probability and volume relative-hazard ranking for debris flows (Tillery and Matherne 

2013). Below Carlton Canyon, the downstream segment of the North Fork to its confluence with 

the South Fork has the second highest combined relative-hazard ranking. In addition, most 

tributaries of the North Fork upstream of the summer home locale, including Telephone Canyon 

and others, also have the second highest combined relative-hazard ranking of debris flow 

probability and volume. 

The significance of these conditions is that scour and fill, headcuts, and other channel 

modifications will occur over a considerable number of years in the North Fork and South Fork of 

Eagle Creek. The channel environment, and particularly the locations of surface flows, will be 

more dynamic than before the wildfire. Regular measurement of open channel flow over time, 

such as might be done in a monitoring program, will be much more expensive and less reliable. 

These factors will likely require revised approaches to water management for environmental 

purposes along the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

Groundwater Recharge and Water Levels 

Groundwater recharge in the Sacramento Mountains is heavily dependent on snowmelt (Newton 

et al. 2012b). Based on the discussions above, there are not likely to be additional inputs to the 

overall water balance, and particularly to aquifer recharge, from wildfire effects on snowpack due 

to increased ablation losses. Over the short-term transient post-wildfire recovery (i.e., generally 3 

to 7 years), soil hydrophobicity and the removal of vegetation and litter are likely to increase 

surface water runoff and reduce infiltration and deeper percolation. In the longer term postwildfire condition (i.e., 4 to 8 years or more), stand conversion from coniferous forest types to 

grass-shrublands in some parts of the study areas may decrease evapotranspiration losses and 

encourage the movement of water to greater depths within soil, unconsolidated deposits, and 

fractured rock. Preliminary results from ongoing studies indicate that exceptional monsoonal 

moisture also may provide additional groundwater recharge in areas where tree cover is reduced 

(Newton et al. 2012a). The potential for this could be greater if more extensive grassland types 

became established in the watershed. 

Water levels in monitoring wells along the North Fork of Eagle Creek have continued to be 

recorded by the Village of Ruidoso (written communication from Ms. C. Thompson, USDA 

Forest Service, November 26, 2013). Recent water level graphs from the monitoring wells are 

indicated in Figures 43 through 47 in the water resources specialist report, located in the project 

record. The deep wells (MW-1B, MW-1C, and MW-3A) show a more-or-less consistent 

springtime water level rise from late January through mid-April of 2013, with a steady rise from 

early March through mid-April. Substantial water level rises in these wells can be noted during 

the onset of monsoonal moisture in July 2013, corresponding to precipitation increases indicated 

in U.S. Geological Survey rain gages around the watershed, and at Cloudcroft and Ruidoso. The 

122 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

rapid water level rises in September 2013 likely correspond to the relatively large total 

precipitation (over 8 inches) during roughly the second week of that month, as also recorded by 

U.S. Geological Survey precipitation monitoring.

The shallower monitoring wells (MW-1A, MW-5A) appear to react more quickly to precipitation 

or snowmelt pulses. Monthly total precipitation values at the regional stations were generally less 

than average for the winter of 2012 and 2013, and daily air temperatures indicate melt was likely 

occurring sporadically throughout the winter and early spring. At MW-5A, the hydrograph in 

August 2012 is responding to a mid-month precipitation series that totaled about 3.9 inches at 

Cloudcroft and 3.0 inches at Ruidoso. Monitoring well MW-1A did not respond to that event. For 

the March 2013 water level rises at MW-1A and -5A, about 1.2 inches of precipitation fell in 

early March at Cloudcroft, but data at Ruidoso are missing, and the U.S. Geological Survey rain 

gages were not operating then. Given the mixed freeze-thaw temperatures at Cloudcroft, the 

March 2013 rises might have been a rain-on-snow or frozen ground event. The rapid water level 

rises in early September 2013 correspond to the greater total rainfall falling at that time, as 

discussed in chapter 2. 

There is a substantial amount of missing data, but the record does extend through the 2012 

rainfall series, with an essentially flat trend likely indicating that the pump was off. Pumping 

occurred sometime around May 2013, at roughly the same time as water level declines in the 

deep monitoring wells MW-1B, MW-1C, and MW-3A (Figures 44, 45, and 46, respectively in the 

water resources specialist report, located in the project record). These conditions may relate to 

pumping drawdown in bedrock, as water placed in storage (on the seasonal rising limb) is 

removed. Alternatively, the water levels in deeper wells may simply reflect seasonal precipitation 

changes, noting the rises following rainfall after July 2013. (Pumping conditions after May 2013 

are unknown.) The recession lines at shallow monitoring well MW-5A are parallel between the 

August 2012 event (likely non pumping in NF-1) and the May 2013 period (likely pumping in 

NF-1). There also is a general surface flow decline indicated at the North Fork streamgage during 

the May 2013 period. 

Water Quality 

Large wildfires generally reduce surface water quality as a result of substantially increased 

sediment concentrations, ash and other organic materials, and nutrient changes. Often, 

concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other ions increase in streams after burning 

(Tiedemann et al. 1979 as cited in Clark 2001). Increases in bicarbonates, nitrates, ammonium, 

and organic nitrogen are common (Chandler et al. 1983 as cited in Clark 2001). These may 

contribute to eutrophication or algal blooms in downstream waterbodies. 

Runoff water chemistry is typically modified in the first few storms after a large wildfire, and 

frequently returns to pre-burn characteristics after 1 or 2 years (Clark 2001). However, increased 

turbidity, sediment, and organic carbon loads may persist for much longer, depending on the 

stream network and transport through the watershed. Higher post-wildfire sediment 

concentrations, organic debris, and nutrient concentrations from hillslopes may reduce dissolved 

oxygen availability in streamflows. In combination, these changes would alter water quality for a 

period of years after the wildfire. Based on the BAER fire intensity mapping, the project area 

along the North Fork underwent low intensity to under-burn fire conditions. This indicates that 

the remaining overstory along the stream may be mostly green and have limited scorch, or may 

have been subjected to even less fire damage (USDA Forest Service 2012a, b). In addition, the 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 123
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

low fire severity or under-burn areas along the North Fork may contain adequate remaining 

ground cover to help reduce accelerated sheet erosion from source areas within the stream 

corridor. 

Climate Change 

In the final draft of the pre-wildfire Water Resources Technical Report (dated November 9, 2011), 

the introductory text to the precipitation analysis done for preceding years of record is no longer 

necessary in the context of the current U.S. Geological Survey report version (Matherne et al. 

2011). In their final report revision (also released in November 2011), the U.S. Geological Survey 

no longer described a shift in seasonal moisture as a factor in runoff patterns or baseflow 

conditions in the Eagle Creek watershed. Since a comparison of seasonal conditions had already 

been done for the project, indicating that precipitation shifts were unlikely, previous climate 

explanations for flow conditions are no longer presented in this technical report following the 

latest U.S. Geological Survey revision. Other discussion of the potential nature of long-term 

climate change is anticipated to apply to post-wildfire conditions. 

Summary 

Water resources effects from the Little Bear Fire are anticipated to generally follow the preceding 

discussions, which are based largely on collected research and USDA Forest Service post-wildfire

investigations. Some research was conducted under different conditions than those in the study 

areas; however, on-site, local, or regional findings have been incorporated where available. These 

more-applicable investigations create a different perspective from some of the findings from other 

parts of the West. In general, ongoing and anticipated wildfire effects in the Eagle Creek study 

area watersheds and the North Fork project area can be summarized as indicated in table 9 below. 

It should be noted that the duration of some effects depends on the timing, extent, and nature of 

vegetation changes within the burned areas, as previously discussed. In addition, some processes 

interact to increase or decrease the overall effects.

Table 9. Summary of anticipated wildfire effects on water resources

Hydrologic 

Process

Type of Change Specific Effect Anticipated Duration of 

Effectsa

1. Canopy 

Interception

Reduced Reduced moisture storage in the 

canopy

Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Greater runoff in smaller storms Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Temporarily increased surface 

water yields 

Short -term

2. Litter Storage 

of Water

Reduced Less water stored in litter Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

Overland flow increased Short-term, and possibly 

long-term

124 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Hydrologic 

Process

Type of Change Specific Effect Anticipated Duration of 

Effectsa

3. Transpiration Temporary 

elimination or 

possible long term 

reduction

Soil moisture increased Possibly long-term

Streamflow increased Possibly long-term

Recharge possibly increased from 

large monsoonal events

Possibly long-term

4. Infiltration Temporarily reduced Temporary increases in overland 

flow and erosion

Short-term

Temporary increases in storm flows Short-term

5. Surface 

Streamflow

Changed Temporary increases in “flashy” 

responses to rainfall or rapid 

snowmelt

Short-term

Seasonally maintained or 

decreased during snowmelt 

Short-term and possibly 

long-term

Water quality reduced Short-term

6. Baseflow Changed Short-term decreases (less 

infiltration and recharge)

Short-term

Long-term return to pre-burn 

conditions, or potential long-term 

increases due to reduced 

evapotranspiration and monsoonal 

recharge through preferential 

pathways

Long-term

7.Stormflow and 

Sediment/

Debris Yields

Increased Event volumes and peak flow rates 

substantially greater for period of 

years

Short-term

Volume “bulked” by sediment and 

debris

Short-term

Time to peak shorter (“flashier”) Short-term

Greater flash flood frequency Short-term

Erosive power increased Short-term

Channel modification and transport 

of sediment/debris, over decades

Both short-term and longterm 

8. Snow 

accumulation

Changed (Generally 

these factors offset 

each other)

Increased snow accumulation Both short-term and longterm 

Increased or accelerated 

evaporation, sublimation, and melt 

Both short-term and longterm 

a - Short-term durations are estimated to range from three to seven years post-wildfire. Long-term durations are estimated 

to extend beyond that time-frame. Some long-term effects (particularly related to canopy, litter, and transpiration changes) 

are more or less likely depending on the nature and extent of any stand conversions that may occur. 

Source: Modified from Neary et al. 2005.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 125
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change 

(Continue Pumping at Historic Levels) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Based on inferences from historical conditions, under alternative 1 (no change), the general 

duration of no surface flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be approximately 1 to 2 weeks a

year during average precipitation periods and approximately 8 to 10 weeks a year during drier 

periods. By themselves, impacts from no-flow conditions would be short term and local. 

According to the flow frequency analysis of pumping during approximately average precipitation, 

flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur approximately 46 percent of the time. 

This would be a reduction of at least 10 percent from prepumping conditions, when flows of 1.2 

cubic feet per second or greater occurred about 57 percent of the time (table 5). During drier 

years, flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur approximately 19 percent of the 

time, a substantial reduction from average prepumping conditions. 

The actual occurrence of no-flow or reduced-flow periods would heavily depend on pumping 

rates, timing, and precipitation. If it is assumed that historic conditions can be used to infer future 

conditions, then according to table 5, the combined periods of flows less than 1.2 cubic feet per 

second (below which alluvial groundwater is assumed to become limiting to riparian and aquatic 

communities) would average approximately 6.5 months of the year during years of generally 

average precipitation. This would be an average increase of approximately 1.3 months over the 

duration of these lower flows (5.2 months) during the prepumping period. During drier years, the 

period of flow below 1.2 cubic feet per second would be extended on average to approximately 

9.7 months of the year. This would be an increase of approximately 4.5 months over the duration 

of these lower flows during the prepumping period (5.2 months), a long-term impact in relation to 

prepumping conditions. Over a 20-year period of permit authorization, years of these severely 

reduced flows would be likely. 

Discontinuous intermittent streamflows at reduced levels would continue near and downstream of 

the well field, creating site specific and local adverse impacts on flow rates and extent. The 

availability of alluvial groundwater would continue to be locally limited. These adverse direct 

impacts would be short term to long term and moderate to severe, depending on background 

precipitation. Over a 30-year period of permit authorization, years of severe impacts from 

reduced flows would be likely, and opportunities for achieving management objectives would be 

limited.

Springs and Seeps

A number of springs or seeps are outside of the assumed pumping drawdown as depicted in figure 

7 and figure 8. Based on this information, it is unlikely that these springs have or would 

experience impacts from the Village well field operations. A spring in Carlton Canyon and 

another in an unnamed tributary to the South Fork are likely to undergo flow reduction impacts 

from pumping based on U.S. Geological Survey observations and projections derived from them. 

Given the general uncertainties associated with drawdown impacts, effects at those sites would 

likely range from moderate to severe. Other existing groundwater modeling indicates that more 

126 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau Groundwater 2004). Under those conditions, a number 

of other springs or seeps in the upper North Fork drainage could be similarly adversely affected.

Nearby Domestic Wells

The estimated drawdown encompasses or is immediately adjacent to two upstream domestic 

wells (DW-1 and DW-2). Water level measurements indicate that the nearest (DW-1) was within 

the actual cone of depression of the Village well field on September 3, 2008, and again on March 

17, 2009 (Matherne, et. al. 2011). Under alternative 1, water levels would decline according to 

assumed drawdown approximations, creating long-term, site-specific adverse impacts on 

domestic water supplies. These impacts would be moderate to severe, depending on the existing 

depths and yields of individual wells, which vary between locations. Other existing groundwater 

modeling indicates that more extensive drawdown could occur (Balleau Groundwater 2004). 

Under those conditions, a number of other domestic wells in the upper North Fork drainage could 

be similarly adversely affected.

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under alternative 1 (no change), streamflow quantities may decline from climate change effects. 

Quantifying these effects is not possible due to uncertainties in climate predictions. Qualitatively, 

the spatial extent and duration of no-flow conditions may increase along the North Fork. The 

presence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second may decline with drier 

climatic conditions, which could reduce water availability in the alluvium for plant growth and 

sustenance. Opportunities for maintaining or improving watershed condition on National Forest 

System lands in the upper Eagle Creek drainage would be limited. Improving resource conditions 

and achieving the management objectives described above would become qualitatively more 

difficult under drier conditions. This would be exacerbated by ongoing well field pumping. 

Streamflow temperatures could increase beyond those expected under current conditions, due to 

decreasing snowpack accumulations, more rapid seasonal melt, and generally warmer and dryer 

conditions overall. Qualitatively, pumping under the no action alternative could intensify these 

adverse conditions. Reduced recharge to zones supplying water to springs, seeps, and nearby 

domestic wells could be further exacerbated by these same climatic effects. Springs, seeps, and 

nearby domestic wells could experience declining flows or water levels at an accelerated pace 

under anticipated climate changes. If they occur, these adverse effects would be long term, local 

to regional, severe impacts.

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear 

Fire 

Over the short-term (i.e., until watershed “recovery” in three to seven years, or until about 2019), 

pumping effects under Alternative 1 are likely to reduce streamflows and groundwater levels 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek. Based on table 9, reduced transpiration losses from vegetation 

have the potential to increase soil moisture and streamflow, but these will likely be offset by 

increased surface runoff from flashy events, and reduced infiltration and groundwater recharge. In 

some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream channel could physically 

increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the channel bed. Flows in 

intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to shallower alluvial 

deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of newly-deposited 

alluvium could reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling. Pumping at historic levels under 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 127
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

this alternative could further reduce the occurrence of surface flow or pools under short-term 

post-wildfire conditions. 

Over the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer stands convert to grasses or shrubs, somewhat less 

evapotranspiration may slightly improve watershed yield. This could also improve groundwater 

availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

If these long-term post-wildfire effects occur, potential impacts from this alternative would be 

similar or slightly less than those described above for the pre-wildfire assessment. If long-term 

additional recharge and water yield increases do not result from watershed recovery, then longterm impacts from this alternative would be expected to resemble those described in the prewildfire water resources assessment and DEIS (USDA Forest Service 2012).

Over the long-term, the general durations of flow conditions would be similar to those described 

in the DEIS and technical report developed before the Little Bear Fire. Based on inferences from 

historical conditions (see table 10 and “Eagle Creek Flow Patterns before the Little Bear Fire”), 

over the long term post-wildfire setting the general duration of no-surface-flow days in the lower 

reaches of the North Fork Eagle Creek would be approximately 1 to 2 weeks a year during 

average precipitation periods. This could increase to approximately 8 to 10 weeks a year during 

drier periods. Streamflows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or more at the Eagle Creek gage location 

would be anticipated to occur about 10 percent less than under no-pumping conditions during 

average precipitation periods, and about 40 percent less than the no-pumping condition during 

drier years. Springs and seeps at low elevations within the Eagle Creek watershed would likely 

undergo flow volume and duration reductions from pumping drawdown. Similarly, water levels in 

domestic wells would likely decline. If climate changes occur, and drier conditions result, 

pumping under this alternative would further reduce streamflows and exacerbate adverse climatic 

effects on springs, seeps and domestic wells. Opportunities for improving riparian conditions 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek would be reduced in comparison to alternatives 2 or 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative water resources impacts from alternative 1 (no action) would include 

additional adverse flow and water quality reductions in Eagle Creek, and continued groundwater 

drawdown in alluvial and bedrock aquifers throughout the cumulative impact area resulting from 

other village wells along Eagle Creek (figure 6). These combined adverse effects would largely 

result from the ongoing water supply withdrawals in the drainage. By far, near-term withdrawals 

would be dominated by the North Fork wells, based on pumping capacities and historical 

withdrawals, described in more detail in the “Socioeconomics” and “Water Rights” section of this 

chapter. Alternative 1 would continue these withdrawals. In turn, these could create adverse 

impacts to riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and other beneficial uses along the Eagle Creek 

corridor through reduced groundwater recharge. These impacts would be long term and regional. 

Future estimated water supply requirements by the village are estimated to be approximately 

5,097 acre-feet per year, even with conservation. Existing water supplies and water rights as 

developed do not meet those needs. Current diversions along Eagle Creek and the Rio Ruidoso, 

as described in the “Affected Environment, Domestic and Municipal Water Use,” are about 3,850 

acre-feet per year. This leaves approximately 2,125 acre-feet per year yet to be obtained and 

developed to meet eventual demand. Given that the Eagle Creek water rights total approximately 

2,539 acre-feet per year, a substantial amount of additional water supply infrastructure will be 

128 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

required in the Ruidoso region. Qualitatively, this will generate additional long term, regional 

impacts in the area. Some of these may occur along Eagle Creek in the cumulative impacts area. 

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires (as listed in 

table 4) act to increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Planned activities 

would be conducted using best management practices to avoid or minimize these impacts. 

Historically, wildfires have ranged from roughly 40 to 600 acres in size near the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. These are relatively small disturbances in terms of increasing runoff or sediment yields, 

and impacts to surface water and groundwater availability would be local and minor. Occasional 

water quality impacts from turbidity and sediment concentrations may result from forestry 

operations or wildfires in the cumulative impact area.

Updates to Cumulative Effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (three to seven years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), 

continued pumping under alternative 1 cumulatively would add to downstream water resources 

impacts from the wildfire as well as other water uses outside the forest boundary. An adverse 

effect of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping would be reductions of downstream baseflows and 

groundwater levels. Over the post-wildfire short term (until hillslope recovery), the adverse 

effects to streamflows would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, erosion and debris flows, 

channel geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the Little Bear Fire. In 

addition, other water users would affect surface drainage and groundwater levels. Depending on 

the timing and volumes of other water withdrawals and returns in the cumulative study area, all 

these factors would combine to largely obscure the downstream effects of North Fork Eagle 

Creek pumping in the short term. 

Long-term (four to eight years post-wildfire) cumulative effects anticipated under alternative 1 

would be similar to those previously described above for the pre-wildfire cumulative assessment.

These would generally include streamflow reductions in Eagle Creek, and continued groundwater 

drawdown in alluvial and bedrock aquifers throughout the cumulative study area. As discussed in 

the Water Rights section, applications by the Village of Ruidoso for additional points of diversion 

along Eagle Creek are pending at the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. If wells are 

pumped at these points, it could extend drawdown effects in combination with pumping of the 

existing wells.

It should be noted, however, that potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater 

resources would not be restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. A substantial number 

of individual domestic wells and other points of diversion exist within the Eagle Creek basin, 

within and downstream of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage. Approximately 20 domestic 

wells (or more) occur within the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well 

field. Real estate developments and resorts particularly have points of diversion along the lower 

Eagle Creek drainage near Alto, as recorded by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

(2014). All of these uses would contribute to moderate to major long-term cumulative water 

resources impacts, depending on the amount and timing of water withdrawals and the nature of 

measures implemented to control surface drainage and runoff water quality. Although the Village 

of Ruidoso implements water conservation measures and enacts water restrictions during periods 

of drought or other emergencies (such as the Little Bear Fire), the Village of Ruidoso is not the 

only water user in the region and has limited, if any, control over other water users. In addition to 

these considerations, the Little Bear Fire was widespread across several drainage basins, 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 129
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

including Little Creek and the Rio Bonito. Widespread cumulative wildfire impacts on surface

runoff, groundwater recharge, and water quality were described previously. The effects of forest 

fuel reductions, prescribed burns, and other activities would be the same as qualitatively 

described previously for the alternative 1 pre-wildfire cumulative assessment.

Conclusion

Spatially discontinuous, intermittent streamflows would persist at reduced levels near and 

downstream of the well field, creating site specific and local impacts on flow rates and extent. 

The availability of alluvial groundwater would continue to be reduced locally. These adverse 

direct impacts would be short term to long term and moderate to severe, depending largely on 

background precipitation. Drawdown impacts on springs or seeps would be site specific and 

moderate to severe. Adverse long-term, site-specific impacts to domestic water supplies would 

occur. These impacts would be moderate to severe, depending on the actual extent of drawdown, 

and the existing depths and yields of individual wells. All of these effects could be made more 

adverse in significance and duration by possible climate changes toward more extended drier 

conditions. 

Cumulative water resources impacts would involve ongoing reductions in flow and water quality 

along Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact study area, primarily due to reduced 

groundwater recharge. These could be adverse, long term, regional impacts that would likely 

range in severity from moderate to severe. Additional water supply developments in the region 

could create further impacts to surface water, groundwater, and associated resources.

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Based on historical data for prepumping conditions, the lower portions of North Fork Eagle Creek 

would remain an intermittent stream during periods of average precipitation. No-flow days would 

still occur at various locations along stream reaches where large alluvial deposits are located, 

generally starting in June or later. These flow conditions would occur because smaller 

streamflows would be absorbed by the alluvium. Without pumping, however, the magnitudes and 

extents of intermittent flows would increase above current conditions during pumping or those 

anticipated under alternative 1 (no change). Isolated perennial pools may occur in some locations 

above the Eagle Creek gage. These would be beneficial long term, local impacts to current 

conditions with pumping, but would represent minimal or negligible changes from prepumping 

conditions. Opportunities for improving watershed condition and achieving other management 

objectives would improve.

If historical prepumping conditions are assumed, the occurrence of no-flow days would be 

eliminated downstream at the Eagle Creek gage during average or wetter years. According to the 

flow frequency analysis during the prepumping period of slightly above average precipitation 

(figure 7 and figure 8), flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur approximately 

57 percent of the time (table 11). This would represent an absolute increase of about 10 percent 

beyond the occurrence of these flows anticipated under the no action alternative during average 

years. This would be a beneficial, long term local impact in comparison to current conditions with 

well field pumping. 

130 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Springs and Seeps

Under this alternative, there would be no groundwater drawdown due to village well field

pumping, and springs and seeps would not be impacted by pumping the wells. 

Nearby Domestic Wells

Similar to the reasoning for springs and seeps, because there would be no groundwater drawdown 

under this alternative, there would be no impact to nearby domestic wells from the village well 

field. 

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under alternative 2 (no action – no pumping), the potential climate change effects could still 

occur. Predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, and runoff conditions could continue to 

create long-term declines in North Fork flows, even without pumping. Water temperatures may 

rise overall; this would be particularly noticeable during summer low flows. Springs, seeps, and 

nearby domestic wells could eventually experience declines or go dry. Qualitatively, these effects 

would occur at a slower pace than under alternative 1 (no change). This would allow greater 

flexibility and time for resource management to adapt to changing conditions, if they occur. 

Under alternative 2, there would be no groundwater drawdown due to pumping, and springs, 

seeps, and domestic wells would not be affected by Village of Ruidoso pumping. If climate 

change occurred and resulted in drier conditions, long-term reductions in North Fork flows would 

occur. Qualitatively, these effects would occur at a slower rate under alternative 2 than under 

alternative 1. This may allow more opportunity for resource management responses to climatic 

conditions. 

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 2 Due to the Little Bear 

Fire 

Over the short-term (i.e., until watershed “recovery”), effects under alternative 2 would 

encourage the occurrence of streamflows and increased groundwater levels along the North Fork 

Eagle Creek. Large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during periods of average 

precipitation. In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream channel 

could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the channel 

bed. Flows in intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be related to 

shallower alluvial deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some locations, greater thickness of 

newly-deposited alluvium could reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling, even without 

pumping. If this occurs, under alternative 2 it would likely be less frequent or extensive than 

under alternatives 1 or 3. 

Over the long-term, post-wildfire hillslope and vegetation conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer stands convert to grasses or shrubs, somewhat less 

evapotranspiration may slightly improve watershed yield. If these conditions occur in the absence 

of pumping under alternative 2, aquatic habitats could be enhanced and additional opportunities 

for improving riparian conditions would result. 

Cumulative Effects

If alternative 2 (no pumping) were implemented, additional groundwater would pass downstream 

from the well field area into the cumulative impact area. On this basis, combining the effects of 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 131
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alternative 2 (no pumping) with other past, present, and foreseeable future action would result in 

downstream migration of groundwater within the stream alluvium and/or bedrock. As a result, 

beneficial recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, riparian condition, and possibly stream 

base flows may result. The magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since the village 

operates five additional water supply wells in the drainage. 

Implementing alternative 2 would effectively preclude the use of the existing well field for 

municipal water supply by the village. As such, it would conflict with part of the purpose of the 

action: authorizing the village under a special use permit to access and divert groundwater from 

its North Fork Eagle Creek wells. This would create additional demands by the Village of 

Ruidoso on other water sources downstream within the Eagle Creek drainage or in other 

drainages. These demands would most likely be met by groundwater supplies elsewhere, with 

associated aquifer withdrawals. Associated impacts would probably involve drawdown related 

reductions in stream base flows, nearby well water levels, and flow reductions at springs and 

seeps. The occurrence of these impacts would depend on the water sources used to meet the 

demand, whether or not new water wells were brought into service, and where and how pumping 

occurred. These additional water supply factors and related impacts would be the same as those 

qualitatively described for alternative 1 (no action).

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires would all act to 

increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Controls on forest activities and 

the impacts of wildfires would be the same as qualitatively described under alternative 1. 

Updates to Cumulative Effects from Alternative 2 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (3 to 7 years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), the cessation of 

North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 2 would contribute to downstream baseflows 

and groundwater levels outside the forest boundary. Over the post-wildfire short term (until 

hillslope recovery), these beneficial effects would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, 

erosion and debris flows, channel geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the 

Little Bear Fire. In addition, other downstream water users would affect surface drainage and 

groundwater levels. Depending on the timing and volumes of other water withdrawals and returns 

in the cumulative study area, these factors could obscure some of the beneficial effects of 

alternative 2 in the short term. 

After longer-term watershed recovery in the basins affected by the Little Bear Fire, additional 

streamflow and groundwater would pass downstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek well field

area into the cumulative study area under alternative 2. As a result, beneficial recharge effects to 

aquifers, springs and seeps, riparian condition, and possibly stream baseflows may result. The 

magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, due to the number of other water users in the 

area. Over the long-term, cumulative water resources impacts would be similar to those 

previously described for alternative 2 in pre-wildfire assessments. The effects of forest fuel 

reductions, prescribed burns, and other activities would be the same as qualitatively described for 

alternative 1. 

Implementing alternative 2 would effectively preclude use of the North Fork Eagle Creek well 

field for municipal water supply by the Village of Ruidoso. This would most likely create 

additional demands and associated pumping drawdown effects on other water resources in the 

Eagle Creek drainage or nearby. As discussed in the Water Rights section, applications by the 

Village of Ruidoso for additional points of diversion along Eagle Creek are pending at the New 

132 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mexico Office of the State Engineer. It should be noted, however, that potential cumulative 

effects on streamflows and groundwater resources would not be restricted to water uses by the 

Village of Ruidoso, as mentioned above under alternative 1. 

Conclusion

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), the upper portions of the North Fork would be maintained as 

perennial reaches. Intermittent flows would occur from slightly above the well field downstream 

to the Eagle Creek gage, wherever alluvial deposits entirely absorb streamflows. On the basis of 

historical prepumping data, the occurrence of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be 

substantially reduced or eliminated. Similarly, flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second could 

be expected to occur between 55 to 60 percent of the time under average precipitation. This 

would increase opportunities for watershed improvement, and allow increased water availability 

for other uses. 

Beneficial cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, and possibly stream base 

flows may result under alternative 2 (no pumping) within parts of the Eagle Creek drainage. The 

magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since it is likely that the village would continue 

to exercise its water rights and make withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle Creek system. Impacts 

from such activities could offset beneficial impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field. 

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Streamflow Quantity

Under the proposed action, we would enact pumping restrictions when the no-flow day 

management trigger reached the prescribed thresholds. These restrictions would decrease the 

amount of water the village could withdraw by limiting the pumping rate to 50 percent of the 

streamflow reported at the North Fork gage. 

Using the potential adaptive management triggers (monitoring indicators) described for the 

proposed action (alternative 3) in chapter 2 of the EIS, we conducted a review of the hypothetical 

implementation of the flow volume triggers, using historical flow conditions as data inputs. Table 

10 displays the results of this exercise. 

Based on an analysis of no-flow durations per year, we approximated the amount of time that 

pumping would be limited each year, assuming that pumping could resume without limitation 

once flow resumed at the Eagle Creek gage, but that the pumping limit would be imposed 

immediately if no flow occurred again in the water year. For this exercise, we assumed the 

management trigger reset every October 1 if there was flow on that date. If there was no flow on 

October 1, the pumping limit that was triggered the previous year was assumed to remain in 

effect until flow resumed. No-flow days that occurred during pumping limits of this type counted 

toward the new water year’s trigger limit. Table 10 indicates the approximate total duration in 

each historical year when pumping would have been limited. Note that the estimated limitations 

would not necessarily have been continuous over the entire durations indicated. 

Under the adaptive management strategy for the proposed action, it can be seen from table 10 that 

management triggers are most generally enacted during dry years. During average years, the 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 133
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

triggers would be enacted much less frequently. The effects of this approach would be to 

generally maintain perennial streamflow conditions in the upper reaches of the North Fork, and to 

mitigate the potential adverse pumping impacts on intermittent flows from the well field

downstream to the Eagle Creek gage. As a result, only minor, local, short-term impacts to 

streamflow magnitude and extent would occur. The Village of Ruidoso would be able to pump its 

municipal supply most of the time, and would be able to pump at reduced levels during some, but 

not all, of the restricted periods. It is estimated that the change in the occurrence of the 1.2 cubic 

feet per second streamflows would be between 0 and 10 percent of the prepumping condition 

during average years. During dry years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions 

and reduce the amount of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage. An approximate middle ground 

between the prepumping and pumping conditions would be attained during average years. 

Pumping restrictions would mitigate adverse effects to surface waterflows and alluvial water 

availability during dry years. 

Table 10. Historical perspective: durations of no surface flow and hypothetical pumping 

limitations using potential adaptive management triggers for flow volume

Water Year

Approximate 

No-flow Period 

(Weeks)

Potential Adaptive 

Management 

Trigger Enacteda

Approximate 

Weeks of Limited 

Pumping

Prepumping, approximately 

average precipitation 

conditions

1971 0 None 0 

1972 0 None 0 

1973 0 None 0 

1974 0 None 0 

1975 0 None 0 

1976 0 None 0 

1977 0 None 0 

1978 0 None 0 

1979 0 None 0 

1980 0 None 0 

Period Average 0 NA 0 

Postpumping, 

approximately average 

precipitation conditions

1989 <1 None 0 

1990 3 None 0 

1991 0 None 0 

1992 0 None 0 

1993 0 None 0 

1994 0 None 0 

1995 0 None 0 

134 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Year

Approximate 

No-flow Period 

(Weeks)

Potential Adaptive 

Management 

Trigger Enacteda

Approximate 

Weeks of Limited 

Pumping

1996 8 to 9 30 d/ya 4 to 5

1997 0 None 0 

1998 0 None 0 

Period Average 1 to 2 n/a <1

Postpumping, drought or 

fluctuating precipitation 

conditions

2000 6 to 7 30 d/y 2 to 3

2001 10 to 12 30 d/y 6 to 7

2002 16 to 18 Bothc 14 to 16

2003 18 to 20 Both 15 to 17

2004 20 to 22 Both 22 to 24d

2005 1 to 2 None 0 

2006 18 to 20 30 d/y 14 to 16

2007 0 None 0 

2008 3 to 4 None 0 

2009 9 to 10 30 d/y 5 to 6

2010 4 to 5 20 d/y for 3 yb 4 to 5d

Period Average 10 to 12 n/a 8 to 10

a - “30 d/y”: This proposed adaptive management trigger would be enacted to restrict pumping where there are 30 or 

more no-flow days within 1 water year.

b - “20 d/y for 3 y”: This proposed adaptive management trigger would be enacted to restrict when there are 20 or more 

no-flow days over 3 consecutive water years.

c - “Both”: This indicates that both triggers were reached during the water year.

d - The no-flow period extended from the previous water year into the new, which did not allow the trigger to reset on Oct. 

1.

By limiting pumping, the aquifer drawdown would decrease, and the proportion of volcanic 

aquifer recharge that would remain for water level recovery would increase. This would shorten 

aquifer water level recovery times, and decrease the duration of no-flow periods at the stream 

gage.

As described in detail in the alternative 3 (proposed action) description in chapter 2, other 

management triggers, in addition to the trigger for no-flow days, would be used to manage 

pumping operations. 

Springs and Seeps

The decreased drawdown and shorter water level recovery times would also decrease the duration 

and extent of drawdown, lessening impacts to springs and seeps. Some drawdown impacts would 

still occur over the approximated area of drawdown depicted in figure 7 and figure 8. These are 

anticipated to be local and long term, but minor to moderate since some recovery would be 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 135
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

provided during dry periods. Adaptive management would address impacts to springs and seeps if 

they become more extensive or severe.

Nearby Domestic Wells

The decreased drawdown and water level recovery times would also decrease the duration and 

extent of impacts to domestic wells. Potential impacts would be the same as those described for 

springs and seeps; local and long term, but minor to moderate. Adaptive management would 

address greater impacts to domestic wells if they occurred.

Anticipated Effects of Climate Change

Under the proposed action, the expected effects of climate change could still occur over the long 

run, as described for the other alternatives. However, adaptive management strategies would 

reduce the timing and severity of these effects to the extent possible. Increased temperatures, 

reduced snowpack, and accelerated snowmelt could require ongoing adjustments in adaptive 

strategies to maintain streamflows and groundwater availability. However, experience gained 

through adaptive management would allow more informed strategies to be developed for water 

resources management under changing climatic conditions, if they occur.

Updates to Direct and Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear 

Fire 

Under alternative 3, potential water resources impacts in the North Fork Eagle Creek over the 

short term (3 to 7 years) after the Little Bear Fire may be limited by the application of pumping 

restrictions. During this period, however, the impacts of natural post-wildfire watershed and 

channel adjustments will override some of the pumping impacts and some of the adaptive 

management effort. Even with stabilization efforts, watershed sideslopes will continue to erode 

for a period of years under the severe rainfall events common to the region. This will decline over 

time on sideslopes during the short-term recovery period, but a much longer period will involve 

active sediment and debris accumulation and transport through the valley, the North Fork Eagle 

Creek channel system, and downstream. 

During the short-term, channel re-configuring processes will modify the locations and durations 

of open channel flow or pools. This will be most noticeable after severe rainfall events. Similarly, 

riparian conditions at a given point along the North Fork Eagle Creek will be modified through 

natural post-wildfire adjustments to the channel bed and banks. For this reason, periodic and 

spatially-distributed monitoring measures are described and recommended in chapter 2. Adaptive 

management practices have been re-oriented toward monitoring well placement and recording, in 

an effort to minimize the reliance on shifting channel and streamgage conditions. During the short 

term post-wildfire recovery period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent possible 

through an iterative and adaptive approach as the landscape, stream channel, and groundwater 

recharge processes adjust to the wildfire disturbance. 

Over both the short- and long-terms, management triggers would be most generally enacted 

during dry years. During average or wet years, management triggers would be enacted much less 

frequently. For this reason, measures for monitoring precipitation conditions, groundwater 

conditions, and employing computer simulations of surface- and groundwater interactions have 

been described and recommended in chapter 2. 

136 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Over the long-term, the Village of Ruidoso would be able to pump its municipal supply from the 

North Fork Eagle Creek most of the time, and would be able to pump at reduced levels during 

some, but not all, of the restricted periods. During dry years, adaptive management would 

improve flow conditions and reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. With respect to surface flows and alluvial groundwater levels, an approximate middle 

ground between alternative 1 (continued pumping at historic levels) and alternative 2 (no 

pumping) would be attained during average precipitation years under alternative 3. Drawdown 

effects may still occur at springs, seeps, and domestic wells, but are anticipated to be less than 

those expected under alternative 1. If climate changes to warmer and drier conditions occur, 

ongoing adjustments in management strategies to maintain streamflows, alluvial groundwater 

levels, and Village of Ruidoso water supplies would be required. Experience gained through 

adaptive management would allow more informed water resources strategies if climatic changes 

occur. 

Over the long term, watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire

conditions. If conifer stands convert to grasses or shrubs, somewhat less evapotranspiration may 

slightly improve watershed yield. There may be additional groundwater recharge. If these 

conditions occur along with adaptive management of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping, other 

resource effects could occur. For example, habitats could be enhanced and additional 

opportunities for improving riparian conditions would result.

Cumulative Effects

Combining the effects of the proposed action with other past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions would result in potential cumulative water resources impacts that would include flow and 

water quality reductions in Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact area. Water supply 

pumping for the applicant is conducted at six water wells along lower Eagle Creek (figure 6), and 

the Village of Ruidoso diverts surface water from the stream a short distance below the Eagle 

Creek gage. As a result, groundwater recharge in downstream alluvial and bedrock aquifers 

would still be adversely affected, but to a lesser extent than under current conditions or alternative 

1 (no action). The proposed action would have minor effects on these impacts, as pumping in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek would generally be permitted most of the time. 

Implementing the proposed action would occasionally create temporary demands for other water 

sources on the part of the Village of Ruidoso. It is possible that the Village of Ruidoso would 

meet those demands by pumping groundwater supplies elsewhere or by constructing additional 

storage facilities, by enacting water use limitations, or some combination of these approaches. In 

addition, future water supply infrastructure and withdrawals would create additional water 

resources impacts as qualitatively described previously for alternative 1 (no action). 

Forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, recreational developments, and wildfires would all act to 

increase runoff and sedimentation in the cumulative impact area. Controls on forest activities and 

the impacts of wildfires would be the same as qualitatively described under alternative 1 (no 

action). The extent and effects of these potential activities are unknown.

Updates to Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Over the short term (3 to 7 years after the Little Bear Fire in mid-summer 2012), the management 

of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under alternative 3 would contribute to downstream 

baseflows and groundwater levels outside the forest boundary. Over the post-wildfire short term 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 137
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(until hillslope recovery), these beneficial effects would be masked by accelerated surface runoff, 

erosion and debris flows, channel geometry changes, and reduced water quality resulting from the 

Little Bear Fire. In addition, other downstream water users would affect surface drainage and 

groundwater levels. Depending on the timing and volumes of other water withdrawals and returns 

in the cumulative study area, these factors could obscure some of the beneficial effects of 

alternative 3 in the short term. The effects of management under alternative 3 would likely range 

between the adverse (but obscured) effects of alternative 1 and the beneficial (but obscured) 

effects of alternative 2. 

Over the long term, post-wildfire cumulative water resources impacts would be similar to those 

previously described for alternative 3 in pre-wildfire assessments (AECOM 2011, USDA Forest 

Service 2012). Implementing alternative 3 would occasionally create temporary demands by the 

Village of Ruidoso for other water sources. It is likely that the Village of Ruidoso would meet 

those demands by pumping groundwater supplies elsewhere, by additional leasing of existing 

water rights, by developing additional storage facilities, by enacting further water use limitations 

beyond its current practices, or some combination of these. As discussed in the Water Rights 

section, applications by the Village of Ruidoso for additional points of diversion along Eagle 

Creek are pending at the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. If wells are pumped at these 

points, it could extend drawdown effects in combination with pumping of the existing wells. 

It should be noted, however, that potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater 

resources would not be restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso, as mentioned above 

under alternative 1. The effects of forest fuel reductions, prescribed burns, and other activities 

would be the same as qualitatively described for alternative 1. 

Conclusion

Under the proposed action, the purpose and need for the action would be addressed in a manner 

that satisfies the municipal water supply demands of the village to the extent possible while 

providing for resource values on National Forest System lands. Surface water and groundwater 

availability in the North Fork would improve, and the intermittent flow durations in the stream 

would be generally similar to prepumping conditions. Adaptive management restrictions on 

pumping would mitigate impacts during dry periods. There would still be some drawdown 

impacts on springs, seeps, and domestic wells, but the extent and severity of these impacts would 

be reduced from current conditions. Climate changes in the Southwest may occur, but their effects 

would be accommodated to the extent possible under the adaptive management approach. 

Cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater availability would occur. Adaptive 

management under an approved permit authorization would help address cumulative impacts and 

water supply issues as they were identified. 

Summary

As described in table 2, the alternatives differ in how they respond to the purpose and need for 

action related to protecting forest resources. Alternative 1 (no action) would not meet this need 

since allowing applicant operations to continue at current levels would continue to result in 

substantially more time when flows measured at the Eagle Creek gage are below 1.2 cubic feet 

per second. Alternative 2 (no pumping) would allow for natural conditions to return and 

groundwater pumping would cease. This would result in a return to natural conditions. 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) would also meet this need since the change in the occurrence of 

1.2 cubic feet per second streamflows would be between 0 to 10 percent of the prepumping 

138 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

condition during average years. During dry years, adaptive management would improve flow 

conditions and reduce the amount of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage; an approximate 

middle ground between the prepumping and pumping conditions would be attained during 

average years. Implementing a closely monitored adaptive management strategy with thresholds 

would minimize impacts of groundwater drawdown and provide increased groundwater and 

surface waterflow under alternative 3 (proposed action). This increase would provide adequate 

flows for protecting water dependent ecosystems. Table 2 also provides a comparative summary 

of the effects of each alternative on each water resource measurement indicator.

Aquatic and Fish Habitat 

The fishery and aquatic habitat issues related to North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping include 

changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying degrees. Lowering streamflow 

may increase temperatures which can adversely affect fish. Quantity, quality, and waterflow 

availability that mirrors natural flow patterns are important for aquatic habitat and fish. Suitable 

water quality and temperatures, which are partially based on water depth and channel conditions, 

are necessary to support fish populations. Sufficient water supplies must also be available during 

summer months to provide water temperatures needed for survival of aquatic species.

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 

2012a). The supplemental fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 2014) 

provides a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences, considering the changes caused by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are 

incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in their entirety in the project 

record.

Methodology 

The direct effects study area is the upper Eagle Creek drainage (figure 2) above the Eagle Creek 

gage. The cumulative impacts area extends through the Eagle Creek drainage to the location of 

the former U.S. Geological Survey stream gage named Eagle Creek near Alto, New Mexico 

(Eagle Creek near Alto, U.S. Geological Survey gage number 08387800) (figure 6). This area 

incorporates approximately 7 additional stream miles of Eagle Creek below the study area.

Baseline information used to assess impacts to aquatic habitat and fish was provided by Forest 

Service specialists using professional judgment. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

fisheries biologists were consulted for information regarding past and current fish management 

along the North Fork and levels of angler use. Forest Service records from the pre-well pumping 

period were searched for information related to aquatic habitat and fish management prior to well 

pumping. Other agency records, literature, and anecdotal information and photographs were also 

used where appropriate to assist in determining whether any changes have occurred to aquatic 

habitat and fish populations in the project since pumping began as well as to assist in determining 

effects of the alternatives on these important resources.

Well pumping may affect the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat, including temperature, 

(salmonids require summer water temperatures at or below 68 degrees Fahrenheit), and waterflow 

availability and seasonality (seasonal and year-long flows compared to expected flows without 

pumping). Alternatives were compared using the water resource streamflow quantity and quality 

indicators (see “Water Resources Methodology” in the previous section of this chapter). 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 139
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The “Methodology” section at the beginning of this chapter describes the general approach used 

for cumulative effects analysis. Activities and projects summarized in table 4 and figure 4 were 

considered in the aquatic habitat and fish cumulative analysis. 

Post-wildfire conditions were assessed to compare with the pre-wildfire conditions described in 

the DEIS. All post-wildfire reports including the BAER reports, field visit reports by resource 

specialists, wildfire impact assessments, and post-wildfire assessment maps were reviewed and 

cited in describing changes to fish and wildlife conditions. Literature relevant to wildfire effects 

on fish and wildlife habitats and resources were reviewed and cited where applicable to the Little 

Bear Fire situation.

Affected Environment

There are no federally listed, proposed, or candidate fish species, nor any Regional Forester 

sensitive species occurring in the North Fork Eagle Creek. Brook trout and rainbow trout are the 

only fish species currently documented in the portion of the North Fork between the North Fork 

gage and Eagle Creek gage. Persistent brook trout populations occur primarily in the perennial 

stretches and in the headwaters of the drainage in the White Mountain Wilderness (upstream from 

the North Fork gage), but during streamflow periods they have been found in some ponded 

sections of the North Fork in the Eagle Creek summer home area (upstream from the North Fork 

gage) and further downstream. 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish records indicate that fish stocking has occurred 

along the North Fork as far back as 1896 with rainbow trout (a nonnative species). There have 

been releases of nonnative brown trout, catfish, and brook trout and native Rio Grande cutthroat 

trout periodically through the 1960s as reported by Little (1960a, b) and Hansen (pers. comm. 

2011). 

Fish survey records from the 1960s through 2007 document the presence of brook trout in the 

North Fork (Little 1960a, Little 1960b, Little 1961, Hansen and Denny, personal communication 

2011). As summarized in McGlothlin (2011) and in table 11, in the 1960s, brook trout were 

collected in a 100-foot section 1 mile below Eagle Creek Lodge (which is now in the present day 

Eagle Creek summer home area). Fish averaged about 4-5 inches in length and there were no 

other species besides brook trout collected. Water temperatures varied between surveys and 

ranged from 55 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. These reports note: (1) very little fishing during the 

summer months because of low water conditions; (2) low densities of emergent and submerged 

aquatic vegetation (including algae and cattails); (3) ponderosa pine and spruce-fir as the 

dominate vegetation type; and (4) perennial reaches for the first 3.5 miles and then intermittent 

reaches downstream, except during periods of high runoff. 

Medlock (2011) also provides insights into pre-well pumping stream conditions and fishing 

opportunities along the North Fork consistent with the summaries above. 

Ross (1970) documents very good aquatic insect populations (the food source for trout) and an 

opinion that the North Fork has the capability of producing a quality cold water fishery, but notes 

that overall stream conditions were measurably better above the Eagle Creek summer home area 

than below. Patterson (1971) notes that the North Fork fishery is nearly nonexistent and that any 

improvement would be beneficial. Only brook trout were caught in the North Fork in 2007. 

140 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 11. Summary of past and present aquatic habitat and fish information for the North 

Fork Eagle Creek

Date Source Information 

1920s - 

1930s

Richard Hansen, New 

Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish 

(Hansen, pers. 

comm. 2011)

North Fork Eagle Creek stocked with brook trout and Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout in the 1920s and 1930s.

1959 - 

1960

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish Basic 

Survey of Eagle 

Creek Report (Little 

1960a)

Surveyed manmade pond areaa which is believed to be within the 

present day well field (T10S, R12E, Section 36), although there are 

differing opinions among agency biologists on this; rainbow trout 

and stunted brook trout observed in stream; noted that creek was 

shallow and narrow with the exception of two ponds; permanent 

water exists for 3.5 miles and then becomes intermittent except 

during periods of high runoff; boulders and rubble with some areas 

of sand and silt documented; water temperature varied from 55 °F 

to 66 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Recommends fish only be planted during years of adequate 

precipitation (except at manmade fish ponds); noted that stream is 

unsuitable for trout plantings except during high runoff from winter 

snows and noted little fishing during summer months.

1960 New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish Basic 

Survey of Eagle 

Creek Report (Little 

1960b and Little 

1961)

Fish restricted to pools during low water; noted stream 6 feet wide 

and 3 feet deep; 37 fish sampled.

1963 Forest Service Upper 

Eagle Creek 

Watershed Analysis 

(USDA Forest 

Service 1963)

Notes that “the Eagle Creek water sinks and seeps away and is not 

delivered to the Rio Ruidoso or Rio Hondo system except during 

short periods of peak flow” and “records of the Eagle Creek 

drainage show some flood damage nearly every year with major 

floods occurring every 3 to 4 year intervals”.

1970 Forest Service Report 

(Ross 1970) 

Survey to determine if North Fork Eagle Creek has potential as a 

cold water fishery. Sampled three areas (above summer homes, 

below summer homes and near “old gravel borrow pit”); above 

summer home reach ranked highest for potential, but noted all 

three areas with potential; report author recommended stream 

improvements to enhance fish habitat; also noted “high amount of 

alluvium” in stream and recommended removing this alluvium (to 

provide gravel) in order to improve stream habitat.

1971 New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish letter (1971)

Memo to Forest Service in response to Ross report stating the 

report gave good ideas; noted North Fork Eagle Creek has 

potential for “limited access fishing” and “present day fishing is 

nearly nonexistent.”

a - It is also well documented and understood that manmade ponds used to occur in the Eagle Creek summer home area 

and were stocked with fish.

As shown in table 12, the number of fish caught and the angler use days on Eagle Creek have 

dropped dramatically since 1990. As discussed with Hansen (personal communication 2011) the 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish records indicate that Eagle Creek (all of Eagle Creek 

and not just the North Fork) angler pressure in the mid-2000s dropped to about half the angler 

pressure of the late 1980s based on their mail surveys (about 400 angler days annually in the later 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 141
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

surveys compared to about 700 angler days annually in the 1980s). The average number of angler 

use days from 1975-1989 was 717 and the average number of fish caught in this same period was 

3,220; this has since dropped in 1990-2008 to 320 and 890 respectively. For comparison, angler 

use on the Rio Ruidoso showed just the opposite trend; it received about 34,000 angler days of 

use annually in the 2000s but only about 15,000 angler days annually in the 1980s. Hansen 

speculates that one factor that may be affecting the drop in angler pressure is the loss of the ponds 

in the Eagle Creek summer home area due to flooding. 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish does not currently highlight the North Fork as a 

fishery with the public. They consider the North Fork a “self-sustaining brook trout fishery” 

(meaning they don’t stock it or otherwise encourage the fishery in this area, but it does have a 

population of brook trout that persists). The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish likely 

stopped investing in stocking it in the 1970s and 1980s due to fluctuating water levels and the 

quality of the habitat (Hansen, personal communication 2011). Over the last few years, the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish has moved fish from various isolated pools near road 

crossings upstream (presumably upstream of the North Fork gage) to where there was more 

consistent flow (Denny personal communication 2011). 

Table 12. Eagle Creek fishing pressure and fish caught (New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish 2011)

Year Angler Days Fish Caught

1975-76 1,722 4,220

1978-79 867 2,746

1981-82 69 0 

1982-83 337 3,232

1983-84 1,266 6,054

1984-85 117 780

1985-86 238 210

1986-87 453 3,816 

1988-89 1,381 7,922

Average 1975-1989 before North Fork well pumping began 717 3,220

1990-91 192 1,536

1997-98 489 1,252

1998-99 355 2,444

1999-00 143 491

2000-01 99 0 

2001-02 141 141

2007-08 821 367

Average 1990-2008 after North Fork well pumping began 320 890

142 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As described in detail in the “Water Resources” section previously in this chapter (and 

documented in detail in AECOM (2012)), the North Fork streamflow has been affected by well 

pumping and is less now than it was prior to the onset of pumping in 1988; dry periods have 

increased and there are substantially more months per year when flow is less than 1.2 cubic feet 

per second. 

An area below the confluence of the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek is listed by the New 

Mexico Environment Department as impaired because of reduced flows from well pumping (New 

Mexico Environment Department 2011a and 2011b). The department concludes that without 

improved management of the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, these conditions would be 

expected to persist or worsen. 

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Based on the compilation and evaluation of the best available data (summarized above), there is 

sufficient information to substantiate reduced flows, less fish presence, and decreased fishing 

recreation in the North Fork since the wells were authorized and began pumping in 1988. It 

appears that higher quality aquatic habitat and fishing opportunities existed in the North Fork 

before the North Fork Eagle Creek wells began pumping when compared to current conditions 

and fish populations (primarily brook trout) are substantially less now than they were before 

1988. While many factors likely contribute to this shift (e.g. flood events, seasonal variations in 

precipitation and recreational use, loss of manmade fishing ponds due to flooding, variability in 

data collection and reporting, and reductions in direct New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

fish stocking), it is likely that pumping is a one of the primary causes reducing the North Fork 

streamflow. However, as shown in table 11 and summarized above, the North Fork never 

provided a high quality trout fishery; conditions appear to always have been variable from year to 

year. Variations in seasonal flows in many reaches of the North Fork can affect stream 

temperature (important for fish survival) and algae and aquatic insect habitat (trout prey base), 

and have likely done so since before 1988. 

There is no concrete evidence to conclude whether North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping is 

affecting groundwater and surface water upstream from the well field and above the North Fork 

gage. Matherne et al. (2011) concluded the cone of depression created by well pumping did not 

extend further upstream than the North Fork gage, but, as described in the “Water Resources” 

section of this chapter, worst-case drawdown effects are possible above the gage (figure 7 and 

figure 8) extending into the Eagle Creek summer home area. For purposes of this analysis, it is 

assumed that, while effects to aquatic habitat and fish are possible above the North Fork gage, the 

majority of the most important North Fork aquatic habitat and brook trout habitat (occurring in 

the historically and currently perennial upper reaches and upstream of the summer home area) are 

not being measurably affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping. 

Therefore, while the North Fork, particularly below the North Fork gage, has always been a 

marginal trout fishery, the quality of trout habitat and recreational fishing experience it currently 

provides is lower today than it was in the late 1980s, and North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping 

has contributed to this decline.

Conditions after the Little Bear Fire 

Cordova (2013) reported that three visits were made to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage 

during the field season in 2013 that document post-wildfire conditions. Each visit to this drainage 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 143
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

had a different emphasis (debris flow information, botany survey, college field trip). All three of 

these visits encompassed a review of the upper reaches of the drainage (Wilderness Area). During 

each of these visits (April, early July, late July) a cursory observation of pools where fish were 

seen historically was assessed. No fish were observed during these outings. He concluded that “I 

feel very confident in saying that the fish population in the North Fork Eagle Creek was 

extirpated by the floods that occurred after the Little Bear Fire”. Cordova (2013a) reported that 

the riparian system is in excellent shape in the upper watershed! Once we get stability on the 

upper slopes we will have the opportunity to consider introducing fish back into the system, 

possibly Rio Grande cutthroat. The South Fork of the Bonito may be a better candidate due to 7.5 

miles of riparian habitat. There is only a very small stretch of year round flow in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek (approx. 1.5 miles) (Cordova 2013a). 

Dunham et al. (in University of Idaho 2007) showed that physical stream habitats can remained 

altered (e.g., stream temperatures) for many years following wildfire, but that native aquatic 

vertebrates can remain resilient. In a management context, this suggests that wildfire may be less 

of a threat to native species than human influences that alter the capacity of stream-living 

vertebrates to persist in the face of natural disturbance. 

AECOM (2014) presents information directly relevant to the post-wildfire situation indicating

that there is a potential to have perennial or near perennial stream flows reestablished from 

combined summer rain falls and increased surface runoff. However, the spikes in water flow will 

most likely be seasonal and of short duration instead of year-round which may not provide a 

perennial water flow. However, there should be a greater volume of water in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek as a result of the wildfire. The significance of erosion and debris flows will be to make the 

channel environment more dynamic than they were before the Little Bear Fire with the potential 

to rejuvenate fish habitat and overall conditions (AECOM 2014). This report indicates that postwildfire water quality is likely to be affected for 1-2 years and turbidity impacts could last 

considerably longer than 2 years both in the wildfire area and downstream. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change 

Direct/Indirect Effects

The current level of effects to aquatic habitat and fish would continue. As shown above, there is 

sufficient information to substantiate reduced flows, less fish presence, and decreased fishing 

recreation in the North Fork since the North Fork Eagle Creek wells were authorized and began 

pumping in 1988. This trend would continue with implementation of alternative 1 (no action). 

As described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, spatially discontinuous, 

intermittent streamflows would continue at reduced levels near and downstream of the well field

under alternative 1 (no action), creating site specific and local impacts on flow rates and extent. 

The duration of excessively warm low-flow water temperatures would continue to be about 1 or 2 

weeks longer per year than under prepumping conditions; an adverse effect on aquatic uses and 

fish. All of these effects could be exacerbated over the long term by possible climate changes 

toward more extended drier conditions, with resultant adverse effects to the quality of habitat for 

aquatic species and fish.

As stated previously, the majority of the most important North Fork aquatic habitat and brook 

trout habitat (occurring in the historically and currently perennial upper reaches further upstream 

144 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells and the North Fork gage) are not being measurably 

affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping and this would not change with 

implementation of alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

As described in the water resources of this chapter, cumulative water resources impacts include 

ongoing reductions in flow and water quality along Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact 

area, due primarily to reduced groundwater recharge. Additional water supply developments in 

the region would create further impacts to surface water, groundwater, and associated resources. 

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions with the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and for 

water resources above, implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would result in minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative effects to aquatic habitat and fish similar to those described for 

water resources.

The burn severity of the Little Bear Fire burn was high or moderate throughout 53 percent of the 

wildfire boundary. Bury et al. (no date) reports that some research on large, stand-replacing 

wildfires on lotic biota suggests that wildfire ultimately benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, 

even those species that are negatively affected by the disturbance in the short-term, immediately 

after the wildfire. For example, Lyon suggested that some aquatic invertebrates may decline 

immediately after a wildfire, then increase to levels above pre-wildfire conditions as a response to 

increased stream productivity. Large fires can have long-term effects on streams by: (1) reducing 

invertebrate diversity for a decade or longer; (2) changes in peak discharge, stream channel 

morphology, large woody debris inputs, and sediment loadings; and (3) elevated temperature and 

altered water chemistry. Also, the effects of wildfire on stream biota may be more pronounced in 

headwater streams than in mid-order or larger streams. McCormick, et.al.(2010) provide 

references that indicate that where native fish populations are naturally depauperate or have 

declined and become increasingly isolated because of anthropogenic activities, the effects on fish 

populations are more pervasive and long lasting. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would result in a “may impact” determination to 

aquatic habitat and fish species (primarily nonnative brook trout and rainbow trout) and their 

habitat. 

In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in the stream channel due to the Little 

Bear Fire could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new surface of the 

channel bed. Flows in intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are understood to be 

related to shallower alluvial deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some locations, greater 

thickness of newly-deposited alluvium could reduce the presence of surface flow or pooling. 

Pumping at historic levels under this alternative could further reduce the occurrence of surface 

flow or pools under short-term post-wildfire conditions (AECOM 2014).

Reduced water flow in the North Fork Eagle Creek compared to no pumping would impact the 

ecology of many aquatic organisms including aquatic flora and fish. There are no listed, 

management indicator, or sensitive fish species in the North Fork of Eagle Creek. There will be 

no disturbance to aquatic and fish species from activities at the well sites including road 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 145
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

maintenance, well house activities, maintenance of underground power line and pipeline, well 

operation, vehicle ingress and egress, and mechanical maintenance of the wells because there will 

be no soil movement into the stream because of conservation measures. Cumulative effects 

contributed to this determination. 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

No fish were observed in the upper perennial reaches (upstream of the North Fork gage) during 

surveys conducted in 2013 after the wildfire. Aquatic invertebrates typically decline immediately 

after a wildfire. In the short-term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and 

deeper alluvial deposits due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat 

quality in the project area while the watershed is recovering. Pools and stretches of surface water 

may be reduced and this would affect aquatic habitat and fish presence. Continued pumping 

under alternative 1 during the short-term is expected to continue to limit the potential for fish and 

aquatic habitat improvement. 

Over the long term, after post-wildfire recovery, watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. Aquatic invertebrates could respond positively to increased 

stream productivity but the timeframe for this recovery is difficult to predict. Water yield and 

groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water resources analysis and debris flows 

could result in a more dynamic channel environment benefiting fish habitat. However, continued 

pumping would obscure some of these potential benefits. Therefore, adverse effects from 

implementing alternative 1 over the long term would be the same as, or slightly less than, the prewildfire assessment for alternative 1.

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Over the short term (i.e., until watershed recovery after the Little Bear Fire), effects under this 

alternative would encourage the occurrence of stream flows and increased groundwater levels 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek. Large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during 

periods of average precipitation. In some locations, the accumulation of sediment and debris in 

the stream channel could physically increase the depth to saturated conditions below the new 

surface of the channel bed. Flows in intermittent parts of the North Fork Eagle Creek are 

understood to be related to shallower alluvial deposits over near-surface bedrock. In some 

locations, greater thickness of newly-deposited alluvium could reduce the presence of surface 

flow or pooling, even without pumping. If this occurs, it would be less frequent or extensive than 

under alternative 1(AECOM 2014). 

As shown in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, increased surface flows would result 

from implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping). Intermittent flows would occur from slightly 

above the well field downstream to the Eagle Creek gage, wherever alluvial deposits entirely 

absorb streamflows, as occurred before pumping began. On the basis of historical prepumping 

data, the occurrence of no-flow days at the Eagle Creek gage would be substantially reduced or 

eliminated. Similarly, flows greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second would occur approximately 57 

percent of the time under average precipitation conditions. This would increase opportunities for 

watershed improvement and allow increased water availability for other uses. 

Streamflow temperatures would still exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit during part of the summer 

season, but this would occur for a total of about 4 weeks or so under average conditions and is 

146 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

thought to be within the normal range for this stream system historically. Climate change impacts 

could still occur, which have the potential to reduce flows and increase water temperatures over 

time, but there would be more flexibility and time available to select and implement climate 

change strategies for water resources management. 

These improvements in streamflow quantity and quality would improve aquatic and fish habitat 

in the North Fork and provide for improved recreational fishing opportunities over the long term.

The most important North Fork Eagle Creek aquatic habitat and brook trout habitat (occurring in 

the historically and currently perennial upper reaches further upstream from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells and the North Fork gage) are not being measurably affected by North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping. However, by stopping all pumping, any potential for effects above the North 

Fork gage would be eliminated. 

Cumulative Effects

Beneficial cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, and possibly stream base 

flows may result under alternative 2 (no pumping) within parts of the Eagle Creek drainage. The 

magnitude and extent of these effects is unknown, since it is likely that the village would continue 

to exercise its water rights and make withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle Creek system. Impacts 

from such activities could offset beneficial impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field. 

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions within the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and 

for water resources above, implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping) has the potential to 

improve aquatic and fish habitat and recreational fishing in the larger Eagle Creek, but since the 

magnitude and extent of other water withdrawals in the larger drainage in the future is unknown, 

beneficial effects could be offset in the cumulative impact area. 

The following discussion is relevant to the post-wildfire situation. Bury et al. (no date) reported 

that some research on large, stand-replacing wildfires on lotic biota suggests that wildfire

ultimately benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, even those species that are negatively affected 

by the disturbance immediately after the wildfire. For example, Lyon suggested that some aquatic 

invertebrates may decline immediately after a wildfire, then increase to levels above pre-wildfire

conditions as a response to increased stream productivity. Large fires can have long-term effects 

on streams by: (1) reduced invertebrate diversity for a decade or longer; (2) changes in peak 

discharge, stream channel morphology, large woody debris inputs, and sediment loadings; and (3) 

elevated temperature and altered water chemistry. Also, the effects of wildfire on stream biota 

may be more pronounced in headwater streams than in mid-order or larger streams. McCormick, 

et al. (2010) provide references that indicate that where native fish populations are naturally 

depauperate or have declined and become increasingly isolated because of anthropogenic 

activities, the effects on fish populations are more pervasive and long lasting.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in a “beneficial impact” determination for 

aquatic and fish habitat. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 147
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Update to overall effects from Alternative 2 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and deeper alluvial 

deposits due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the 

project area while the watershed is recovering. The effects of no pumping, however, would 

encourage the occurrence of streamflow and increased groundwater levels (more so than under 

alternative 1) although large portions of the stream would remain intermittent during periods of 

average precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and this would affect 

aquatic habitat and fish presence. Under alternative 2, the potential for fish and aquatic habitat 

improvement will continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, after watershed recovery, effects from no pumping would be the same as 

those described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 2. Aquatic invertebrates could 

respond positively to increased stream productivity but the timeframe for this recovery is difficult 

to predict. Water yield and groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water resources 

analysis and debris flows could result in a more dynamic channel environment benefiting fish 

habitat. With the cessation of pumping, these potential benefits could be increased Therefore, 

beneficial effects from implementing alternative 2 over the long term would be the same as, or 

slightly more than, the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

As stated in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, implementing alternative 3 (proposed 

action), would result in improved surface water and groundwater availability in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek over current conditions, and intermittent flow durations in the stream would be 

generally similar to prepumping conditions; summer stream temperatures would also be roughly 

similar to those experienced historically. Because surface flow would improve, no-flow days 

would be reduced (but not eliminated) and there would be a reduction in the duration of stream 

temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit; aquatic habitat and fishing potential would improve 

over current conditions; these changes would be less than those for alternative 2 (no pumping) but 

greater than those for alternative 1 (no action). 

However, continued removal of water from the basin would affect fish habitat in the stream by 

continuing to reduce waterflows from historic prepumping conditions which would continue to 

create dry periods and the potential for extended durations of elevated water temperature. The 

adaptive management strategy as part of alternative 3 (proposed action) would minimize impacts 

during dry periods and provide opportunities to reduce the potential for adverse effects to aquatic 

habitat and fish. Over the long term, possible climate change effects could occur, but their effects 

would be accommodated to the extent possible under the adaptive management approach. 

The most important North Fork aquatic and brook trout habitat (occurring in the historically and 

currently perennial upper reaches further upstream from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells and 

the North Fork gage) are not being measurably affected by North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping. With restrictions on pumping, any potential for effects above the North Fork gage 

would be minimized. 

Under alternative 3, potential water resources impacts in the North Fork Eagle Creek over the 

short-term (three to seven years) after the Little Bear Fire may be limited by the application of 

pumping restrictions. During this period, however, the impacts of natural post-wildfire watershed 

148 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and channel adjustments will override some of the pumping impacts and some of the adaptive 

management effort. Even with stabilization efforts, watershed side slopes will continue to erode 

for a period of years under the severe rainfall events common to the region. This will decline over 

time on side slopes during the short-term recovery period, but a much longer period will involve 

active sediment and debris accumulation and transport through the valley, the North Fork Eagle 

Creek channel system, and downstream action. 

During the short term, channel re-configuring processes will modify the locations and durations 

of open channel flow or pools. This will be most noticeable after severe rainfall events. Similarly, 

riparian conditions at a given point along the North Fork Eagle Creek will be modified through 

natural post-wildfire adjustments to the channel bed and banks. Adaptive management practices 

have been re-oriented toward monitoring well placement and recording, in an effort to minimize 

the reliance on shifting channel and stream gage conditions. During the short term post-wildfire

recovery period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent possible through an iterative and 

adaptive approach as the landscape, stream channel, and groundwater recharge processes adjust to 

the wildfire disturbance. 

Effects would be similar to alternative 2 because surface flow would improve, no-flow days 

would be reduced (but not eliminated) and there would be a reduction in the duration of stream 

temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit; these changes would result in improved aquatic 

habitat and fishing potential, but these changes would be less than those for alternative 2 but 

greater than those for alternative 1 (Table 3, chapter 2, Supplemental Information Report). 

Cumulative Effects

There would be cumulative impacts to surface water and groundwater availability as described in 

the “Water Resources” section. Adaptive management under an approved permit authorization 

would help address cumulative impacts and water supply issues as they were identified. Ongoing 

water supply developments and activities on National Forest System lands, as described under 

alternative 1 (no action), would add to regional, long-term impacts to water resources and, thus, 

would have potential to adversely impact aquatic resources due to reductions in groundwater and 

surface water availability in the cumulative assessment area.

Combining the direct and indirect effects to aquatic habitat and fish with other past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions within the larger drainage (as summarized in table 4 and figure 4) and 

for water resources above, implementation of alternative 3 (proposed action) has the potential to 

result in cumulative effects to aquatic and fish habitat and recreational fishing in the larger Eagle 

Creek drainage due to reductions in surface water and groundwater availability. However, 

implementation of adaptive management would help to minimize cumulative impacts. 

In June of 2012, the Little Bear Fire burned approximately 35,300 acres of National Forest 

System Lands on the Smokey Bear Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, with a total 

burn area 44,330 acres as of June 28, 2012. The burn severity was high or moderate throughout 

53 percent of the wildfire. Bury et al.(no date) report that some research on large, stand-replacing 

wildfires on lotic biota suggests that wildfire ultimately benefits aquatic invertebrates and fishes, 

even those species that are negatively affected by the disturbance immediately after the wildfire. 

For example, Lyon suggested that some aquatic invertebrates may decline immediately after a 

wildfire, then increase to levels above pre-wildfire conditions as a response to increased stream 

productivity. Large fires can have long-term effects on streams by: (1) reducing invertebrate 

diversity for a decade or longer; (2) changes in peak discharge, stream channel morphology, large 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 149
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

woody debris inputs, and sediment loadings; and (3) elevated temperature and altered water 

chemistry. Also, the effects of wildfire on stream biota may be more pronounced in headwater 

streams than in mid-order or larger streams. McCormick, et al.(2010) provide references that 

indicate that where native fish populations are naturally depauperate or have declined and become 

increasingly isolated because of anthropogenic activities, the effects on fish populations are more 

pervasive and long lasting.

Conclusion

Implementation of alternative 3 (proposed action), may impact aquatic habitat and fish habitat 

(primarily nonnative brook trout and rainbow trout habitat) including habitat for many aquatic 

organisms and aquatic plants when compared to a no pumping situation; continued pumping 

would prohibit full recovery to pre-pumping conditions, but closely monitored pumping, as 

described for alternative 3 (proposed action), would be an improvement over existing conditions. 

There would be no disturbance to aquatic or fish species’ habitat from activities at the well sites 

including road maintenance, well house activities, maintenance of underground power line and 

pipeline, well operation, vehicle ingress and egress, and mechanical maintenance of the wells 

because there would be no soil movement into the stream and because of implementing 

conservation measures. 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 3 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short term, reduced water quality, channel morphology changes, and deeper alluvial 

deposits due to the wildfire would continue to reduce the fish and aquatic habitat quality in the 

project area while the watershed is recovering. During the short term post-wildfire recovery 

period, pumping effects would be limited to the extent possible through an iterative and adaptive 

approach as the landscape, stream channel, and groundwater recharge processes adjust to the 

wildfire disturbance. Under alternative 3, the potential for fish and aquatic habitat improvement 

would continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions and 

reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to surface 

flows and alluvial groundwater levels, an approximate middle ground between alternative 1 and 2 

would be attained during average precipitation years under alternative 3. 

In the long term (after post-wildfire recovery), watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions. If conifer stands burned at moderate to high severity convert 

to grass or shrubs, less evapotranspiration could improve water yield and groundwater 

availability. If this occurs with adaptive management of North Fork Eagle Creek pumping under 

alternative 3, aquatic habitats could be enhanced and additional opportunities for improving 

riparian conditions could result. Therefore, beneficial effects from implementing alternative 3 

over the long-term would be the same as the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 3.

Summary

Implementation of alternative 2 (no action) and alternative 3 (proposed action), would both 

achieve the second need statement for this project which is “protecting natural resources on the 

national forest by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the 

pumping of these wells”; alternative 2 (no action) would likely improve aquatic and fish habitat 

150 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

while alternative 3 (proposed action) would likely sustain aquatic and fish habitat. Because both 

alternatives would either sustain or improve aquatic habitat quality, both alternatives meet this 

need. However, alternative 2 (no action), would move the project area toward desired conditions 

quicker than alternative 3 (proposed action). Alternative 1 (no change) does not meet this need 

statement since long-term adverse impacts to streamflows and aquatic habitat and fish are 

predicted, particularly when combined with long-term shifts in climatic conditions.

Riparian Vegetation 

Relevant forest plan direction related to riparian vegetation in this project is included in chapter 1. 

We used this direction to guide the analysis of the effects of the alternatives to riparian resources.

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the riparian report (Miller 2012a). The supplemental riparian 

report (Miller 2014) provides a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and 

environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by the Little Bear Fire. These 

reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and available in their entirety in 

the project record. 

Methodology 

In order to determine existing conditions, we conducted riparian vegetation surveys in 2010 and 

2011 in order to characterize the vegetation along the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork) and 

provide a baseline for future monitoring to determine changes over time. The field protocol we 

used was created by the Stream Systems Technology Center (Merritt and Dwire 2008). We 

collected tree composition, stem density, basal area, frequency, dominance, and importance at 

each plot and elevation above the channel and we calculated distance from the active channel 

from survey data and through use of 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial imagery 

using ArcGIS 9.3. Merritt and Dwire (2008) and Miller (2012a) provide detailed field methods, 

preliminary results, and photographs. Analysis and interpretation of this baseline riparian 

vegetation data is provided in Merritt and Bevan (2011) and Miller (2012a) and summarized in 

this section. 

In order to determine the conditions of riparian vegetation before North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping began in 1988 and whether North Fork riparian vegetation has changed as a result, 

qualitative differences in vegetation along the North Fork Eagle Creek and South Fork Rio Bonito 

were made through use of photographs taken in July 2011 (Merritt and Bevan 2011), as described 

in more detail in the next section. We explored other methods to assist in describing pre-well 

pumping riparian conditions and these are summarized in the next section and provided in detail 

in Merritt and Bevan (2011) and Miller (2012a). 

Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect streamflow to varying 

degrees. These water quantity changes could indirectly affect the quantity and quality of riparian 

vegetation along the stream corridor. Alternatives are compared using the following indicators: 

Canopy Cover: Predicted qualitative shifts in canopy cover for trees over time, based on 

implementing each alternative. 

Species Composition: Predicted qualitative shifts in communities over time, based on 

implementing each alternative. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 151
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The analysis of the alternatives presented in this section is qualitative and predicts the effect of 

proposed actions on riparian vegetation and riparian tree species within the North Fork Eagle 

Creek. We characterize short-term effects as 1 to 10 years and long-term effects as 10 to 20 years. 

We selected the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 2) as the spatial effects boundary it 

contains the area of predicted direct/indirect effects from projected drawdown (figure 7 and figure 

8). Accordingly, the cumulative effects boundary matches the largest area of indirect effects. 

Analysis emphasis was put on the North Fork below the North Fork gage since this area is within 

the cone of depression as identified by Matherne et al. (2011) and within the area of drawdown as 

depicted in figure 7 and figure 8 meaning that this area is the most likely to show changes to 

riparian vegetation due to changes in hydrology. Cumulative effects were determined using 

Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past project areas and considered past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions as described in table 4 and figure 4. Baseline information used to assess 

impacts to riparian vegetation was provided by USDA Forest Service specialists using 

professional judgment. 

While the area has been examined during the Burned Area Emergency Response effort and some 

quantitative work has been done (Kuhar 2012 and 2013), the original transects that established 

the baseline riparian vegetation were not sampled again.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

There is minimal information and data regarding the condition and extent of riparian vegetation 

along the North Fork prior to well pumping. We have no baseline vegetation monitoring or any 

photo sampling prior to the initiation of North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping in 1988. Because 

of this, we attempted to establish a reference reach (another physically and hydrologically similar 

stream that might emulate prepumping conditions along the North Fork). We initially considered 

several areas (South Fork Eagle Creek, North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the wells and 

above the North Fork stream gage, Eagle Creek below the Eagle Creek gage, Turkey Canyon, 

Bear Creek, upper watershed of South Fork Rio Bonito, Bonito Creek, Cedar Creek and South 

Fork of Rio Bonito). With the exception of South Fork Rio Bonito, none of these other reaches 

met the criteria for a suitable reference reach based on various rigorous GIS analyses of physical 

conditions, opinions from local district staff familiar with these areas, and/or field visits. South 

Fork Rio Bonito seemed the most similar to the North Fork Eagle Creek based on physical 

attributes and we field checked it in 2011. This field check concluded that, while the reach had 

similar characteristics, it was different enough than the North Fork Eagle Creek in several factors 

that it raised doubt about whether it would provide a suitable comparison. For purposes of this 

analysis, we did not pursue a quantitative comparison for these reasons. However, detailed photos 

were taken along South Fork Rio Bonito during 2011 and were used to provide some qualitative 

generalized comparisons to riparian vegetation potential along the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

Merritt and Bevan (2011) provide more details regarding this comparison and the results.

We obtained prepumping aerial images of the North Fork Eagle Creek and they showed 

significant flooding in 1986 and 2007/2008 between photographic periods (prepumping images 

from 1987; postpumping images from 1994 and 2009) and this likely obscured any changes in 

channel form that might have been attributable to upstream groundwater pumping and depletion 

of surface flow and groundwater levels. Changes attributable to altered groundwater levels and 

streamflow can include channel narrowing or channel widening depending upon the type of 

alteration and the setting; we could not ascertain this from the aerial photo analysis.

152 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment

Current Conditions

Riparian vegetation along the North Fork is comprised largely of upland, xeric species. This is 

indicative of riparian areas adjacent to streams with intermittent flow and water tables sufficiently 

deep to exclude many phreatophytes3 and plants with high water requirements. 

There are seven primary community types represented but the most frequently occurring plant 

community type is the creeping bentgrass/orchard-grass/fringed brome community, followed by 

the marsh muhly/wheatgrass community. 

Seven species in all the sampled quadrats4 were facultative wetland plant species5

 (occurring in 

wetlands 67 to 99 percent of the time), as shown in table 13, and these facultative wetland species 

make up only 13 percent of all species sampled. With the exception of marsh muhly, none of 

these species were community dominants and none occurred in more than three quadrats. All of 

the facultative wetland species were native to New Mexico with the exception of common sheep 

sorrel and curly dock. There were no obligate wetland species6

 (occuring in wetlands 99 percent 

of the time) in any sampled quadrat. Rooting depths for these species are also noted in table 13. 

Table 13. Species classified as facultative wetland plants (Reed 1988) occurring in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek sampled quadrats 

Common Name 

Species

Species Number of 

Quadrats

Minimum Rooting Depth 

(inches)a

boxelder Acer negundo 2 40

Parry’s thistle Cirsium parryi 1 Not applicable

largeleaf avens Geum macrophyllum 1 12

marsh muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa 13 8 

cutleaf coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata 3 12

common sheep sorrel Rumex acetosela 3 Not applicable

curly dock Rumex crispus 3 Not applicable

a - From USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012: http://plants.usda.gov

We recorded four tree species in sampled plots and we used their relative density, dominance, and 

frequency to develop an importance value (as described in more detail in Merritt and Bevan 

(2011) and Miller (2012a)). These species, ranked from most important to least important, are as 

follows: white fir, ponderosa pine, boxelder, and Mexican white pine. 

Boxelder is the only species on this list that is considered a riparian species due to its dependence 

on shallow groundwater. Boxelder ranked below or nearly equal to the upland species occurring 

on the valley bottom, indicating that it is no more abundant in the North Fork riparian areas than 

3 A plant with a deep root system that draws its water supply from near the water table.

4 A quadrat is a square (of either metal, wood, or plastic) used in ecology and geography to isolate a sample, usually about 1m2 or 

0.25m2

. The quadrat is suitable for sampling plants, slow moving animals (such as millipedes and insects), and some aquatic 

organisms. 5 Facultative wetland species usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67–99 percent), but are occasionally found in 

nonwetlands. 6 Obligate wetland species occur almost always (estimated probability 99 percent) under natural conditions in wetlands.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 153

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

drought tolerant upland species. Both Pacific willow and Wooton’s hawthorn (a Forest Service 

sensitive species) occur along the sampled North Fork reach, but none were sampled in the 

inventory. Pacific willow is a riparian species dependent upon shallow water tables (with a 

minimum rooting depth of 10 inches) and Wooton’s hawthorn is a riparian species indicative of 

relatively shallow groundwater; because this species is a Forest Service sensitive species, it is 

discussed further in the “Vegetation” section later in this chapter, under “Threatened, Endangered 

and Sensitive Species.”

The presence of willow, Wooton’s hawthorn and seven facultative wetland species indicates that 

the North Fork Eagle Creek maintains some moister microhabitats with sufficiently shallow 

groundwater and or soil moisture to support such species.

Conditions before Pumping Began in 1988

Data relating to the pre-well pumping riparian vegetation in the project area is sparse. Fish survey 

reports from the 1960s (Little 1960a, b; Little 1961) include notes regarding vegetation in the 

project area (shoreline vegetation was ponderosa pine with various grasses and forbs) and include 

photos at sampling stations that closely resemble current vegetation, with ponderosa pine and 

grass along streambanks. Range reports (Edwards 1963, Edwards 1964) include notes that the 

area was comprised of several vegetation types including mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, 

mountain bunchgrass and bluegrass bottom and that the area had “deteriorated” to a Kentucky 

bluegrass, forb type with an increase in erosion. Medlock (2011) provides a compelling case for 

the lower half of the North Fork being intermittent prior to pumping. Included in his report is an 

historical photo of the area showing vegetation similar to current vegetation in the area above the 

well field in 1947. Of particular note in this photo is the lack of obligate wetland species one 

would associate with a riparian community along a perennial stream (e.g. willow and cottonwood 

in the overstory).

Though we do not know the prepumping condition of North Fork riparian vegetation, we do 

know there has been reduced water availability along the North Fork since the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells began pumping, as described in more detail in the “Water Resources” section of this 

chapter. Reduced water availability can affect riparian vegetation. Reduced water availability for 

plants can also be influenced by flood deposited alluvium in the valley bottom of the North Fork 

which raises the flood plain and channel, and causes the stream to flow below the alluvium. 

Either of these factors could explain the existing conditions and composition of the riparian 

vegetation along the North Fork. Figure 11 illustrates a typical reach of the North Fork during the 

2011 survey. We did note significant changes in the aerial extent of coarse alluvium and channel 

widening in aerial images taken after major flooding in 1986 and in 2007/2008. For comparison, 

figure 12 illustrates a typical reach along South Fork Rio Bonito during the 2011 field visit. While 

we determined that, based on the current level of information, South Fork Rio Bonito may not 

provide a suitable reference reach from which to establish a baseline survey and quantitatively 

compare to survey results from the North Fork Eagle Creek, it provided a useful tool for visual 

comparison and inferences about riparian potential along the North Fork if there were more 

sustained elevated water tables. 

154 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 11. North Fork Eagle Creek showing channel and adjacent vegetation (photographs 

taken by Terry Miller in July 2011) 

The upper and lower left frames of figure 11 show a dry streambed, with vegetation on either side 

of a barren channel. A solitary Salix lucida, shown in the left lower frame, looks to be in poor 

condition either from drought stress or browsing. The lower right frame shows a quadrat 

(R2T1P1) that is dominated by Sprorobolus cryptandrus and follows into the community of the 

same name. The plot also contains Artemisia ludoviciana and Muhlenbergia racemosa. 

The riparian vegetation in figure 12 appears roughly similar in composition with the North Fork 

Eagle Creek, but with higher abundance than seen in figure 11. This may be indicative of more 

sustained elevated water tables along the South Fork Rio Bonito compared to the North Fork. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 155
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 12. South Fork Rio Bonito showing various degrees of intermittent to perennial 

flows (photographs taken by Terry Miller in July 2011) 

Conditions Following the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire burned throughout the analysis area. Burn intensities in the riparian area (200 

feet on each side of Eagle Creek) were low in general. Approximately 82 acres (47 percent of 

total riparian) were underburned, 93 acres (53 percent of total riparian) burned at low intensity 

and 1 acre (less than 1 percent of total riparian) burned at moderate intensity. 

A field visit on November 19, 2013 revealed that most of the riparian vegetation in the sampling 

area looked minimally unaffected by the wildfire and related indirect effects such as flooding.

Some sites showed signs overland flow of sediment where vegetation was buried at the time of 

the field visit. Most transects were missing at least one of the rebar pieces marking the beginning 

or end of the transect. Bank erosion had scoured away at least five meters of bank at Reach 3 

Transect 1. Additionally, neither piece of rebar was located at this transect. Larger and more 

durable transect markers will have to be placed using GPS and photos from the monitoring report. 

The area most affected (in the reaches where riparian monitoring took place) by the flooding 

following the wildfire is at the confluence of the north and south forks of Eagle Creek. Deep 

cobble dominates the area from Reach 4, Transect 2 to Reach 4, Transect 1, which totals 

approximately 400 feet (700 feet from the gage at the road). 

156 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects to riparian vegetation from continuing current pumping operations 

under alternative 1 (no action). However, indirect effects are likely. Indirect effects would occur 

when water table drawdown limits available moisture to riparian vegetation and creates sustained 

water tables below the minimum rooting depths for facultative wetland species (table 13). This 

can cause poor growth, reduced seed production, and in severe enough cases, the death of 

individual plants, loss of species, and vegetation change.

As described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter, the general duration of no 

surface flow days at the Eagle Creek gage is approximately 1 to 2 weeks during average 

precipitation periods and approximately 8 to 10 weeks during drought periods. Streamflow 

quantities are anticipated to decline over the long term from climate change effects, with the 

spatial extent and duration of no-flow conditions increasing along the North Fork. The presence 

of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second would decline, which would reduce 

water availability in the alluvium for plant growth and sustenance. Opportunities for maintaining 

or improving watershed condition on National Forest System lands in the upper Eagle Creek 

drainage would become severely limited.

If groundwater levels were lowered below present levels for a sustained period of time and 

surface flow was to become less frequent, it is very likely that vegetation change would occur. 

This shift would likely include a decrease or loss in those species dependent upon shallow 

groundwater (table 13), and an increase in xeric, upland plant species. Factors that distinguish 

riparian areas from uplands include the presence of shallow groundwater and periodic floodrelated disturbance (Merritt et al. 2010).

Though groundwater pumping would likely have no effect on periodic high flows and related 

fluvial processes, reductions in groundwater levels could cause riparian areas to become 

compositionally similar to adjacent uplands. Shifts in vegetation along riparian areas correspond 

to the degree of hydrologic change. Minor changes (e.g., small reductions in groundwater levels) 

could result in a shift in species to lower elevations closer to the water table and nearer the active 

channel. Such shifts are common along streams in response to the availability of water (Merritt et 

al. 2010). However, once groundwater levels (and subsequent vadose zones7

 and seasonal soil 

moisture) fall below the threshold of the water requirements of a species, those species will not 

persist in the system. The vadose zone extends from the top of the ground surface to the water

table.

If groundwater were depleted and surface flow were reduced from its current state along the 

North Fork, one might initially expect boxelder, Pacific willow, and other phreatophytic shrubs 

and trees to temporarily show signs of drought stress and reduced canopy cover. Shifts and losses 

of the primary community types along the North Fork would likely occur as well. Chronic 

reduction in groundwater levels during the growing season would likely result in the loss of 

phreatophytes, and conversion to upland forest and meadow, and the potential for communities 

7 Vadose water is located in the pore spaces of a rock or soil, in the zone of soil or rock between the ground surface and the water 

table.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 157

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not currently represented along the North Fork to become established. In such a scenario, 

communities in and along the channel may be well represented by ruderal species8

, generalists, 

and those natives adapted to periodically disturbed, dry conditions. 

Species Composition: 

Although most of the North Fork riparian vegetation is well adapted to dry periods, maintaining 

diversity in the riparian area relies on retaining the facultative wetland species and the 

communities in which they live. While elements of these species and communities would 

probably remain in microsites, it is likely that vegetation would shift toward the channel and to 

lower elevations nearer the water table under alternative 1 (no action). 

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover: 

Boxelder would likely remain in the North Fork Eagle Creek riparian area at its currently low 

levels in even the most extreme drawdown scenarios due to the widespread nature of the species 

and the continued recruitment of new generations. However, only nine individual Pacific willow 

plants were identified and there appears to be no recruitment of younger age classes even though 

the adult plants looked healthy. 

Updates to Direct/Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire will likely result in a shifting of sediment and cobble around as seen in the 

area between Reach 4, Transect 2 to Reach 4, Transect 1(AECOM 2014). The instability of the 

channel could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium that would 

reduce surface flow in the short term. However, these effects could be offset by the opportunity 

for species such as willows to colonize new areas. Water availability to riparian vegetation is not 

likely to be greatly changed as a result of the Little Bear Fire in the long term. One possibility is 

that there might be a slight increase in water availability if large portions of the upland vegetation 

convert to shrub species (AECOM 2014). While possible, this conversion is not a forgone 

conclusion. However, nearby burned areas have converted from upland vegetation to shrub 

species (Kuhar 2013).

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2

and table 4) with implementing alternative 1 (no action) would result in no more than minor 

cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not typically take place in 

the riparian corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude as to be irrelevant.

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork drainage area was not included in the 

cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial boundaries we 

present in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using the results of the 

water resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, 

cumulative water resources impacts would involve ongoing reductions in flow and water quality 

along Eagle Creek within the larger upper Eagle Creek cumulative impact area, due primarily to 

reduced groundwater recharge. These would be adverse, long term and regional impacts that 

would range in severity from moderate to severe. Additional water supply developments in the 

region would create further impacts to surface water and groundwater; these impacts would also 

8 A ruderal species is a plant species that is first to colonize disturbed lands. 

158 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

likely result in adverse impacts to associated resources, like streamside riparian vegetation. The 

level of site-specific effect to riparian vegetation further downstream and outside the North Fork 

Eagle Creek project area cannot, however, be predicted with certainty.

Updates to Cumulative Impacts from Alternative 1 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

The Little Bear Fire was widespread across several drainage basins, including Little Creek and 

the Rio Bonito. Widespread cumulative wildfire impacts on surface runoff, groundwater recharge, 

and water quality were described in the water resources report (AECOM 2014). Riparian 

vegetation downstream and outside the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area could experience 

greater cumulative impacts since the footprint of effects from the Little Bear Fire is so large.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 1 (no change) could result in the loss of Pacific willow, which is an 

important component of the North Fork riparian vegetation diversity. However, based on the best 

available information, this stretch of the North Fork was intermittent before the wells began 

pumping and exhibited periodic stretches of no flow regardless of pumping. Pacific willow, then, 

has probably never been a major component of the vegetation in this area, but is well represented 

in the perennial portion of the North Fork upstream from the wells. This upstream area would not 

be affected by implementation of alternative 1 (no change), as described in more detail in the 

“Aquatic Habitat and Fish” section earlier in this chapter. 

Implementing alternative 1 (no change), then, would either marginally maintain current riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area in the short term or result in some declines due to 

continued reductions in water availability. Over the long term, however, climate change induced 

shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, 

would result in additional stress to riparian vegetation and would experience adverse effects. 

Therefore, alternative 1 (no change) may be in compliance with the forest plan over the short 

term, but would not achieve the purpose and need for action or project objectives and would not 

move the project area toward desired conditions over the long term. 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 1 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short-term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium 

that would reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and 

communities could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas. 

Over the long term, water yield and groundwater availability may improve as shown in the water 

resources analysis, benefiting riparian habitat. However, continued pumping would obscure some 

of these potential benefits. Therefore, adverse effects from implementing alternative 1 over the 

long term would be the same as, or slightly less than, the pre-wildfire assessment for 

alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 - No Pumping 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in direct adverse effects to a small portion 

of the riparian vegetation because of ground disturbance related to removing pumps. This could 

result in plants being uprooted, crushed, and killed. Due to the size of area of disturbance and 

implementation of project design features, this effect would be minor and short term. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 159
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect beneficial effects from alternative 2 (no pumping) would result from an increase in 

available moisture for riparian vegetation. While surface flow would remain consistent with an 

intermittent stream, increases in surface flow and groundwater and subsequent moisture available 

for plant growth would provide an opportunity for riparian vegetation expansion. 

Species Composition: 

Facultative wetland species would be beneficially affected by implementing alternative 2 (no 

pumping). Increases in communities featuring facultative wetland species would likely occur due 

to increased water availability, but the magnitude of change would likely be relatively minor. 

Over the long term, these positive changes could be affected by climate change and may be less 

widespread with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of 

this chapter. 

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover: 

Boxelder would remain relatively constant or would increase somewhat under implementation of 

alternative 2 (no pumping), and Pacific willow would likely increase due to improved moisture 

for seedling establishment. Over the long term, these positive changes could be affected by 

climate change and may be less widespread with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in 

the “Water Resources” section of this chapter.

There are no anticipated changes in effects to riparian vegetation as a result of the Little Bear Fire 

in alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2

and table 4), in addition to implementing alternative 2 (no pumping), would result in no more 

than minor cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not typically take 

place in the riparian corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude as to be 

irrelevant. 

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area was not 

included in the cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial 

boundaries we present in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using 

the results of the water resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” 

section, beneficial cumulative recharge effects to aquifers, springs and seeps, and possibly stream 

base flows may result within parts of the Eagle Creek drainage. The magnitude and extent of 

these effects is unknown, since it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso would continue to exercise 

its water rights and make withdrawals elsewhere in the Eagle Creek system. Impacts from such 

activities could offset beneficial impacts from no pumping at the North Fork Eagle Creek well 

field. These impacts could result in beneficial impacts to associated resources, like streamside 

riparian vegetation. The level of site-specific effect to riparian vegetation further downstream and 

outside the North Fork Eagle Creek project area cannot, however, be predicted with certainty.

Conclusion

Implementing alternative 2 (no pumping) would at least maintain and possibly improve riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area. Therefore, it would be in compliance with riparian 

direction in the forest plan and would achieve the purpose and need for action and project 

objectives. Implementation of alternative 2 (no pumping) would move the project area toward 

160 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

desired conditions more so than either alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed 

action). 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 2 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium 

that would reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and 

communities could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas. 

The effects of no pumping would encourage the occurrence of streamflow and increased 

groundwater levels (more so than under alternative 1) although large portions of the stream would 

remain intermittent during periods of average precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water 

may be reduced and this could affect riparian habitat. Under alternative 2, the potential for 

riparian habitat improvement will continue to be limited but not as much as under alternative 1. 

Over the long term, after watershed recovery, effects from no pumping would be the same as 

those described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects as a result of implementing alternative 3 (proposed action), since no 

ground-disturbing activities would occur. Indirect effects would be more similar to those from the 

no pumping alternative 2, than to the no action alternative 1. Beneficial effects would result from 

an increase in available moisture for riparian vegetation. While surface flow would remain 

consistent with an intermittent stream, and no-flow days would not be eliminated, increases in 

surface flow and groundwater and subsequent moisture available for plant growth would provide 

an opportunity for limited riparian vegetation expansion. 

Species Composition: 

Facultative wetland species would be beneficially affected by this alternative compared to 

implementing alternative 1 (no action) but less so than for alternative 2 (no pumping). Increases 

in communities featuring facultative wetland species would likely occur due to increased water 

availability, but the magnitude of change would be relatively minor and less than that expected 

for alternative 2 (no pumping). Over the long term, positive changes could be affected by climate 

change and may be less widespread with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water 

Resources” section of this chapter. 

Riparian Tree Species Canopy Cover: 

Boxelder and Pacific willow would remain relatively constant under implementation of the 

proposed action, alternative 3, although some willow recruitment would be possible if climatic 

conditions are favorable. Over the long term, any changes could be affected by climate change 

and may be less widespread over the long term with shifts toward drier conditions, as described in 

the “Water Resources” section of this chapter. 

Updates to Direct/Indirect Effects from Alternative 3 Due to the Little Bear Fire 

Change in effects are expected to be the same as those described in alternative 1, except that any 

positive benefit from increased availability of water to riparian vegetation would be greater in 

magnitude in alternative 3. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 161
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects

Implementing past, present, and future activities within the North Fork drainage area (figure 2

and table 4) in addition to implementing the proposed action (alternative 3), would not result in 

more than minor cumulative impacts to riparian vegetation because these activities do not 

typically take place in the riparian corridors or would have effects that are so small in magnitude 

as to be irrelevant. 

Streamside riparian vegetation outside of the North Fork Eagle Creek basin was not included in 

the cumulative effects boundary (based on the definition and rationale for spatial boundaries we 

present in the “Methodology” section) but we did qualitatively consider it using the results of the 

water resources evaluation in this larger area. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, 

cumulative water resources impacts would include flow and water quality reductions in Eagle 

Creek within the cumulative impact area. Water supply pumping for the applicant is conducted at 

six water wells along lower Eagle Creek, and the village diverts surface water from the stream a 

short distance below the Eagle Creek gage. As a result, groundwater recharge in downstream 

alluvial and bedrock aquifers would still be adversely affected, but to a lesser extent than under 

alternative 1 (no action). Implementing alternative 3 (proposed action) would have minor effects 

on these impacts, as pumping in the North Fork Eagle Creek would generally be permitted most 

of the time. These impacts could result in impacts to associated resources, like streamside riparian 

vegetation. The level of site-specific effect to riparian vegetation further downstream and outside 

the North Fork Eagle Creek project area cannot, however, be predicted with certainty.

Conclusion 

Implementing alternative 3 (proposed action), would maintain and likely improve riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area, although not to the level expected under alternative 2 (no 

pumping). Therefore, it would be in compliance with riparian direction in the forest plan and 

would achieve the purpose and need for action and project objectives. Implementing alternative 3 

(proposed action) would move the project area toward desired conditions but likely at a slower 

pace than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Update to overall effects from Alternative 3 due to the Little Bear Fire: 

In the short-term, wildfire effects are likely to result in a shifting of sediment and cobble. This 

channel instability could result in some riparian areas being buried and an increase in alluvium 

that would reduce surface flow. However, these adverse effects to riparian tree species and 

communities could be offset by the opportunity for species such as willows to colonize new areas. 

During the short term post-wildfire recovery period, pumping effects would be limited to the 

extent possible through an iterative and adaptive approach as the landscape, stream channel, and 

groundwater recharge processes adjust to the wildfire disturbance. Under alternative 3, the 

potential for riparian habitat improvement will continue to be limited but not as much as under 

alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 would encourage the occurrence of streamflow and increased groundwater levels 

(more so than under alternative 1) although large portions of the stream would remain intermittent 

during periods of average precipitation. Pools and stretches of surface water may be reduced and 

this could affect riparian habitat.

162 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Over the long term, during dry years, adaptive management would improve flow conditions and 

reduce the amount of no-flow days along the North Fork Eagle Creek. With respect to surface 

flows and alluvial groundwater levels, an approximate middle ground between alternative 1 and 2 

would be attained during average precipitation years under alternative 3. Over the long term, after 

watershed recovery, effects from implementing an adaptive management strategy would be the 

same as those described in the pre-wildfire assessment for alternative 3.

Summary

Implementing the no pumping alternative 2 or the proposed action alternative 3, would achieve 

the second need statement for this project which is “protecting natural resources on the national 

forest by maintaining adequate surface and groundwater flows to sustain or improve the riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems that may be affected by groundwater drawdown from the pumping of 

these wells.” Because both alternatives would either sustain or improve riparian vegetation in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area, both alternatives meet this need. However, alternative 2 

(no pumping) would move the project area toward desired conditions more quickly than 

alternative 3 (proposed action). Alternative 1 (no change) does not meet this need statement since 

long-term adverse impacts to streamflows and riparian habitat are predicted, particularly when 

combined with long-term shifts in climatic conditions.

Implementation of alternative 1 (no change) would either marginally maintain current riparian 

vegetation condition in the project area in the short term or result in some declines due to 

continued reductions in water availability. Over the long term, however, climate change induced 

shifts toward drier conditions, as described in the “Water Resources” section of this chapter, 

would result in additional stress to riparian vegetation and would experience adverse effects. 

Therefore, alternative 1 (no action) may be in compliance with the forest plan over the short term, 

but would not achieve the purpose and need for action or project objectives and would not move 

the project area toward desired conditions over the long term. 

Socioeconomics 

The level of North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping has the potential to affect local social and 

economic conditions. Defining features of every area influence and shape the nature of local 

economic and social activity. Among these are unique area natural amenities and features 

provided by the Lincoln National Forest. Changes to these features in turn can affect local social 

and economic conditions. For example, the quality of recreation experience may be affected by 

changes in the quantity and quality of surface flow in Eagle Creek. In addition, limitations on 

groundwater withdrawals under this EIS could affect the supply of water available for diversion 

for the Village of Ruidoso. 

We include a more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental 

consequences for this project in the socioeconomics report (Eichman 2012). The supplemental 

socioeconomics report (Eichman and Loughery 2014) provides a more detailed description of 

affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused 

by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and 

available in their entirety in the project record.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 163
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Methodology 

Groundwater withdrawal limitations may affect the supply of water available for diversion by the 

applicant. Well pumping may result in changes to groundwater and surface water availability 

which has the potential to affect streamside recreation use (public use of streams for streamside 

recreation, fishing, and wildlife viewing) and private land (availability of water for domestic 

wells). In addition, impacts to quality of life and environmental justice effects were of concern. 

Consequently, the following social and economic indicators are used to compare the effects of 

each alternative.

Where updates are necessary due to the Little Bear Fire, these are noted in the following text for 

this section. 

Municipal Water Supply: 

Estimates of potential forgone water diversion from groundwater withdrawal limitations are used 

to measure the potential for change to historic North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion. Effects of 

groundwater withdrawal limitations are examined on historic North Fork Eagle Creek well 

diversion (average annual), diversion for Alto Creek and Grindstone Reservoirs (average annual) 

and projected demands from the 40-year water plan. In addition, effects of groundwater 

withdrawal limitations are examined on historic North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion during 

the 5-month summer resort period (high demand on water use) from May to September. These 

estimates also consider effects to village diversion from additional indirect diversion attributable 

to North Fork Eagle Creek wells from the 50 percent return flow credit9

. 

Municipal water supply indicators examine the effect of groundwater withdrawal limitations 

using an estimate of potential forgone water diversion over estimates of pumping restriction 

durations. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before attenuation of 

wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater 

and the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This analysis assumes this 

attenuation will occur as stated in the water resources section: “After approximately four to eight 

years following the Little Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more 

generally resemble the pre-wildfire hydrologic setting” (page 88 of “Water Resource” section).

Thus the pre-wildfire data characterizing historic municipal water supply sources are an accurate 

depiction of a post-wildfire baseline useful for analysis of groundwater withdrawal limitations.

Historic data on surface flow indicate that, had similar restrictions been implemented historically, 

pumping would have been limited over a broad range of time (from 0 weeks in most years, to 2 to 

3 weeks in water year 2000, and approximately 20 weeks in water year 2004 ) (AECOM 2012). 

Restrictions would decrease the amount of water the village could withdraw by limiting the 

pumping rate to 50 percent of the streamflow reported at the North Fork gage. Using historic data 

of surface flow during years where restrictions would have occurred provides a frame of 

reference for forgone water diversion (50 percent of streamflow) during these periods. During 

water years 2000, 2003, and 2004 half of the average daily surface flow was 0.219 cubic feet per 

second, based on data in the Water Resources Report, appendix A (AECOM 2012). Over periods 

ranging between 2 to 22 weeks, restrictions would have amounted to approximately 3.3 to 33.5 

9 The village receives a 50 percent return flow credit for all water produced from the North Fork well field. The return flow credit is 

the result of at least 50 percent of the water diverted from the North Fork well field being returned to the Rio Ruidoso via the 

village’s wastewater treatment plant. The return flow credit allows the village to divert 50 percent of the total quantity of water 

produced from the North Fork well field from other wells outside of the Eagle Creek watershed or surface water from the Rio 

Ruidoso.

164 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

cubic feet per second of forgone water diversion in some water years between 2000 and 2010. 

Converting to acre feet per day indicates that restrictions, when they might have occurred 

historically, would have ranged from approximately 6.5 acre-feet over 2 to 3 weeks up to 

approximately 66.5 acre-feet over 20 to 22 weeks in a water year. 

Loss of North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion has occurred as a result of the Little Bear Fire in 

June of 2012. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before 

attenuation of wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface 

water, groundwater and the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This 

analysis assumes this attenuation will occur. Thus the pre-wildfire data characterizing historic 

municipal water supply sources are an accurate depiction of a post-wildfire baseline useful for 

analysis of groundwater withdrawal limitations. 

Over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on 

and off Federal land) (see water resources section). If this occurs, contributions to municipal 

water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during the 5-month summer resort 

period. Consequently, reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than 

depicted above. Effects on measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper 

bound of potential effects. Thus, this should be considered a maximum reduction to municipal 

water supply contributions. 

Streamside Recreational Use: 

Streamside recreational use indicators are used to measure the potential for change to the quality 

of recreation experience from streamflow quantity and riparian vegetation associated with springs 

and seeps (as described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter).

As stated in the water resource section, the former streamflow water quality indicator is not likely 

to apply either to short-term or long-term post-wildfire conditions, since the North Fork Eagle 

Creek channel will transport and re-work sediment and debris. In the short term, additional 

nutrient content in surface flows may enhance aquatic habitat conditions for some species. As 

stream deposits are reworked over the long term, additional turbidity and suspended organic 

carbon and silt will likely increase surface water temperatures and reduce oxygen availability, 

intermittently, as a result of the wildfire. Thus conclusions about effects to the quality of 

recreation experience, from changes to water quality, are difficult to make. If oxygen availability 

is reduced significantly, then impacts to recreation could be negative. However, if additional 

nutrients enhance the habitat for fish, recreation experiences could improve. Regardless, the 

streamflow quantity and springs and seeps indicators are sufficient for analysis of effects to the 

recreation experience.

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation: 

Availability of domestic well water indicators are used to measure the potential for change to 

private land water supply using an estimate of water drawdown similar to the springs and seeps 

indicator used above (as described in the “Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter). The 

availability of surface water for irrigation uses employs the streamflow quantity indicator 

(estimated durations of no surface flow and estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 

1.2 cubic feet per second during a year of average precipitation; Water Resources Report; 

AECOM 2012).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 165
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes: 

The values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to address social 

considerations: where economic or other effects on area communities cannot be quantified, a 

qualitative discussion of nonmarket and social values has been added. Direction provided in 40 

CFR 1502.23 and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (July 6, 2004) and 22.35 (January 14, 2005) 

provides for qualitative analysis to evaluate the effects of nonmarket values. Therefore, the 

alternatives’ nonmarket aspects are discussed qualitatively where appropriate and are described in 

other resource sections of the EIS.

Accordingly, the values, beliefs, and attitudes of area communities are presented to address social 

considerations. 

Environmental Justice: 

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, orders Federal agencies to identify and address 

environmental justice effects, which are any adverse human health and environmental effects of 

agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low income populations. 

In order to accurately portray local social and economic conditions above and potential effects 

under the alternatives, the geographic scope of analysis must be defined. The social and economic 

relationships and effects extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the project area. The role of 

actions under the EIS within the larger county must be addressed while not masking potential 

change within communities in the area. Thus area information is presented at two geographic 

scales based on available data: county and census county subdivision. Characteristics of Lincoln 

County are presented alongside characteristics of Ruidoso census county subdivision given 

economic linkages between the county and the census county subdivision containing the Village 

of Ruidoso and the project area. Environmental justice is examined at both the county and census 

county subdivision level.

When we look at the social effects of land management actions, the most critical impacts may be 

to small, rural communities (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000, pg 5). Consequently, geographically 

defined communities are an important and relevant level for social assessment. However, not all 

social scientists agree that the geographically based community is always the appropriate level of 

analysis. The Northwest Forest Plan’s Federal Ecosystem Management Advisory Team (FEMAT 

1993, pg VII-35) makes the point that this view “only refers to physical or political boundaries 

and not to the relationships among people who reside within such boundaries.” Consequently, 

social relationships are examined regardless of geography in the section on values, beliefs, and 

attitudes. 

This analysis examines effects of groundwater withdrawal limitations on projected demands from 

the 40-year water plan. Projections that consider water utility use reductions indicate 5,097 acrefeet per year will be required in 2045; however, existing water supplies and water rights as 

developed do not meet these needs. Consequently a number of other water supply alternatives 

need to be discussed as part of the plan for future Ruidoso water supply and water rights needs 

(Wilson and Company 2005, pp. 1–53). 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to social and economic resources was provided by 

USDA Forest Service specialists, literature, and professional judgment. 

166 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The primary differences between the content of the DEIS and the SDEIS is in reference to the 

Little Bear Fire. In this updated Socioeconomics report for the SDEIS, additional literature 

review was conducted, new information from the Village of Ruidoso was sought (Atkins 2014), 

and the analysis was modified to reflect changes to the water resources report. The Atkins (2014) 

data outlined that the Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before 

attenuation of wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface 

water, groundwater and the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). In addition 

to the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact 

analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village has applied for and that could 

also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal 

communication, 2014). The water resources report provides updated underlying assumptions for 

the socioeconomics analysis (e.g. post-wildfire estimated to have eight year full attenuation 

period). 

Incomplete Information

Post-wildfire socioeconomic information is not available, so this analysis relied on assumptions 

based on conclusions in water resources report (AECOM 2014) which are summarized at the 

beginning of this chapter. This analysis assumes the attenuation of wildfire effects will occur as 

stated in the water resources section: “After approximately four to eight years following the Little 

Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire conditions are expected to more generally resemble the prewildfire hydrologic setting” (page 88 of “Water Resource” section). Thus the pre-wildfire data 

characterizing historic municipal water supply sources are an accurate depiction of a post-wildfire

baseline useful for analysis of groundwater withdrawal limitations.

Affected Environment

History

The Mescalero Apaches were some of the first to inhabit the area. They hunted and fished in the 

Sacramento Mountain area surrounding the Village of Ruidoso and were only occasionally visited 

by Spanish explorers who ventured into the Rio Bravo Valley. Trappers followed the Spanish and 

were then followed by traders, merchants, and their families (Village of Ruidoso 2010). The 

Ruidoso area was first settled in the 1850s, with mining and ranching among the primary draws. 

The settlement, originally called “Dowlins Mill,” thrived on logging, hunting, and the mill 

(Wilson and Company 2005).

By the end of the 19th century, the Village of Ruidoso was a small settlement, known for its 

associations with Billy the Kid and other historic figures of the West. In the beginning of the 20th 

century the Village of Ruidoso became increasingly known as a vacation destination for its 

natural amenities; its elevation and resulting cooler temperatures provided refuge from the heat in 

New Mexico and west Texas. After World War II, the Village of Ruidoso’s reputation as a resort 

destination grew with construction of Ruidoso Downs. Tourism began to flourish in 1962, when 

the Sierra Blanca Ski area (now Ski Apache) was opened (Village of Ruidoso 2010). The town 

grew dramatically in the 1970s with an influx of retirement homes, second homes, resort related 

cabins, town homes, and motels (Wilson and Company 2005). 

The expansion seen in the 1970s provided the first challenge for the Village of Ruidoso’s water 

utility. Individual utility systems were constructed for the developments and subdivisions. These 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 167
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

systems were often stand-alone, in difficult terrain, with waterline sizes that were insufficient for 

community needs such as fire protection. In the mid-1970s water system improvements were 

undertaken, under the first water master plan, to address system inadequacies across the entire 

Village of Ruidoso. Under the plan, a number of improvements were recommended including 

storage at Alto Crest and a new treatment plant at Eagle Creek (Wilson and Company 2005).

Population Change

Population in Lincoln County increased by 12,897 people (61 percent) between 1969 and 2010 

(figure 13). Growth in the county over this period was outpaced by the State (100 percent) and 

exceeded growth in the Nation (52 percent). Population within Ruidoso census county 

subdivision increased by 7,298 people (100 percent) between 1990 and 2010 which, in terms of 

growth, outpaced the Nation (24 percent), the State (35 percent) and Lincoln County (67 percent) 

over these 2 decades of available data (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Population 

projections suggest Lincoln County and the State of New Mexico will increase in the next 15 

years. Projections suggest that between 2010 and 2025, Lincoln County will increase by 20 

percent (4,021 persons) while the State will increase by 36 percent (648,578 persons) (State of 

New Mexico 2008). 

Figure 13. Population change for the Village of Ruidoso, Lincoln County and the State of 

New Mexico (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011, State of New Mexico 2008)

The 10-year historical trend of full-time resident population growth is not considered dependable 

by the Village of Ruidoso (Village of Ruidoso 2010). Using data from the “Village of Ruidoso 

Comprehensive Plan,” village officials have accepted the use of population growth scenarios that 

range from 2 to 3.5 percent growth per year (Village of Ruidoso 2010). This range coincides with 

the rate of growth calculated for the 40-year water use plan of 2.63 percent per year; which was 

168 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

based upon existing water usage data, from the years 1997 through 2004 (Wilson and Company

2005).

Conditions before Pumping Began

By the time pumping of North Fork Eagle Creek wells had started in 1988, the Village of Ruidoso 

had established itself as a resort destination community and had also made water system upgrades 

to accommodate the expansion of the community (Wilson and Company 2005). In the mid-1980s, 

employment and population declined along with construction and related sectors. However, 

growth resumed in the early 1990s (figure 13) and water diversion from North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells became part of the Village of Ruidoso water supply. 

The importance of the North Fork Eagle Creek to community well-being and quality of life was 

apparent long before pumping began. Summer homes in the area benefited from the stream, its 

vegetation, and dependent wildlife. Dispersed recreational use of the area was common and 

included hiking, wildlife viewing, and some fishing. 

Per Capita Water Use

Standard measures of per capita water use for the applicant do not reflect true individual 

residential water use, as the actual number of persons using water is far higher than the per capita 

figure, due to the presence of part-year residents and tourists. The 40-year water plan notes that 

full-time resident population figures for the village, from the 2000 U.S. Census, account for only 

30 to 45 percent of occupancy and, thus, do not reflect the number of persons present in the 

Village of Ruidoso using water (Wilson and Company 2005). Since water use information is 

unavailable for this unaccounted population, the data on per capita water usage for the Village of 

Ruidoso presented below only provides a frame of reference for comparison with other cities. 

Village of Ruidoso per capita water use is obtained from the 40-year water plan, which is the 

most current information available, and metered water use data. This data yields an estimate of 

136 gallons per capita per day (Wilson and Company 2005). While this figure is not directly 

representative of Village of Ruidoso water use, as has been stated, it provides a comparison with 

other New Mexico cities in the area. Compared to the Village of Ruidoso, the cities of 

Albuquerque and Las Cruces had higher gallons per capita per day (185 an d189 per capita per 

day, respectively) while Rio Rancho and Santa Fe’s use were similar (140 gallons per capita per 

day). The combination of climate, altitude, and surrounding forest moderates outdoor water use in 

the Village of Ruidoso in comparison to surrounding towns and villages. Thus, the water usage 

per person is likely lower in the Village of Ruidoso compared to other communities (Wilson and 

Company 2005). 

Trends in Water Use

As a year-round mountain destination resort and a hub for regional recreation, the Village of 

Ruidoso has several unique and distinguishing characteristics that influence both water use 

growth (instead of population growth) and total water usage. The first characteristic influencing 

water usage is that full-time residents make up less than half of the water usage of the village 

(Wilson and Company 2005). Historical water data shows that water use is heavily impacted by 

the size of the part-time, resort related population. The 1998 Water Master Plan indicated the 

metered water total for the 5-month summer resort period (May through September) served an 

average of 14,000 persons while the census estimated population in 1998 at 6,500 persons. The 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 169
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Village of Ruidoso’s 40-year water plan estimates that less than half of the total water is 

comsumed by this permanent population (Wilson and Company 2005).

Metered water, is that water represented from reading the water meters of billed customers, and 

for the Village of Ruidoso, includes ONLY totals of residential and commercial metered water. 

Existing metered water records for summer months (from May and September) and by year (from 

1991 through 2004) are utilized for examining water consumption. The peak related summer 

months are used to identify resort related variations and demonstrate the degree of water use 

during the summer season related to total metered water use per the convention used by Wilson 

and Company (2005). 

Total metered water use per year in figure 14 below shows an increase early in the period 

examined; from 1,100 acre feet in 1991 to 1,360 in 1998. The decrease in 1996 likely occurred as 

a result of adopting a policy focusing on water conservation planning efforts, system-wide utility 

use reductions, and leak reduction efforts. From 1999 to 2004 a decrease in total metered water 

use to 1,200 acre feet occurred as a result of per person water conservation, system-wide 

reductions in water losses, and village enforced restrictions on water use (Wilson and Company 

2005). The adoption of restrictive water rate ordinances in 1998 and revisions in 2000 and 2002 

likely had the negative effects on consumption depicted in figure 14 below. In addition, the 

decreases seen from 1999 through 2004 are due, in part, to village efforts to reduce leakage and 

conserve water, but also, due to the ongoing drought during which outdoor watering enforced 

restrictions were instituted from 2001 through 2003. In addition, local forest fires in 2000, 2001, 

and 2002 kept many part-time residents and visitors away, further reducing use (Wilson and 

Company 2005).

Figure 14. Total metered water use and the percent of use occurring in summer months 

(Wilson and Company 2005)

Recreation use and the resort related population vary depending on factors such as national and 

regional economies, weather issues (drought and snowfall), and fires (noted above). Summer use 

(the sum of consumption in summer months) as a percent of total metered water use increased 

170 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

slightly over the same period as above (from 52 percent in 1991 to 53 percent in 1998) and 

correspondingly decreased to 45 percent in 2004. While summer recreation use may be 

increasing, policies to reduce consumption and drought have likely resulted in the observed 

reduction in the share of consumption over the summer months. 

The Importance of the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Relative to Water Supply for the Village of Ruidoso 

The water supply for the Village of Ruidoso is derived from surface and ground water sources in 

the Rio Ruidoso and Eagle Creek drainages which are within the Hondo Basin, in the upper 

reaches of the Pecos River watershed. In water supply terminology, total water production is 

sometimes used interchangeably with the term total water diversion, to mean the total water 

produced or withdrawn from surface or groundwater for a water supply system. The two terms do 

not mean the same thing, and the recorded amounts are not always equal, thus, use of these terms 

interchangeably is not accurate. 

Water production is always measured at the end of a treatment system, prior to release to the 

public as potable water. Water diversions may be measured at any number of locations: lake or 

stream intake structures, interim raw water meters, or at the raw intake meter at the beginning of a 

treatment plant. Measurement differences between the two terms include process uses through the 

plants, including backwash water and other uses between the measurements. Also, depending 

upon location of the raw water meter, losses due to reservoir water evaporation, or reservoir 

leakage (which is significant for Grindstone Reservoir), or delivery line leakage (for diverted 

water transmission lines such as the Eagle Creek line), may also account for differences between 

the water as measured for diversion and the water as measured for production (Wilson and 

Company 2005). 

Since the share of production from the North Fork Eagle Creek wells cannot be determined, their 

importance is measured relative to total water diversion. As discussed above, water diversion 

estimates depend upon the location of measurement and are subject to variation based on leakage 

and other losses. Therefore, diversion as reported and adjusted diversion estimates are presented 

below in order to establish a range of values for use in estimating the contribution from the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells to total water diversion for the applicant. 

Adjusted diversion estimates are available from Wilson and Company 2005. They report values 

adjusted for volume adjustments in Grindstone and Alto Reservoirs due to net filling or 

withdrawal from raw water reservoirs. In addition their adjusted estimates consider unaccounted 

leakage through Grindstone Dam. Figure 15 shows that over the period of available data from 

1998 to 2004, adjusted diversion ranged from a high of 2,656 acre-feet in 1999 to a low of 1,901 

in 2003 and averaged 2,248 acre-feet.

Estimates of diversion as reported are also available from Wilson and Company 2005. Figure 15

shows that over the period of available data from 1998 to 2004, diversion as reported from 

Wilson and Company ranged from a high of 2,842 acre-feet in 2001 to a low of 1,793 in 2003 and 

averaged 2,261 acre-feet.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 171
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 15. Diversion estimates 

A second source of diversion as reported was made available by the Village of Ruidoso for the 

period from 1997 to 2009. Figure 15 shows that over this period, diverted water ranged from a 

high of 2,506 acre-feet in 2006 to a low of 1,394 in 1997 and averaged 2,043 acre-feet. 

Diversion data specific to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells are available for the period from 

2002 to 2010, based on data obtained in preparation of the Water Resources Report (AECOM 

2012). Over this period diversion from these wells has averaged 569 acre-feet per year, has not 

fallen below 433 acre-feet per year, and has not exceeded 807 acre-feet per year. The 3 years of 

North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion data that overlap total diversion estimates for the Village 

of Ruidoso (from 2002 to 2004; figure 15) give insight on the importance of North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells diversion to the applicant water supply. North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion as a 

share of total diversion for the Village of Ruidoso varies depending on the source of total 

diversion data used. North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion as a share of adjusted diversion 

ranges from 24 percent in 2002 to 29 percent in 2004. North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion as 

a share of diversion as reported (Wilson and Co. 2005) ranges from 25 percent in 2002 to 27 

percent in 2004. Lastly, North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion from diversion as reported by the 

Village of Ruidoso ranges from 26 percent in 2002 to 27 percent in 2004. Considering these three 

sources of total diversion for the Village of Ruidoso, North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion has 

contributed from 24 to 29 percent of Village of Ruidoso water supply over the period of available 

data (2002 to 2004). In addition, indirect diversion attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

from the 50 percent return flow credit10 adds to the Village of Ruidoso water supply contribution. 

10 The village receives a 50 percent return flow credit for all water produced from the North Fork well field. The return flow credit is 

the result of at least 50 percent of the water diverted from the North Fork well field being returned to the Rio Ruidoso via the 

village’s wastewater treatment plant. The return flow credit allows the village to divert 50 percent of the total quantity of water 

produced from the North Fork well field from other wells outside of the Eagle Creek watershed or surface water from the Rio 

Ruidoso.

172 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Accounting for these additional indirect contributions, North Fork Eagle Creek wells has 

provided 36 to 43 percent of Village of Ruidoso water supply. 

Wilson and Company characterize the 5-month summer resort period as May through September 

in order to examine water consumption during this period. This period typically has a pattern of 

higher streamflows from spring snowmelt, followed by low flows in June and July, and then 

higher streamflows again in August and September from monsoonal rains. The recent monthly 

diversion data for North Fork Eagle Creek wells (from the Village of Ruidoso) indicates that from 

38 to 58 percent (in 2006 and 2004, respectively) of total annual diversion from the well field has 

been pumped during this 5-month summer resort period. Accounting for the additional indirect 

contributions from the return flow credit indicates that from 57 to 87 percent of total annual 

diversion can be attributable to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer 

resort period. For the overlapping years with total municipal diversion data (2002 through 2004), 

the well field pumping during the 5-month summer resort period represents 11 percent (2002) to 

16.6 percent (2004) of the total municipal adjusted diversion for the year. 

Future Village of Ruidoso demand for adjusted diversion is projected in the 40-year water plan 

and considers water utility use reductions. These projections indicate 5,097 acre-feet per year will 

be required in 2045 and exceed existing supplies and rights, thus, additional water supply sources 

will be necessary (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Loss of North Fork Eagle Creek well diversion has occurred as a result of the Little Bear Fire in 

June of 2012. The Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a period of years before 

attenuation of wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of Eagle Creek surface 

water, groundwater and the diversion credits for the return flow credit (Atkins 2014). This 

analysis assumes this attenuation will occur as stated in the “Water Resources” section: “After 

approximately four to eight years following the Little Bear Fire, long-term post-wildfire

conditions are expected to more generally resemble the pre-wildfire hydrologic setting” (page 88

of “Water Resources” section). Thus the pre-wildfire data characterizing historic municipal water 

supply sources are an accurate depiction of a post-wildfire baseline useful for analysis of 

groundwater withdrawal limitations.

Values, Beliefs, and Attitudes

The “Village of Ruidoso’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan” lauds the area’s natural amenities such as 

beautiful mountains and green pines. It notes that its most important attributes are “Ruidoso’s 

diversity, friendliness, and quality of life for future generations” (Village of Ruidoso 2010). ). In 

addition, in 2012 the Village council reached an agreement on a slogan that represents the vision 

for Ruidoso: “Ruidoso... Living in Nature’s Playground.” Thus, quality of life can certainly be 

considered linked to area natural amenities managed in part by the Lincoln National Forest. 

A range of values were evident from public scoping comments received as part of the public 

involvement process for this EIS. The value of present and future water supply for the applicant 

was expressed. In addition, the importance of the quality of streamside recreation experience was 

also expressed. Specific recreational opportunities include activities such as fishing, wading, 

dispersed camping, and wildlife viewing, as discussed briefly in the “Recreation and Scenery” 

section in chapter 1. The quality of life of private landowners in the area with domestic wells 

potentially affected by surface water changes also deserves consideration. This range of values 

indicates where shared values exist and where values may conflict among community members. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 173
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This information is a fundamental part of the USDA Forest Service’s social impact analysis 

process; it enables Agency staff to address these values (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to “identify and address the disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low income populations.” According to the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA (1997) “minority 

populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit 

of geographic analysis . . . a minority population also exists if there is more than one minority 

group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, 

meets one of the above stated thresholds.” Thus, the ethnic and racial composition of New 

Mexico, Lincoln County, and Ruidoso census county subdivision are of interest. The shares of 

2000 population by race and ethnicity are displayed in table 14 below.11 In the year 2010, the 

share of population described as white was greater than the state in Lincoln County and Ruidoso 

census county subdivision. In Ruidoso census county subdivision, the shares of American Indian 

and Alaska Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders were slightly greater than Lincoln County in 

2010 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010). Since the difference in shares between the different 

geographies is small, these differences may not be considered “meaningful” as defined by the

Council on Environmental Quality. However, populations of minority groups that live outside 

these geographies or live within this area at different spatial scales may use the Lincoln National 

Forest within the project area. Thus, while the data may not reflect the presence of environmental 

justice populations as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality they still may exist in the 

area or use national forest lands in the project area. Consequently, the potential for disparate or 

adverse effects to minority groups are examined under socioeconomic effects of the alternatives. 

Table 14. Population by race and ethnicity (2010) 

White

Black or 

African 

American

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

(of any 

race)

United 

States 72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 6.2% 2.9% 16.3%

New 

Mexico 68.4% 2.1% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 15.0% 3.7% 46.3%

Lincoln 

County 85.1% 0.5% 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 9.2% 2.5% 29.8%

Ruidoso 

CCDa 85.0% 0.5% 2.9% 0.5% 0.1% 8.9% 2.3% 29.6%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2010

a – CCD = Census County Division

11 Race and ethnicity shares do not add to 100 percent because Hispanics can be of any race.

174 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In addition to race, concentrations of people living under the poverty level are of interest when 

considering the environmental justice implications of the proposed action. Council on 

Environmental Quality guidance on identifying low income populations states “agencies may 

consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one 

another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type 

of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.” In 2012, the 

percent of people living in poverty in the Village of Ruidoso (13.6 percent) was less than shares 

in Lincoln County and the State (14.7 and 19.5 percent, respectively) (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2013). Thus, the census data indicate that low income populations, as defined by the 

Council on Environmental Quality may not exist. However, low income populations that live 

outside these geographies or live within this area at different spatial scales may use the Lincoln 

National Forest within the project area. Thus, while the data may not reflect the presence of 

environmental low income populations as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality, they 

still may exist in the area or use National Forest System lands in the project area. Consequently, 

the potential for disparate or adverse effects to low income groups are examined under 

socioeconomic effects of the alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No Change 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Without limitations on groundwater withdrawal, municipal water supply, as it relates to North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion, would not be affected under the no change alternative. Over 

the short term (i.e., until watershed “recovery”) contributions would remain uncertain during the 

transitional wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) 

watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water 

Resources” section beginning on page 88); thus, average annual contributions from North Fork 

Eagle Creek wells could continue to provide from 24 to 29 percent of the Village of Ruidoso 

water supply (see discussion above) if current trends in total diversion and North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells diversion continue. In addition, past trends in North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion during this 5-month summer resort period could continue (38 to 58 percent of well field

pumping in 2006 and 2004, respectively). Consideration of additional indirect contributions 

attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit 

indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 36 to 43 percent to the 

municipal water supply overall, and 57 to 87 percent during the 5-month summer resort period. 

Based on recent available data, well field pumping during this 5-month period would represent 

between approximately 11 to 16.6 percent of total municipal pumping for the year. In addition, 

over the long-term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on 

and off Federal land) (see “Water Resources” section beginning on page 88). If this occurs, 

contributions to municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during 

the 5-month summer resort period. 

Future demand for diversion outlined in the 40-year water plan (5,097 acre-feet per year) exceed 

existing supplies and rights, thus, additional water supply sources are necessary (Wilson and 

Company 2005) regardless of actions under this EIS (for more detail see the discussion of 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 175
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

cumulative effects under the action alternatives and mitigation measures identified under the 

proposed action alternative below). As noted above, current levels of North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells diversion could continue under this alternative and if recent average annual diversion from 

these wells continues, they would contribute 11 percent of the projected diversion demand for the 

year 2045. 

Using available data from 2002-2010, annual diversion from the North Fork wells averaged 569 

acre-feet per year. Using the most recent data available for 2008-2010, annual diversion averaged 

721 acre-feet per year and ranged from 622 acre-feet per year in 2009 to 807 acre-feet per year in 

2010 (table 15) (Water Resources Report, appendix A; AECOM 2012). 

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under the no change alternative, it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until watershed 

“recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long term (i.e., 

after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate 

pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 88); thus, streamflow 

quantity would be the same as experienced by recreationists in the recent past. At the Eagle Creek 

Gage the general duration of no surface flow days would continue to be approximately 1 to 2 

weeks during average precipitation periods and approximately 8 to10 weeks during drought 

periods. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur between approximately 10 to 

40 percent of the time (see “Water Resources” section v). Continuation of these conditions could 

support a lower quality streamside recreation experience compared to alternative 2 (no pumping) 

and the proposed action alternative since flows under these alternatives are greater than the no 

change alternative. 

Over the long-term, springs, seeps and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience would be the same as pre-wildfire conditions if current management 

continues under this alternative. Two springs are within the area of projected drawdown, as 

depicted in figure 7 and figure 8, and could be affected. Other existing groundwater modeling 

indicates that more extensive drawdown could occur and therefore, a number of springs and seeps 

in the upper North Fork drainage could be similarly affected (see water resources section earlier 

in this chapter). As noted in the riparian report, the instability of the channel could result in some 

riparian areas being buried. However, these effects could be offset by the opportunity for species 

such as willows to colonize new areas. In addition, the riparian report notes that water availability 

to riparian vegetation is not likely to be greatly changed as a result of the Little Bear Fire. This 

suggests that impacts to springs and seeps and the quality of recreation dependent on associated 

riparian vegetation could occur. Consequently alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 

(proposed action) provide less of a possibility of major effects to the quality of recreation 

experience from impacts to springs, seeps and associated riparian vegetation.

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 7 and figure 

8, and could be affected (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). Since there would be 

no groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no action) and less groundwater drawdown under 

alternative 3 (proposed action) than the no change alternative, the potential for adverse effects to 

the availability of domestic well water are greatest under this alternative. 

176 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the no change alternative, it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until watershed 

“recovery”) the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed 

conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (water resources section 

page 8); thus, streamflow quantity would be the same as experienced by agriculture users in the 

past. At the Eagle Creek Gage the general duration of no surface flow days would continue to be 

approximately 1 to 2 weeks during average precipitation periods and approximately 8 to10 weeks 

during drought periods. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur between 

approximately 10 to 40 percent of the time (see “Water Resources” section beginning on page 

88). 

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

The “Village of Ruidoso’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan” notes that the Village’s most important 

attributes are “Ruidoso’s diversity, friendliness, and quality of life for future generations” (Village 

of Ruidoso 2010). In addition, the slogan for the Village of Ruidoso’s vision is: “Ruidoso... 

Living in Nature’s Playground.” Thus, quality of life can certainly be considered linked to area 

natural amenities managed in part by the Lincoln National Forest. 

As discussed above, municipal water supply, as it relates to North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion, would be unaffected under the no change alternative over the long term. Thus, quality 

of life as it relates to municipal water supply would remain unchanged under this alternative. In 

addition, quality of life associated with the quality of recreation experience and the availability of 

domestic well water would remain unchanged under this alternative. Thus, under this alternative, 

the Lincoln National Forest would continue to support quality of life at levels experienced 

currently. 

Environmental Justice

The no change alternative is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. As noted above, quality of 

life as it relates to municipal water supply, recreation opportunities, and the availability of 

domestic well water would remain unchanged under this alternative. Consequently, there would 

be no environmental justice effects. 

Cumulative Effects

The Village of Ruidoso’s 40-year plan has shown that future needs for water supply and water 

rights exceed existing supplies and rights. Future water usage projections show that the Village of 

Ruidoso will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per year diversion, even with existing and future utility use 

reductions and conservation. Existing water supplies and water rights as developed do not meet 

these needs (Wilson and Company 2005, pp. 1–53). With water supply uncertainty following the 

Little Bear Fire the Village of Ruidoso has taken steps to lease additional water rights and has 

increased diversion of surface and groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). In addition to 

the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in 

the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact 

analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village has applied for and that could 

also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal 

communication, 2014). According to the Office of the State Engineer, “the Village has a pending 

application that will sever 700.00 acre feet from National Forest System well H-1979 and transfer 

said right to the surface diversions on Eagle Creek and at Alto Reservoir” (Office of the State 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 177
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Engineer email, March 31, 2014). Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle Creek well 

pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will have made 

water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently reliance on North 

Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on measures of 

dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. There are 

additional domestic wells and points of diversion for real estate developments and resorts, along 

the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, off of National Forest 

System land. Consequently the potential cumulative effects on streamflows and groundwater 

resources are not restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. More information on this 

uncertainty can be found in the water resources section under the “Cumulative Effects” section 

and the section “Additional Impact Information”. 

If the Village of Ruidoso resumes pre-wildfire levels of groundwater withdrawal, the potential for 

adverse cumulative effects to municipal water supply would be less under this alternative than the 

other alternatives. These effects would accrue in addition to effects from other actions identified 

in table 4 of the EIS. However, the potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to the 

quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow quantity, springs, and seeps would be 

more under this alternative than the other alternatives. Similarly, the potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to nearby domestic wells would be higher under this alternative than 

under the other alternatives.

Conclusion

Over the long-term (i.e after the wildfire recovery period), average annual water diversion from 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells could continue to provide historic contributions to the Village of 

Ruidoso water supply under this alternative. However, a lower quality streamside recreation 

experience is anticipated compared to alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 (proposed 

action) since additional surface flow, and improved spring and seep conditions are anticipated 

under alternative 2 (no pumping) and alternative 3 (proposed action). In addition, the potential for 

adverse effects to the availability of domestic well water are greatest under this alternative since 

there would be no groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no pumping) and less groundwater 

drawdown under alternative 3 (proposed action). 

Alternative 2 - No Action (No Pumping) 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Without groundwater withdrawal, the North Fork Eagle Creek wells would not provide their prewildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from approximately 24 to 29 percent of direct 

water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect contributions from 

the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). In addition, larger contributions from 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer resort period would also discontinue 

(38 to 58 percent in 2006 and 2004, respectively of direct water supply and 57 to 87 percent of 

water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit). 

Additionally, without groundwater withdrawal, North Fork Eagle Creek wells could not 

contribute toward future Village of Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 2045; 

Wilson and Company 2005).

178 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As shown in table 15, alternative 2 would not provide any water to the applicant for municipal 

water supply. 

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until watershed 

“recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long term (i.e., 

after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate 

pre-wildfire conditions (see water resources section); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater 

than experienced by recreationists in the recent past. At the Eagle Creek gage the occurrence of 

no-flow days would be limited and during average or wetter years, there may be continuous flow. 

Flows of 1.2 cubic feet per second or greater would occur approximately 60 percent of the time 

(AECOM (2012) located in the project record). These conditions could support a higher quality 

streamside recreation experience compared to the no change alternative and the proposed action 

alternative since flows under these alternatives would be less than under alternative 2 (no 

pumping). 

Over the long-term, springs, seeps, and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience would at least be maintained, and could be improved, over pre-fire 

conditions under this alternative, as described in more detail in the water resources and riparian 

vegetation sections earlier in this chapter. In addition, in the absence of pumping, post-wildfire

vegetative transition could result in enhanced aquatic habitats and additional opportunities for 

improving riparian conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 88). Thus, 

alternative 2 (no pumping) provides the least possibility of detrimental effects to the quality of 

recreation experience from impacts to springs, seeps, and associated riparian vegetation since no 

withdrawals would occur. 

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 7 and figure 

8, and could be affected (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). Since there would be 

no groundwater drawdown under alternative 2 (no pumping), there would be no adverse effects 

from pumping on the availability of domestic well water. 

Under alternative 2 (no pumping), it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until watershed 

“recovery”) the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the transitional 

wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed 

conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” 

section beginning on page 88); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater than experienced by 

agriculture users in the past. At the Eagle Creek Gage the occurrence of no flow days would be 

limited and during average or wetter years, there may be continuous flow. Flows of 1.2 cubic feet 

per second or greater would occur approximately 60 percent of the time (Water Resources Report; 

AECOM 2012). These conditions could support a higher quantity of water for irrigation uses 

compared to the no-change alternative and the proposed action alternative since flows under these 

alternatives would be less than under alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

As discussed above, North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion would no longer contribute to 

municipal water supply under alternative 2 (no pumping). Thus, quality of life as it relates to 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 179
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

municipal water supply would be less than experienced before the wildfire under the no change 

alternative and less than under alternative 3 (proposed action). However, quality of life associated 

with the quality of recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water would be 

greater than the other alternatives. Thus, under alternative 2 (no pumping), the Lincoln National 

Forest would continue to support quality of life to the area community but less than supported 

before the wildfire from municipal water supply and more in terms of the quality of recreation 

experience and the availability of domestic well water.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 2 (no pumping) is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. While adverse effects to 

total municipal water diversions are anticipated, they are expected to be distributed amongst all 

segments of the Village of Ruidoso population since water diversion from the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells cannot be attributed to supply certain areas of the Village of Ruidoso. Consequently, 

effects to these communities cannot be considered disparate since effects would occur to 

communities regardless of racial, ethnic, or poverty status. However, low-income populations are 

more vulnerable to total municipal water diversions due to possible increases in the financial cost 

of water.

Cumulative Effects

Regardless of pumping restrictions under this EIS, the Village of Ruidoso 40-year plan has shown 

that future Ruidoso needs for water supply and water rights exceed existing supplies and rights. 

Future water usage projections show that the Village of Ruidoso will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per 

year diversion, even with existing and future utility use reductions and conservation. Existing 

water supplies and water rights as developed do not meet these needs (Wilson and Company 2005 

pp. 1–53). With water supply uncertainty following the Little Bear Fire the Village of Ruidoso has 

taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and 

groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and operating wells 

that are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an 

additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest 

System lands that the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water 

right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). According to the 

Office of the State Engineer, “the Village has a pending application that will sever 700.00 acre 

feet from NF well H-1979 and transfer said right to the surface diversions on Eagle Creek and at 

Alto Reservoir (Office of the State Engineer email, March 31, 2014). Once conditions allow for 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village 

will have made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently 

reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on 

measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects.

There are additional domestic wells and points of diversion, for real estate developments and 

resorts, along the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle Creek well field, off of 

National Forest System land. Consequently the potential cumulative effects on streamflows and 

groundwater resources are not restricted to water uses by the Village of Ruidoso. More 

information on this uncertainty can be found in the water resources section under the cumulative 

effects section (page 8) and the section “Additional Impact Information” (“Water Resources” 

section page 88).

180 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Without groundwater withdrawal, the potential for adverse cumulative effects to municipal water 

supply would be greater under this alternative than the other alternatives. These effects would 

accrue in addition to effects from other actions (as identified in table 5). However, the potential 

for adverse cumulative economic effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by 

streamflow quantity, springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than the other 

alternatives. Similarly, the potential for adverse cumulative economic effects to nearby domestic 

wells would be less under this alternative than under the other alternatives. 

Conclusion

Without groundwater withdrawal, the North Fork Eagle Creek wells would not continue to 

provide their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from approximately 24 to 29 

percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply that considers indirect 

contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). In addition, larger 

contributions from North Fork Eagle Creek wells during the 5-month summer resort period would 

also discontinue (38 to 58 percent in 2006 and 2004, respectively, of direct water supply and 57 to 

87 percent of water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow 

credit). Additionally, without groundwater withdrawal, North Fork Eagle Creek wells could not 

contribute toward future Village of Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 2045; 

Wilson and Company 2005). However, the potential for adverse effects to the quality of 

recreation experience provided by streamflow quantity, springs, and seeps would be less under 

this alternative than the other alternatives. Similarly, the potential for adverse effects to nearby 

domestic wells would be less than under the other alternatives. 

Alternative 3 - Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Municipal Water Supply

Over the short term (i.e., until watershed “recovery”) management triggers would be most 

generally enacted during dry years under this alternative. During average or wet years, 

management triggers would be enacted much less frequently. The exact effect on contributions to 

municipal water supply is uncertain since the Village of Ruidoso anticipates that it will be a 

period of years before attenuation of wildfire effects will allow a resumption of the full use of 

Eagle Creek surface water, groundwater and the diversion credits for the return flow credit 

(Atkins 2014). 

Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to 

return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources” section beginning on page 88). 

With restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under this alternative, the North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would not provide their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water supply (from 

approximately 24 to 29 percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply 

that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). 

Restrictions under this alternative would decrease the amount of water the village could withdraw 

by limiting the pumping rate to 50 percent of the streamflow reported at the North Fork gage. 

Using pre-wildfire data of surface flow during years where restrictions would have occurred 

provides a frame of reference for forgone water diversion (see methods discussion above). As an 

example using recent historical data, over the range of restrictions, the forgone water diversion 

due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce the contribution of North Fork Eagle Creek wells to 

approximately 23 to 25 percent of the recent total Village of Ruidoso diversions under alternative 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 181
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3 (proposed action). Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork 

Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells would continue to provide 34.5 to 37.5 percent to the municipal water supply.

Over the long term, if restrictions occurred during the 5-month summer resort period, the share of 

summer contributions from total annual diversion from North Fork Eagle Creek wells (38 to 58 

percent of annual well field pumping in 2006 and 2004, respectively, of direct water supply and 

57 to 87 percent of water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return 

flow credit) would also be less. Over the range of hypothetical pre-wildfire restrictions, the 

forgone water diversion due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce the share of summer resort 

contribution to between 25 and 57 percent of total annual well field withdrawal under alternative 

3 (proposed action). Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork 

Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 percent during the 5-month summer resort 

period. 

Restrictions on groundwater withdrawal from North Fork Eagle Creek wells would minimally 

reduce contributions toward future Village of Ruidoso demand for diversion (5,097 acre-feet in 

2045; Wilson and Company 2005). Based on recent data, for example, the forgone water 

diversion due to withdrawal restrictions would negligibly reduce contributions to projected 

annual demand by 0.1 to 1.3 percent. 

In order to determine generalized impacts to average annual diversion from implementing 

alternative 3 (proposed action) compared to alternative 1 (no change), pre-wildfire data available 

(from September 2007 to November 2011) were used. Based on this analysis, as shown in table 

15, annual diversion from the North Fork wells in the future would likely be less under alternative 

3 (proposed action) than that provided under alternative 1 (no change). If the adaptive 

management approach proposed under alternative 3 (proposed action) were applied to the years 

2008–2011, annual diversion under alternative 3 (proposed action) would have ranged from 300 

acre-feet per year (or more) to less than 50 acre-feet per year; this would have varied by year due 

to whether it was a wet or dry year and how the adaptive management triggers were implemented. 

Annual diversion from the North Fork wells in the future would be the least under alternative 2 

(no pumping). 

Based on implementing the no-flow day restriction at the pre-wildfire Eagle Creek gage under 

alternative 3 (proposed action), pumping reductions would likely range from 6.5 acre-feet per 

year to 66.5 acre-feet per year, if similar conditions occurred in the long term as the pre-wildfire

years used in the analysis (see “Water Resources” section of this chapter for more information); 

or would provide approximately 88–98 percent of the applicant’s current average annual 

diversion (using a 569 acre-feet per year average for current levels). This is considered a 

reasonable range of estimated reductions from implementing the flow condition triggers, which 

are the primary proposed management tool under the proposed action. 

However, there may be further reductions based on cumulative pumping volumes and water table 

triggers, as described in the “Adaptive Management” section of the alternative 3 (proposed 

action) description in chapter 2. Under adaptive management, these reductions would likely vary 

over time according to USDA Forest Service review, different pumping strategies, monitoring 

results, and hydrologic conditions. Under some circumstances, additional triggers could be 

182 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

applied to maintain the flow system, whereas under other conditions only the flow triggers (the 

primary management tool) would be applied. 

Table 15. Summary of available water (acre-feet per year) per alternative, based on 

available past data (for alternative 1, this is actual pumping data)

Year Alternative 1 

(no change)

Alternative 2 

(no action)

Alternative 3 

(proposed action)a 

2008 735 0 300

2009 622 0 300

2010 807 0 300

2011 not currently available 0 47

Average 721 (2008-2010) 

569 (2002-2010) 

0 236

Contribution to 

existing 

average 

annual Village 

of Ruidoso

diversion 

100% 0% 88–98 percent if only no-flow day 

triggers used, as described on page 

125

8–53 percent if no-flow day and 

pumping volume triggers used, as 

shown above

42 percent average

a – It is important to note that the adaptive management triggers in the proposed action are written to provide flexibility in 

implementing restrictions on pumping; this analysis used the 900 acre-feet per year over 3 years or 300 acre-feet per year

trigger as its starting point. If only the no-flow days trigger was used, these volumes would likely have been substantially 

higher and would only have reduced pumping volume from 6.5 to 66.5 acre-feet per year compared to alternative 1; 

projecting these results into the future should be viewed as a maximum reduction; available water to the applicant may be 

higher.

Assuming the 300 acre-feet per year adaptive management trigger was implemented combined 

with the flow condition triggers (or 900 acre-feet per year over 3 years) during 2008–2011, 

average annual diversions would have been reduced over actual diversions (table 15); under this 

scenario, alternative 3 (proposed action) would have contributed an average of 236 acre-feet per 

year, or between 8 and 53 percent (42 percent average) to the applicant’s average annual 

diversion. 

As shown, if available pre-wildfire data are indicative of future years, implementing alternative 3 

(proposed action) could measurably limit the water available for applicant pumping through 

implementation of adaptive management triggers, and these limits would likely be greatest during 

dry years (such as 2011). However, all of the adaptive management triggers proposed are 

designed to be used in concert with each other and to be flexible so that a balance between 

providing water and protecting resources is met. In addition, over the long term, post-wildfire

vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve groundwater availability within the 

North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on and off National Forest System 

land) (see “Water Resources” section beginning on page 88). If this occurs, contributions to 

municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during the 5-month 

summer resort period. This should be considered a maximum reduction scenario, based on limited 

data available from pre-wildfire years, and should therefore be used with caution. It is possible 

that available water could be higher than shown here. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 183
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Streamside Recreation Use 

Under alternative 3 (proposed action), it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until 

watershed “recovery”) the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the 

transitional wildfire recovery period with uncertainty in water quantity and quality. Over the long 

term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) watershed conditions are expected to return to 

approximate pre-wildfire conditions (“Water Resources”section beginning on page 88); thus, 

streamflow quantity would be greater than pre-wildfire levels. In addition, streamflow quantity 

under this alternative would be less than under no pumping alternative. By limiting pumping the 

aquifer water level recovery times would decrease leading to a decrease in the duration of no 

surface flow periods (Water Resources Report; AECOM 2012). Consequently, these conditions 

could support a higher quality streamside recreation experience compared to the no change 

alternative but lower quality than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Over the long-term springs, seeps and dependent riparian vegetation important to the quality of 

recreation experience could be improved over pre-fire conditions under this alternative. Two 

springs are within the area of projected drawdown, as depicted in figure 7 and figure 8 and could 

be affected. However, the decreased drawdown and shorter water-level recovery times predicted 

under this alternative would also decrease the potential for impacts to springs and seeps, 

compared to alternative 1 (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). In addition, postwildfire vegetative transition along with pumping restrictions could result in enhanced aquatic 

habitats and additional opportunities for improving riparian (water resources section). Thus, 

alternative 3 (proposed action) provides the less detrimental effects to the quality of recreation 

experience from impacts to springs, seeps and associated riparian vegetation than the no-change 

alternative but more detrimental effects than alternative 2 (no pumping). According to the riparian 

report, change in effects are expected to be the same as those described in alternative 1, except 

that any positive benefit from increased availability of water to riparian vegetation and therefore 

recreation would be greater in magnitude in alternative 3. 

Availability of Domestic Well Water and Water for Irrigation

Two domestic wells are within the area of projected drawdown as depicted on figures 7a and 7b, 

and could be affected. However, the decreased drawdown and shorter water-level recovery times 

predicted under this alternative would also decrease the potential for impacts to these wells, 

compared to alternative 1 (see water resources section earlier in this chapter). The potential for 

adverse effects are still greater though, than under alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Under alternative 3 (proposed action), it is anticipated that over the short term (i.e., until 

watershed “recovery”) the availability of water for irrigation would remain uncertain during the 

transitional wildfire recovery period. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery period) 

watershed conditions are expected to return to approximate pre-wildfire conditions (see “Water 

Resources” section); thus, streamflow quantity would be greater than pre-wildfire levels. In 

addition, streamflow quantity under this alternative would be less than under the no pumping 

alternative. By limiting pumping the aquifer water level recovery times would decrease leading to 

a decrease in the duration of no surface flow periods (Water Resources Report; AECOM 2012).

Consequently, these conditions could support a higher quantity of water for irrigation uses 

compared to the no-change alternative but lower quantity than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

184 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Values, Beliefs, Attitudes

As discussed above under alternative 3 (proposed action), it is anticipated that North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells diversion would contribute less to municipal water supply than currently. Thus 

quality of life as it relates to municipal water supply would be less before the wildfire. However, 

quality of life associated with the quality of recreation experience and the availability of domestic 

well water would increase under this alternative relative to the current situation. Thus, under this 

alternative, the Lincoln National Forest would continue to support quality of life to the area 

community; less than supported before the wildfire from municipal water supply and more in 

terms of the quality of recreation experience and the availability of domestic well water.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 3 (proposed action) is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations. While adverse 

effects to total municipal water diversions are anticipated, they are expected to be distributed 

amongst all segments of the Village of Ruidoso population since water diversion from the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells cannot be attributed to supply certain areas of the Village of Ruidoso. 

Consequently, effects to these communities cannot be considered disparate since effects would 

occur to communities regardless of racial, ethnic, or poverty status. However, low-income 

communities could be more adversely affected if rates for water increase.

Cumulative Effects

Regardless of pumping restrictions under this EIS, the Village of Ruidoso 40-year plan has shown 

that future Ruidoso needs for water supply and water rights exceed existing supplies and rights. 

Future water usage projections show that Ruidoso will require 5,097.2 acre-feet per year 

diversion, even with existing and future utility use reductions and conservation. Existing water 

supplies and water rights as developed do not meet these needs (Wilson and Company 2005 pp. 

1–53). With water supply uncertainty following the Little Bear Fire the Village of Ruidoso has 

taken steps to lease additional water rights and has increased diversion of surface and 

groundwater on the Rio Ruidoso (Atkins 2014). In addition to the six existing and operating wells 

that are supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an 

additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest 

System lands that the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water 

right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). According to the 

Office of the State Engineer, “the Village has a pending application that will sever 700.00 acre 

feet from NF well H-1979 and transfer said right to the surface diversions on Eagle Creek and at 

Alto Reservoir” (Office of the State Engineer email, March 31, 2014). Once conditions allow for 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village 

of Ruidoso will have made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand.

Consequently effects on measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper 

bound of potential effects. There are additional domestic wells and points of diversion, for real 

estate developments and resorts, along the Eagle Creek drainage below the North Fork Eagle 

Creek well field, off of National Forest System land. Consequently the potential cumulative 

effects on streamflows and groundwater resources are not restricted to water uses by the Village 

of Ruidoso. More information on this uncertainty can be found under the “Cumulative Effects” 

and “Additional Impact Information” headings in the “Additional Impact Information” section. 

With restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under this alternative, the potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to municipal water supply would be greater under this alternative 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 185
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

than under the no change alternative but less than alternative 2 (no pumping). These effects would 

accrue in addition to effects from other actions identified in table 5 of the EIS. The potential for 

adverse cumulative economic effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by 

streamflow quantity, springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than under the no 

change alternative but more than alternative 2 (no pumping). In addition, the potential for adverse 

cumulative economic effects to nearby domestic wells would be less under this alternative than 

under the no change alternative but more than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Conclusion

With restrictions on groundwater withdrawal under alternative 3 (proposed action), the North 

Fork Eagle Creek wells would not provide their pre-wildfire share of Village of Ruidoso water 

supply (from 24 to 29 percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total water supply 

that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see discussion above). 

As an example using pre-wildfire data, over the range of restrictions, the forgone water diversion 

due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce the contribution of North Fork Eagle Creek wells to 

approximately 23 to 25 percent of the recent total Village of Ruidoso diversions under 

alternative 3. Consideration of additional indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle 

Creek well diversions from the 50 percent return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek 

wells would continue to provide 34.5 to 37.5 percent to the municipal water supply. The potential 

for effects to forgone water diversion is greater during the 5-month summer resort period (38 to 

58 percent of annual well field pumping in 2006 and 2004, respectively of direct water supply 

and 57 to 87 percent of water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent 

return flow credit). Over the range of hypothetical pre-wildfire restrictions, the forgone water 

diversion due to withdrawal restrictions could reduce the share of summer resort contribution to 

between 25 and 57 percent of total annual well field withdrawal. Consideration of additional 

indirect contributions attributable to North Fork Eagle Creek well diversions from the 50 percent 

return flow credit indicate that North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 37.5 to 

85.5 percent during the 5-month summer resort period. Municipal water supply would be greater 

under this alternative than the no pumping alternative and streamflow quantity under this 

alternative would be less than under the no pumping alternative. 

Over the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on 

and off National Forest System land) (see “Water Resources” section). If this occurs, 

contributions to municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during 

the 5-month summer resort period. In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are 

supplemental to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an 

additional 7 supplemental wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest 

System lands that the Village has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water 

right in the future (Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). According to the 

Office of the State Engineer, “the Village has a pending application that will sever 700.00 acre 

feet from NF well H-1979 and transfer said right to the surface diversions on Eagle Creek and at 

Alto Reservoir (Office of the State Engineer email, March 31, 2014). Once conditions allow for 

North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village 

will have made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently 

reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on 

measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. 

Thus, this should be considered the maximum reduction to municipal water supply contributions. 

186 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The potential for adverse effects to the quality of recreation experience provided by streamflow 

quantity, springs, and seeps would be less under this alternative than under the no change 

alternative but more than alternative 2 (no pumping). In addition, the potential for adverse effects 

to nearby domestic wells would be less under this alternative than under the no change alternative 

but more than alternative 2 (no pumping). 

Summary

Implementing alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action) would both achieve the 

first need statement for this project which is “authorizing, under a special use permit, the 

applicant’s ability to access and divert groundwater from its North Fork Eagle Creek wells on 

National Forest System land, as a substantial component of the municipal water supply system 

that Ruidoso residents and visitors rely upon.” Because both alternatives would continue to 

provide water to the Village of Ruidoso and would, therefore, continue to contribute to the 

municipal water supply, they meet the intent of this need statement. However, alternative 3 

(proposed action) may not provide the pre-wildfire share of water as would alternative 1 (no 

action) (from approximately 24 to 29 percent of direct water supply and 36 to 43 percent of total 

water supply that considers indirect contributions from the 50 percent return flow credit; see 

discussion above). Regardless the discussion above notes that when additional indirect 

contributions attributable to the 50 percent return flow credit are considered under alternative 3, 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to provide 37.5 to 85.5 percent of municipal water 

supply during the 5-month summer resort period. Alternative 2 (no pumping) does not address 

this need statement and would not provide any contribution to the municipal water supply. Over 

the long term, post-wildfire vegetative transitions in the watershed may slightly improve 

groundwater availability within the North Fork Eagle Creek (North Fork Eagle Creek drainage on 

and off National Forest System land) (see “Water Resources”section). If this occurs, contributions 

to municipal water supply could be slightly greater throughout the year and during the 5-month 

summer resort period. In addition to the six existing and operating wells that are supplemental to 

the North Fork Eagle Creek wells in the Eagle Creek basin, there are an additional 7 supplemental 

wells in the cumulative impact analysis area off of National Forest System lands that the Village 

has applied for and that could also divert the Eagle Creek water right in the future (Office of the 

State Engineer, personal communication, 2014). Once conditions allow for North Fork Eagle 

Creek well pumping to resume at pre-wildfire levels it is likely that the Village of Ruidoso will 

have made water supply adjustments in order to meet water supply demand. Consequently 

reliance on North Fork Eagle Creek well pumping may be less than depicted above. Effects on 

measures of dependency presented above can be considered an upper bound of potential effects. 

Thus, this should be considered a maximum reduction to municipal water supply contributions. 

While the short-term effects of implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to other aspects of the 

socioeconomic analysis (streamside recreational use; domestic wells and water for irrigation; 

values, attitudes and beliefs; and environmental justice) are uncertain during the watershed 

recovery period following the Little Bear Fire, the long-term effects are the same as those 

described above for each alternative for the pre-wildfire assessment.

The socioeconomic principles and goals listed above illustrate the need for the Lincoln National 

Forest to adopt a management alternative that adequately responds to changing human conditions 

and demands while also supporting multiple uses and sustained yield. Alternative 3 (proposed 

action) moves towards the above forest plan goals to the greatest extent, compared to the other 

alternatives. The no change and no pumping alternatives (1 and 2) do not address the intent of the 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 187
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

forest plan as well as the proposed action. Alternative 2 (no pumping) meets the second goal to 

“Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and management of the 

Forest” but does not go as far towards meeting the forest plan as the proposed action in regards to 

other goals to “Use land ownership adjustment to accomplish resource management objectives 

and respond to public needs” and “Provide opportunities to satisfy local demand for Forest 

resources” (USDA Forest Service 1986).

Water Rights 

The purpose of this section is to discuss the applicant’s water rights in the context of the proposed 

alternatives. The issues related to reissuance of a special use permit to the applicant to continue 

pumping from wells located on National Forest System lands includes the beneficial use of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights. This section provides a brief overview of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s existing water rights and discusses water rights in the context of each 

alternative. 

Methodology

Well pumping results in changes in the dynamics of groundwater and surface water. Surface water 

and groundwater availability are linked and are limited not only by accessible available quantities 

of water, but also by available water rights. Limiting access to groundwater pumping has the 

potential to alter municipal water supply and affect beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s total 

adjudicated water rights. 

The North Fork Eagle Creek wells along Eagle Creek draw water in the amounts associated with 

the right that is attributable to each well. Changes to the amount of groundwater withdrawal by 

the North Fork Eagle Creek wells could potentially impact the Village of Ruidoso’s timely 

beneficial use of the water rights tied to each well. The alternatives will be compared using the 

following measurement indicator: 

• Beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights

Affected Environment

The “Water Rights Report” (Thompson 2012 and 2014) is available in the project record and 

includes an overview of water rights in New Mexico and a detailed history of the Village of 

Ruidoso’s water rights. This report is incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and 

available in its entirety in the project record. The glossary also provides some of the more 

commonly-used terms related to water rights. 

Except for Federal Reserved Rights, the Federal Government defers to state law in the allocation 

of water on public lands. The Federal government recognizes those water rights on public lands 

that were perfected according to state law [California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland 

Cement Co. (S.Ct.1935)]. 

New Mexico follows the prior appropriation doctrine. Central to New Mexico’s definition of prior 

appropriation is that all appropriated waters must be put to beneficial use, and that priority shall 

give the better right. Beneficial use is the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right. The state’s 

water law is found in New Mexico Statutes Chapter 72. The Office of State Engineer, appointed 

by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate has broad authority over New Mexico’s 

distribution of the State’s water. The State Engineer is responsible for supervising the state’s 

188 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

water resources through the appropriation and distribution of all of the state’s surface and 

groundwater. The State Engineer is also secretary for the Interstate Stream Commission, which is 

responsible for investigating, protecting, conserving, and developing New Mexico’s water supply. 

Water rights in New Mexico can be held by any entity except by the State Engineer. A water right 

can be severed from the land through an application to the Office of the State Engineer. Water 

rights can also be transferred from one entity to another, but a change application must be filed 

and approved by the Office of the State Engineer. Water rights are also considered real property 

and may be bought or sold and can be conveyed as part of a piece of real property or it can be 

severed from the land and sold separately. New Mexico’s surface water code was created in 1907 

and when it became a state in 1912, the new constitution adopted the prior appropriation doctrine. 

Any appropriation of surface water initiated on or after March 19, 1907 requires a valid permit 

issued by the State Engineer. Since March 29, 1907, New Mexico has considered most surface 

water in the state to be fully appropriated, so most recent water rights are attributable to 

groundwater. 

The New Mexico groundwater code was enacted in 1931. The groundwater code specifies the 

administrative procedures for processing any application of new groundwater, to change the place 

of use or purpose of use of an existing groundwater right, to change the location of a well, to add 

a supplemental well, or to drill a replacement well. However, groundwater use and development 

can only be administered by the Office of the State Engineer in basins that have been declared to 

have reasonably ascertainable boundaries. The Office of the State Engineer can close declared 

basins in order to limit future use and prevent impairment of existing uses. 

Table 16. 2009 Consent order between the applicant and Office of the State Engineer for 

the four North Fork Eagle Creek wells

Well Number 2009 Final 

Adjudication

Applicant’s 

Municipal Righta

to Additional af/yr 

Subject to Proof 

of Beneficial Use 

on 12/31/2024b 

Total af/yr Combined 

Final Adjudication and 

Municipal Right Still 

Subject to Proof of 

Beneficial Usec

H-1979 (North Fork Well 1) 700.83 350.42 1,051.25

H-1980 (North Fork Well 2) 46.77 23.39 70.16

H-1981 (North Fork Well 3) 550.71 275.36 826.07

H-1982 (North Fork Well 4) 394.57 197.29 591.86

TOTAL 1,692.88 846.46 2,539.34

a – NMSA 72-1-9 allows municipalities a water use planning period not to exceed 40 years, in which water rights can be 

developed based on the water development plan.

b – The applicant can pump this amount now or wait to pump as long as they show beneficial use before December 31, 

2024.

c – This is the maximum amount the applicant can ever pump from each well.

Surface and groundwater can be hydrologically connected. Conjunctive water use recognizes this 

typical connection and tries to utilize it to more efficiently manage the water supply. Conjunctive 

management of both surface water and groundwater has been established by judicial affirmation 

in a case known as City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds (1962). The New Mexico Supreme Court 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 189
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

recognized the statutory authority of the State Engineer to conjunctively administer 

hydrologically connected surface and groundwater. 

In 2010, a consent order was negotiated with the Village of Ruidoso and the Office of the State 

Engineer to more accurately define the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights in Eagle Creek. This 

subfile order adjudicates the groundwater rights wells (H-1979 through H-1982) in the total 

combined amount of 1,692.88 acre-feet per year at each respective point of diversion and also 

recognizes the Village of Ruidoso’s right to place an additional 846.46 acre-feet per year into use 

subject to filing of proof of beneficial use by December 31, 2024. This consent order is the 

Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights as of 2014. This water rights summary is shown 

below in table 16 and in figure 6 earlier in this chapter. 

The 2010 Consent Order also discusses the Village of Ruidoso’s surface rights along Eagle Creek 

(located off National Forest System lands and adjudicated in subfile R.33) and the separate 

relationship with the North Fork wells. The surface diversion can be combined with supplemental 

water pumped from the North Fork wells to satisfy the Village of Ruidoso’s surface water rights 

along Eagle Creek. This surface water right and supplemental groundwater pumped from the 

North Fork wells is in addition to and separate from the Village of Ruidoso’s groundwater rights 

discussed in the previous section. Therefore, an additional 761.12 acre-feet per year could be 

pumped from the National Forest System wells as supplemental to the Village of Ruidoso’s 

surface water rights. This combined surface diversion and groundwater from the North Fork wells 

is illustrated in the following table. 

Table 17. 2010 Consent Order Surface and Groundwater Rights Combined. (The surface 

diversion and supplemental groundwater can be combined at any rate by any withdrawal 

method (surface or ground)

Diversion Amounta Location

Surface Diversion combined Off National Forest System lands

Surface Diversion combined Off National Forest System lands

H 1497 combined Off National Forest System lands

H 1497-S combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1980 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1981 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1982 combined North Fork Eagle Creek -National Forest System

lands

H-1979-S combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S2 combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S3 combined Off National Forest System lands

H-1979-S7 combined Off National Forest System lands

Total 761.12 

a - Withdrawal is based on priority, but the amounts can be diverted from any combination of surface or groundwater.

There is not an attributable amount to each individual withdrawal method (surface or groundwater).

190 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The priority dates for the surface diversion listed in table 17 are shown below: 

Priority and Amount

1882 for 91.435 af/yr

1883 for 257.01 af/yr

1884 for 21.72 af/yr

1885 for 94.115 af/yr

1887 for 10.86 af/yr

1894 for 39.82 af/yr

1895 for 50.675 af/yr

1896 for 47.055 af/yr

1902 for 36.2 af/yr

July 9, 1913 for 112.23 af/yr

In addition to the 2010 consent order, the Village of Ruidoso has several pending applications 

with the Office of the State Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, 

personal communication, September 2014) that could affect groundwater and surface water 

withdrawal along Eagle Creek. These applications are enumerated below:

• The Village filed an application to make wells H-1497 and H-1497-S supplemental to H1979, H-1980, H-1981 and H-1982. In that application, the Village requested that 

pumping from H-1497 and H-1497-S be limited to 300 acre-feet per year for each well. 

• The Village then filed an application to add wells H-1979-S-10, H-1979-S-11, H- 1979-S12, H-1979-S-13 and H-1979-S-14 as additional supplemental wells to H-1979, H-1980, 

H-1981 and H-1982. In this application, the Village requested that pumping from H1979-S-10, H-1979-S-11, H-1979-S-12, H-1979-S-13 and H-1979-S-14 be limited to 400

acre-feet per year for each well.

• Next, the Village filed an application to add wells H-1979-S-5 and H-1979-S-6 as 

supplemental wells to H-1979, H-1980, H-1981 and H-1982. In this application, the 

Village requested that the combined pumping from H-1979-S-5 and H-1979-S-6 be 

limited to 400 acre-feet per year.

• The current application seeks to stop the pumping of the 700.83 acre-feet per year of 

water right H-1979 from wells H-1979, H-1979-S, H-1979-S-2, H-1979-S-3 and H-1979-

S-7 and to divert that water from two surface water points of diversion on Eagle Creek, 

shown on figure 4, and wells H-1497 and H-1497-S. The surface water points of 

diversion referred to in the application (and in the Consent Order) as 0173 and 0783 have 

been renumbered as 783-POD2 and 783. The original well H-1497 has been replaced by 

well H-1497 POD4. 

If all these pending applications are approved by the Office of the State Engineer, it would enable 

the applicant to access their water rights (for both surface and groundwater) from approximately 

16 wells and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek (see also figure 4 and figure 5). This 

allows the applicant to diversify extraction methods based on water availability. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 191
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Village of Ruidoso has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the Rio Hondo 

Land and Cattle Company. Both parties agreed to the following: 

• The Village of Ruidoso only has 1,624.51 acre-feet per year in the North Fork Eagle 

Creek wells (a loss of 68.37 acre-feet per year from the 2009 consent order). 

• The Village of Ruidoso will not attempt to change the diversion for any of its rights 

outside the Eagle Creek basin. The Eagle Creek basin is defined as the basin lying west of 

the north/south quarter line of Section 36 Township 10S, Range 13E, NMPM. 

• The Village of Ruidoso will cancel all excess rights pertaining to the proof of beneficial 

use. 

To our knowledge as of August 2014, this agreement between the two parties has not been 

acknowledged by the Office of the State Engineer. If an updated consent order from the Office of 

the State Engineer including this agreement is issued, the USDA Forest Service will recognize the 

updated consent order as the most current description of the applicant’s water rights. Until that 

time, the USDA Forest Service will use the 2009 final adjudication as the Village of Ruidoso’s 

water rights in the North Fork Eagle Creek. The alternatives presented in this document for 

analysis would not be affected by implementation of this memorandum of agreement. 

Water Distribution

To summarize, the Village of Ruidoso has groundwater rights in North Fork Eagle Creek on 

National Forest System lands. In addition to the four North Fork Eagle Creek wells, the Village of 

Ruidoso also has water rights for other water diversions in other parts of the Eagle Creek basin 

(and off of National Forest System land) that include a surface diversion, four supplemental wells 

to the North Fork Eagle Creek wells, and both the brown and green wells (totaling six additional 

wells and one surface diversion) in the Eagle Creek drainage off of National Forest System lands; 

and 2,561.57 acre-feet in water rights (figure 6 and table 18). Table 18 lists the water rights 

associated with each of these diversions in the larger Eagle Creek drainage.

Eagle Creek Surface Supply: 

This water right is the Village of Ruidoso’s share (one half) of the now-dissolved Eagle Creek 

Inter-Community Water Supply Association, which was originally established in 1954. These 

water rights have priority dates ranging from 1882 to July 9, 1913. Wilson and Company (2005) 

report that the average annual streamflow available for diversion is approximately 1,600 acre-feet 

per annum or 2.21 cubic feet per second (992 gallons per minute) at the Eagle Creek diversion 

point. Streamflow data shows occasions during drought periods when very little or no flow is 

available for diversion on Eagle Creek (Wilson and Company 2005). 

Brown and Green Wells: 

The H-1497 series wells near the Eagle Creek point of diversion are commonly known as the 

Brown and Green (or Woodpecker) wells. These wells have priority dates of 1869 and 1923 and 

are adjudicated for 59.61 acre-feet per year. Additionally, water rights were transferred to these 

wells in the amount of 77.76 acre-feet per year with a priority date of 1867. The total volume of 

finalized water rights associated directly with these two wells is 137.37 acre-feet per year, of 

which half may be consumptively used while the other half must be return flow. These wells also 

may be used to supplement the diversion of surface flows from Eagle Creek (Wilson and 

Company 2005). 

192 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 18. Eagle Creek drainage summary of water rights (see also figure 6) 

State Engineer File Number and Name Annual Historic Maximum 

(acre-feet per year) 

0173, 187: Eagle Creek Surface Diversion 761.12

H-1979 North Fork 1 (NF-1)

H-1980 North Fork 2 (NF-2)

H-1981 North Fork 3 (NF-3)

H-1982 North Fork 4 (NF-4)

H-1979-S “Alto Lake well”

H-1979-S-2 “River well”

H-1979-S-3 “Ball Field Concession well”

H-1979-S-7 “Below Alto Lake well”

1979 Series Total Water Right 1,692.88

Municipal Right for H-1979 series wells subject to PBU in 

2024 846.46

H-1497 “Green well”

H-1497-S “Brown well”

H-1497 Series Total Water Right 107.57

Total Eagle Creek Water Rights 3,408.03

Total North Fork Wells Water Rights 2,539.34

Groundwater is combined with surface water at Alto Lake Reservoir and piped to the Alto Crest 

Water Treatment Plant (WTP 3) and treated before being pumped into the system. Potable water 

production from Alto Crest WTP 3 varies depending upon water demands from the system, 

averaging as much as 2.3 million gallons per day (7.06 acre-feet per day), or as little as 0.5 

million gallons per day (1.53 acre-feet per day) for water supply (Wilson and Company 2005).

Once treated, the water removed from the Eagle Creek drainage is then pumped into two large 

tanks that sit at the top of the drainage boundary that divides the Eagle Creek drainage and the 

Rio Ruidoso drainage. The water from the North Fork wells leaves the Eagle Creek drainage and 

enters the Village of Ruidoso’s distribution system that supplies its customers in the Rio Ruidoso 

drainage. After the water is used by the customers, it is collected via the sewer system and sent to 

the wastewater treatment plant. Once treated, the effluent is then discharged into the Rio Ruidoso. 

Because some of the discharged effluent is actually water from the Eagle Creek drainage, the 

Village of Ruidoso receives an effluent credit. Based on this, the Village of Ruidoso is able to 

divert surface water from the Rio Ruidoso in an amount equal to what portion of the discharged 

effluent leaving the wastewater treatment plant is attributable to what is pumped out of the Eagle 

Creek drainage. 

Rio Ruidoso Water Supply

We describe above the applicant’s water rights associated with one part of the applicant water 

supply system, the Devils Canyon (Eagle Creek) portion. The other part of the Village of Ruidoso 

water supply comes from the Upper Rio Ruidoso watershed, through surface water diversion and 

groundwater pumping. These two subwatersheds are both part of the larger Pecos River basin and

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 193
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

administered by the Office of the State Engineer. Upper Rio Ruidoso water is diverted as both 

pumped groundwater and through a river intake. Groundwater is treated at the wellhead and fed 

directly into the distribution system. Surface water is collected at Grindstone Reservoir and 

treated at the Grindstone Water Treatment Plant before being fed into the distribution system. 

Grindstone Reservoir storage capacity is 1,520 acre-feet (488 million gallons). Combining Eagle 

Creek and Upper Rio Ruidoso together consists of 2 raw water reservoirs, 2 surface water 

treatment plants, and 18 permitted wells, of which 11 are active wells, capable of together 

producing peak capacity of approximately 6 million gallons per day (Wilson and Company 2005). 

The 2012 Little Bear Fire halted the production of both surface and groundwater diversions along 

Eagle Creek due to water quality and debris flow issues. This not only impacted water 

production, but also affected the Village of Ruidoso’s ability to access the return flow credits 

along the Rio Ruidoso. The shift from the Eagle Creek watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed 

has created a temporary redistribution of water rights along the Rio Ruidoso (also impacted by 

water quality from the Little Bear Fire). Approved on an emergency basis by the Office of the 

State Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso received a temporary additional point of diversion, at the 

confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and Carrizo Creek to the south, to provide water to the Grindstone 

Dam for use in the municipal supply. This redistribution is anticipated to be short-term in nature 

and historic water rights and allocation will remain as defined in the 2010 Consent Order. 

The Village of Ruidoso also has several pending applications with the Office of the State 

Engineer (State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, personal communication, 

September 2014) that could affect groundwater and surface water withdrawal along Eagle Creek, 

as described earlier. If all of these pending applications are approved by the Office of the State 

Engineer, it would enable the Village to access their water rights (for both surface and 

groundwater) from approximately 16 wells and two surface diversions along Eagle Creek. This 

would allow the Village to diversify extraction methods based on water availability. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Change

There are no effects under alternative 1 (no action, no change) since the Village of Ruidoso would 

be able to put to beneficial use their adjudicated water right at the current point of diversion, 

which total 2,539.34 acre-feet per year and provide, on average, a direct contribution to the 

Village of Ruidoso water supply ranging from 24 to 29 percent. When indirect annual 

contributions are added to direct contributions (based on factoring in diversions from return flow 

credits, described in more detail in chapter 1 and in chapter 3), this increases to 36 to 43 percent. 

During the summer months, data show that 57 to 87 percent of total direct and indirect annual 

diversions can be attributable to the North Fork wells.

Lack of diversion due to emergency circumstances created by the Little Bear Fire in 2012 is not 

expected to have a direct effect on the beneficial use of the Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated 

water rights.

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping)

Without groundwater withdrawal at the current location, the Village of Ruidoso would have the 

option to file application with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of 

their water rights. This is a State of New Mexico process that does not involve the USDA Forest 

194 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Service. The process to transfer water rights can be time consuming. The Village of Ruidoso

would need to file an application to transfer water rights with the Office of the State Engineer. 

After the application is filed, a notice of intent to change the right’s use or place of use is 

published in the newspaper of record where the rights are located. Anyone who objects to the 

proposed transfer files a formal protest with the Office of the State Engineer. Protests must be 

based on a claim that the transfer will impair existing rights, be contrary to the conservation of 

water, or be detrimental to public welfare. If no protest is filed, the Office of the State Engineer 

could approve the transfer if it finds the transfer compatible with State law. If however, there is a 

protest, the Office of the State Engineer holds a formal hearing on issues set out in the protest and 

decides the case. If either party is dissatisfied with the Office of the State Engineer’s decision, an 

appeal can be made to district court. These hearings can take months or years to complete. 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action

With the potential for limits to be placed on the amount of groundwater withdrawn from the 

North Fork well field, dependent on implementation of the adaptive management strategy under 

alternative 3 (proposed action), the Village of Ruidoso would have the option to file an 

application with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of diversion of a portion of 

their water rights. This is a State of New Mexico process that does not involve the USDA Forest 

Service, but as described above for alternative 2 (no pumping), can be time consuming and 

lengthy; the Office of the State Engineer has authority to approve or disapprove an application for 

transfer of water rights. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

The wildfire halted the production of both surface and groundwater diversions along Eagle Creek 

due to water quality and debris flow issues. This impacted water production and the Village of 

Ruidoso’s ability to access the return flow credits along the Rio Ruidoso. The shift from the Eagle 

Creek watershed to the Rio Ruidoso watershed created a temporary redistribution of water rights 

along the Rio Ruidoso (also impacted by water quality from the Little Bear Fire). Approved on an 

emergency basis by the Office of the State Engineer, the Village of Ruidoso received a temporary 

additional point of diversion, at the confluence of the Rio Ruidoso and Carrizo Creek to the south, 

to provide water to the Grindstone Dam for use in the municipal supply. This redistribution is 

anticipated to be short-term in nature. Lack of diversion due to emergency circumstances created 

by the Little Bear Fire in 2012 is not expected to have a direct effect on the beneficial use of the 

Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights.

Over the long term, historic water rights and allocation will remain as defined in the 2009 

Consent Order. Therefore, the effects of implementing alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to the beneficial use 

of the Village of Ruidoso’s water rights is the same as that described in the pre-wildfire

assessment above.

Vegetation (Except Riparian Vegetation) 

Vegetation (except riparian vegetation) is not a significant issue and we will only briefly discuss it 

here.

This analysis focuses on three different aspects of vegetation: upland vegetation; threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species; and nonnative invasive plants. In the next section, we 

discuss the relationship between forest density and water yield. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 195
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for this project can be found in the vegetation report (Miller 2012b). The supplemental vegetation 

report (Miller 2014 and Kuhar 2014) provides a more detailed description of affected 

environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the changes caused by the 

Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed briefly below, and 

available in their entirety in the project record.

Methodology 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to vegetation was provided by specialists with the 

Forest Service, literature, and professional judgment. Upland vegetation was analyzed in Arcmap 

10.1 using the terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek 

drainage boundary (figure 2). North Fork Eagle Creek was buffered by 200 feet to designate the 

riparian area. This riparian area was then excluded from analysis for upland vegetation. 

Cumulative effects were determined using Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past, present and 

future project areas (table 4).

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants were analyzed in Arcmap 10.1 using the rare plant 

forest inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area. North Fork Eagle 

Creek was buffered by 200 feet to designate the riparian area. Cumulative effects were 

determined using Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past, present and future project areas 

(table 4). Existing populations of rare plants were examined in the field in 2010 and 2011. Much 

of the project area was surveyed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants as part of the 

Eagle Creek project in 1996 and 2002. 

Nonnative invasive plants were analyzed in Arcmap 10.1 using the corporate nonnative invasive 

plant forest inventory dataset clipped to the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area. Cumulative 

effects were determined using Lincoln National Forest shapefiles of past, present and future 

project areas (table 4).

Temporal effects boundaries are 1 to 10 years for short-term effects and 10 to 20 years for longterm effects. The North Fork Eagle Creek drainage boundary (figure 2) was chosen as the spatial 

boundary because it contains the area of predicted direct/indirect impacts from projected 

drawdown, as described in more detail in the water resources section of this chapter and shown in 

figure 7 and figure 8.Accordingly, the cumulative effects boundary matches the largest area of 

direct and indirect effects.

Well pumping results in changes in the dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and 

water table) and surface water (streamflows, wetlands, springs, and seeps). Surface water and 

groundwater availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. These 

changes have the potential to indirectly affect water available for recruitment, growth, and 

maintenance of upland vegetation, depending on the extent of possible water table drawdown and 

rooting depth. The alternatives are compared using the following indicators: 

Upland Vegetation: extent and duration of possible water table reduction and proximity to 

upland vegetation communities. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants: proximity and timing of proposed actions and 

possible water level changes to habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

196 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Nonnative Invasive Plants: possibility for increasing the spread of nonnative invasive plants. 

Affected Environment

Upland Vegetation 

Vegetation in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area, described prior to the Little Bear Fire in 

2012, consists of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, high grass, and mid-grass vegetation types. 

Mixed conifer is the most prevalent and makes up approximately 88 percent of the project area. 

Forest density is discussed separately in the “Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield” 

section.

Upland vegetation in the project area burned in the Little Bear Fire with a mix of burn severities. 

Most grass, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities burned at low intensity or less. 

However, each of these vegetation types did experience some moderate and severity burn 

severity, as shown in more detail in Miller 2014. The areas in the drainage that burned with severe 

intensity were generally located in the wilderness area. These areas could potentially undergo a 

type change from forest to shrub types as seen after fires on the forest (Kuhar 2013). Stand data 

collected in 2012 to assess wildfire effects showed that areas in the perimeter of the Little Bear 

Fire that had previous fuels treatments were burned at low severity or less (Kuhar 2013).

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

We reviewed the Lincoln National Forest sensitive species list (USDA Forest Service 2007) to 

determine what threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species are either known to occur or 

have potential to occur in the project area based on habitat preferences. We consulted the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service Web site (on November 10, 2011 and again on February 4, 2014) 

to determine endangered and threatened species for Lincoln County 

(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard). There is one endangered species, Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus 

(Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri), that is listed for the county, but does not occur nor have the 

potential to occur in the project area, based on habitat preferences. For these reasons, this species 

would not be affected by proposed actions and was not considered further. 

We also considered 23 other plant species on the Lincoln National Forest sensitive species list for 

this project, as described in more detail in Miller (2012b), but only two of these have the potential 

to be affected by proposed actions. The focus of this analysis, then, is on Wooton’s hawthorn 

(Crategus wootoniana) and Sierra Blanca cliff daisy (Ionactis elegans) because they are known to 

occur in the project area. The other 21 species considered either do not occur in the project area, 

do not have habitat in the project area, or have potential habitat in the project area but that would 

not be affected by proposed actions. 

There are four known populations of Wooton’s hawthorn in the project area. This species often 

occurs near the banks of Eagle Creek; its preferred habitat is canyon bottoms and openings in 

lower montane coniferous forest. All populations occur greater than 750 feet upstream of the 

wells (the nearest is 750 feet from the wells and the farthest is about 0.5 mile from the wells). 

Populations were delineated and censused by Dr. Richard Worthington and T. Nicolet in 2001. 

The earliest record of this species in the project area dates from an herbarium record collected in 

1899. Other specimens were collected in 1984 and 1997 (Dr. Tim Lowrey, pers. comm. 

03/08/2011).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 197
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

All four occurrences were burned in the Little Bear Fire (table 4). Twenty eight percent of the 

occurrences were underburned and 72 percent were burned at low intensity; there were no 

populations burned at moderate or severe intensity. Field surveys by TEAMS and Lincoln 

National Forest personnel determined that populations have increased since the initial survey 

work in 2001, with the exception of one population that was affected by the Little Bear Fire due 

to erosion following a flooding event. 

There are six known populations of Sierra Blanca cliff daisy in the project area. All populations 

occur more than 1.25 miles upstream of the wells and in cliffs (the nearest is 1.25 miles and the 

farthest is 2.5 miles from the wells and in the cliffs). Their preferred habitat is igneous rock faces 

in montane coniferous forest at 7,600–9,500 feet in elevation.

All six occurrences were burned in the Little Bear Fire (table 4). Eight percent were underburned, 

59 percent were burned at low intensity and 33 percent at moderate intensity.

Nonnative Invasive Species

Through Executive Order 13112 (which was signed in 1999) the National Invasive Species 

Council was established to ensure that Federal programs and activities to prevent and control 

invasive species are coordinated, effective, and efficient. Invasive species are those that are not 

native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or are likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. For policy purposes, invasive 

species are those whose negative impacts outweigh their beneficial effects (Invasive Species 

Advisory Committee 2006). 

The term “noxious weed” refers to a legally defined category of nonnative invasive species. 

Legally, a noxious weed is any plant designated by a Federal, state, or county government as 

injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property (Sheley, Petroff, and 

Borman 1999). The current New Mexico Noxious Weed List (Gonzales 2009) includes 37 species 

that have the potential to negatively impact the State’s environment or economy. The list also 

includes eight species designated as watch list species that have the potential to become 

problematic in the State. The Lincoln National Forest list of nonnative invasive species known to 

occur on the forest (Stewart 2011) was also reviewed. The only nonnative invasive plant species 

from these lists that has been observed in the North Fork Eagle Creek effects analysis area is 

musk thistle (Carduus nutans). It was detected in riparian monitoring plots five times and was 

observed occasionally throughout the area, outside of established plots. We have identified 

approximately 62 acres of musk thistle in the project area, located primarily along North Fork 

Eagle Creek and along Ski Run Road to the west. 

Musk thistle is a biennial member of the sunflower family that grows to 6 feet tall. In one 

growing season a single plant can produce over a 100,000 seeds. Therefore, it can increase from a 

single plant to a rather large infestation within 2 to 3 years. The seeds can remain viable in the 

soil for roughly 15 years, which necessitates intensive monitoring of sites and repeat treatments. 

Musk thistle does best in disturbed areas, such as along roadsides, grazed pastures, and old fields, 

but it can also invade deferred pastures and native grasslands. It can occur in almost all habitats 

except dense forest, high mountains, deserts, and frequently cultivated farmland. Musk thistle is 

one of the most widespread and problematic invasive species on the Lincoln National Forest. 

All the musk thistle populations were burned in the project area. BAER guidance assumes that a 

25-30 percent increase in area occupied by weeds would be an acceptable rate (White Paper 

198 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Noxious Weeds, BAER Guidance and Direction. March 17, 2001). It is likely that musk thistle 

occurrences have increased as a result of the Little Bear Fire. Seeding was undertaken following 

the Little Bear Fire to reduce further noxious weed spread (USDA Forest Service 2012). 

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Upland Vegetation 

Neither alternative 1 (no change) or alternative 3 (proposed action) propose any new substantial 

ground disturbance and, therefore, would not result in any direct effects to upland vegetation. Any 

minor amounts of ground disturbance associated with routine maintenance and monitoring needs 

under alternative 1 (no change) would be negligible and minimized by project design features. 

Under the worst case drawdown scenario (figure 7 and figure 8) for alternative 1 (no change), 

indirect effects of water drawdown would reach into the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area

and could reduce available moisture for new growth. Upland vegetation is not as sensitive to 

water fluctuation as riparian vegetation and would be resistant to changes. Upland species have 

colonized dry soils with only natural precipitation as a water source. These species would be 

marginally affected by groundwater withdrawal and any associated groundwater decline. Growth 

of individual trees may be stunted, but vegetation is expected to survive these impacts; while 

individual plants could be affected, this would not result in measurable affects to upland 

vegetation across the project area as a result of implementing alternative 1 (no change). Because 

alternative 3 (proposed action) proposes an adaptive management strategy that would reduce the 

level of drawdown and would result in increases in water availability, the potential indirect effects 

would be similar to alternative 1 (no change) and could be of less magnitude. 

Because alternative 2 (no pumping) would eliminate pumping entirely, there would be no 

drawdown and the possibility for adverse effects to upland vegetation would be eliminated. 

Alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in ground disturbance through removal of wells and well 

facilities; this has the potential to directly affect vegetation, but this potential effect would be 

minimized by project design features and would be negligible. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Upland vegetation burned by the wildfire is likely to experience additional stress due to effects 

from wildfire damage and therefore could be adversely impacted from reduced water availability 

due to drawdown from well pumping. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts from 

alternative 1 and 3, as described above, could be somewhat greater than predicted above, postwildfire. Because upland vegetation is less sensitive to groundwater drawdown effects from 

pumping than vegetation in the riparian zone, these differences between pre-wildfire and postwildfire effects are likely negligible to minor.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Sierra Blanca cliff daisy is a shallow-rooted small plant that prefers rocky substrates in canyons. 

It does not occur within the vicinity of the well field and would, therefore, not be affected by any 

ground-disturbing actions under any of the alternatives (routine maintenance and monitoring 

activities for alternatives 1 and 3 or well facility removal under alternative 2). This species is not 

dependent on groundwater and would not be directly or indirectly affected by well pumping. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 199
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Therefore, implementation of alternative 1 (no action) would not result in either direct or indirect 

effects to this species. 

Wooton’s hawthorn is found along the North Fork near the creek and within the riparian area but 

also ranges further upslope to the top of flat benches; it has been observed in dry, steep gravelly 

slopes on the edge of ponderosa pine forest. In other locales, populations are found in dry 

roadcuts away from water. Wooton’s hawthorn observations along the North Fork over the last 7 

years indicate stable or increasing populations (Cordova, personal communication 2011). Surveys 

by Richard Worthington in 2001 found that one of the occurrences in North Fork Eagle Creek had 

20 plants, matching an herbarium record from 1984 (prepumping period). Monitoring undertaken 

in 2010 and 2011 found population sizes that matched those of Worthington. Post-wildfire

monitoring found that all except one population exceeded the population sizes noted by 

Worthington. Post-wildfire monitoring found that one population had been affected by a flooding 

event where a large amount of the streambank was scoured away. Populations contained all age 

classes: seedlings, saplings, and mature shrubs. There is every indication that Wooton’s hawthorn 

occupies a wide enough ecological amplitude to be unaffected by pumping. 

For these reasons, there would be “no effect” to either Wooton’s hawthorn or Sierra Blanca cliff 

daisy with implementation of alternative 1, 2, or 3. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

The impacts to Wooton’s Hawthorn and Sierra Blanca cliff daisy are the same as those described 

for the pre-wildfire assessment above.

Nonnative Invasive Species

Nonnative plant invasions can cause undesirable, irreversible changes. They have a variety of 

mechanisms that give them a competitive advantage over native species. Invasive plants often 

produce abundant seed, have extensive root systems, establish and spread in a wide range of 

habitats, grow rapidly, initiate growth earlier or later in the season than native plants, exploit 

water and nutrients better, and have no native enemies. According to Sieg et al. (2003), invasive 

species can displace native plants, out-cross with native flora, alter nutrient cycling and other 

ecosystems functions, and even change the flammability of an ecosystem. Many invasive plant 

species thrive in North America because they were introduced from other continents and have no 

natural controls here such as insect predators, plant pathogens, competing plants, and herbivores. 

Neither alternative 1 (no change) nor alternative 3 (proposed action) propose any new substantial 

ground disturbance and, therefore, would not result in any direct effects to upland vegetation; 

while some minor effects are possible from ground disturbance associated with the installation 

and operation of new alluvial wells (estimated to be less than 0.25 acres of disturbance) and the 

maintenance of existing facilities and routine maintenance and monitoring activities under these 

alternatives, project design features would minimize the potential for more than negligible effects. 

Therefore, possible effects are limited primarily to the indirect effects from water drawdown. 

Because musk thistle has a wide ecological amplitude and occurs in many types of habitats, it 

would neither be beneficially nor detrimentally affected by changes in water depth under any of 

the alternatives. For these reasons, there would be no indirect effects from implementing any of 

the alternatives and there would be minimal direct effects from implementing alternative 1 (no 

action) or 3. 

200 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 (no pumping) would result in ground disturbance through removal of wells and well 

facilities, which has the potential to directly affect musk thistle. Although the area of the 

disturbance would be relatively small, the disturbance would still contribute to the increased 

likelihood of nonnative plant spread. This potential would be minimized through implementation 

of project design features and would be minor and short term. 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

All musk thistle populations were burned in the project area and increases in occurrences in the 

project area are likely as a result of the wildfire. Native seeding was undertaken following the 

Little Bear Fire to reduce further noxious weed spread (USDA Forest Service 2012). Project 

design features are part of the action alternatives to minimize spread. Therefore, the impacts to 

invasive plants are the same as those described for the pre-wildfire assessment above. 

Cumulative Effects

Because the direct and indirect effects from implementing any of the alternatives on upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, or nonnative invasive plants are 

quite minimal, the possibility for cumulative effects is, therefore, also minimal. Combining the 

effects from alternative 1 (no change), 2 (no action), or 3 (proposed action) with other past, 

present and foreseeable future actions (as shown in table 4 and figure 4) within the North Fork 

Eagle Creek drainage area would not result in any measurable effects to these vegetation 

resources; Sierra Blanca cliff daisy and Wooton’s hawthorn populations would continue to persist; 

project design features would be implemented to reduce the spread of nonnative invasive plants 

on other projects in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area; and upland vegetation effects 

would be negligible. The relationship between conifer density and water yield is discussed in the 

next section. 

Conclusion

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from implementing any of the alternatives on upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, or nonnative invasive plants 

would be minimal because they are not measurably affected by changes in water levels, and 

possible effects from ground-disturbing activities would be minimized through project design 

features.

Implementing any of the alternatives would be consistent with forest plan direction for upland 

vegetation, threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, and noxious weeds. The 

alternatives are compliant with the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Manual 2670 

(Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species), Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) and 

Forest Service Manual 2900 (Invasive Species).

Conifer Density, Fire Regime, and Water Yield

As documented in detail in the Fuels Report for this project (Kuhar 2013), surveys conducted by 

the Ecological Restoration Institute in 2007 in the adjacent Bonito Creek drainage on the Lincoln 

National Forest indicate that tree stem densities were considerably less in pre-settlement 

conditions of the late 1800s than they are now. For mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and pinyonjuniper woodlands, landscapes affected by frequent fire intervals, stem densities ranged from 10 

to 30 trees per acre. Landscapes tended to be more heterogeneous, supporting multiple seral states 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 201
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

where dry upland sites had open, park-like stands, while stands in protected, moist areas tended to 

have dense, closed canopies. 

Based on data collected in the North Fork project area in 1998, tree density averaged over 2,700 

trees per acre and 94 percent of this density was comprised of trees five inches or less in diameter. 

Following thinning treatments in this area between 2003 and 2009, tree density was reduced to 

479 trees per acre in 2012 and 87 percent of this density was comprised of trees five inches or 

less in diameter. When data were collected following the Little Bear Fire in 2012, tree density 

was further reduced to 350 trees per acre and 76 percent of this was comprised of trees less than 

five inches in diameter.

Photographic evidence combined with local wildfire scar data indicates that the project area has 

experienced a short return interval of mixed severity wildfire that has included both standreplacement and surface fire activity. Current evidence shows stand replacement occurred at 100-

3,000-acre patches that affected all vegetation types within the project area. The last large wildfire

(prior to the Little Bear Fire) was about 650 acres in size and occurred in 1989. Wildfire scar data 

suggest a fire return interval of 26 years with a range of 12-55 years between fires. Fires 

potentially affected all vegetation types in a single occurrence. This is evident in a 3,600 acres 

wildfire that occurred in 1935 which burned through ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and some 

pinyon-juniper stands.

Typically stand replacement fires have resulted in type conversions to shrub and grassland. This is 

evidenced on both the Smokey Bear and Sacramento Ranger District where fire scars can be 

found today and with grass-forb-shrub the dominant cover. These vegetative associations can 

persist for multiple decades as displayed in both photographic evidence and monitoring data. 

Post-Little Bear Fire Monitoring Results

Multiple plots were established within the Little Bear Fire perimeter immediately after the 

passage of the wildfire and were then monitored post-monsoon season in both 2012 and 2013 to 

assess species composition and trends. Areas which did not burn or burned at low severity 

remained a combination of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, oak species, and pinyon-juniper. It is 

predicted that grass and forbs will dominate the vegetative cover and species composition in areas 

burned in the first few years post-wildfire. As time progresses and at ten years out and later, 

shrubs are likely to replace grass and forbs as the dominant cover type. 

Regionally

Current forest and rangeland conditions in the Southwest indicate that these systems are not 

functioning properly, due in part to unnaturally high tree densities (USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region – Regional Strategic Action Plan 2003 and Dahms and Geils 1997). By the 

early 1900s, fire exclusion began altering forest structure and fire regime (Covington et al. 1994). 

Forests with high stem density and fuel loading combined with extreme fire weather conditions 

have led to severe and large wildfires (Graham et al. 2004). This situation has been the impetus 

for the creation of, among other things, the National Fire Plan, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA 2003), and the Southwestern Region’s National Forests’ Central Priority Strategy (USDA 

Forest Service 2004). This “Central Priority” is intended to help restore ecological functionality 

of wildfire to fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwestern Region, which includes the Lincoln 

National Forest. 

202 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

It is estimated that 145 million cubic feet of biomass is added yearly to New Mexico’s forests 

through growth (USDA Forest Service 2004) and this added forest density puts these forests at 

heightened risk of high severity wildfire and insect outbreaks. It is the central priority of the 

Forest Service in the Southwestern Region to thin these forests (USDA Forest Service 2004). 

Changes in forest density, due to vegetation management activities such as thinning or fuels 

treatments, can influence water yield. The Water Resources section of this chapter summarizes 

the anticipated effects of the Little Bear Fire on hydrologic factors in the North Fork study area. 

In general, however, it is well accepted that forest density can influence water yield, in addition to 

fire severity. If forest cover is reduced, increases in water yield or runoff can result. Forests also 

affect the water budget by transpiration loss, the transfer of water from the soil to the atmosphere 

through the tree roots, trunk, and leaves (Allen 2001, MacDonald 1987, Urie 1966). 

Dahms and Gils (1997) state that “probably the largest effect on forest health in Southwestern 

ponderosa pine is due to the increase in the density of the trees . . .” The authors go on to state 

that this increased density results in lower water yields, which has a negative impact on riparian 

areas. Stednick (1996) and Grant et al. (2008) found that reducing forest cover by 20–25 percent 

could result in changes in annual water yield but reductions less than this may not result in water 

yield changes. Grant et al. (2008) documents that although any disturbance that reduces the 

density of live vegetation cover will locally increase runoff from forested watersheds; flow 

increases are generally not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested 

watershed has been harvested.

The Gila National Forest (based in Silver City, New Mexico) prepared a briefing paper recently 

related to the potential for increasing water yield (USDA Forest Service 2009). This paper cites 

Neary et al. (2008) for a summary of past research efforts to increase water yield from watersheds 

in the Southwest as well as factors that determine whether increases would be viable in these 

watersheds. The key conclusion from Neary et al. (2008) that is discussed in this paper is that 

Southwestern forested watersheds offer minimal potential for increases in water yield due to: 

1. low and variable precipitation and high rates of evapotranspiration and sublimation found in 

the Southwest; 

2. while high elevation mixed conifer forests and more mesic forests have the best potential for 

sustainable increases in water yield compared to other forested sites, this forest type is limited 

in the Southwest; is often difficult to access; and requires meticulous management to 

maintain its natural multiaged stand structure; and 

3. any water yield increases would be difficult to measure and to store.

Garrett evaluated forest restoration opportunities on the Lincoln National Forest in 2001 (Garrett 

2001). This report documents an increase in forest density from an average of 20–70 trees per 

acre before European settlement to an average of 200–250 trees currently. This evaluation notes 

that more water was likely available for springs, seeps, and streams in pre-European settlement 

conditions than is provided currently due to the more open nature of forested stands. This report 

also projects the effects of returning ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands on the Smokey 

Bear Ranger District to presettlement conditions over 50 years and projects substantial increases 

in water yield and other benefits. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 203
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Has increased forest density since pre-European settlement affected water yield in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area? 

Based on the available data summarized above, mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests on the 

Smokey Bear Ranger District and within the upper Eagle Creek drainage have increased in 

density since the early 1900s, similar to most forests across the Southwest. It is also likely that 

this increased forest density has contributed to a reduction in water yield in this drainage over the 

last century, particularly when combined with periods of drought. There are no data available to 

discern the level of influence forest density has played in available surface flow and groundwater 

in the North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 1), particularly in the time period since the 

wells began operating in 1988. It is assumed that the majority of this change occurred in the 80–

90 years between the turn of century and the late 1980s when the North Fork wells began 

pumping; how much of a influence forest density has had on water yield since 1988 (when the 

wells began operating) is unknown. Additional site-specific research would be necessary to 

determine this level of effect and how this could influence water yield over time. 

See the discussion of expected changes in water resources due to the Little Bear Fire earlier in 

this chapter for a specific evaluation of the North Fork Eagle Creek study area.

Would the implementation of past, present, and foreseeable future actions, combined 

with implementing alternative 1 (no change), alternative 2 (no action/no pumping) or 3 

(proposed action), result in measurable changes in conifer density and resultant 

changes in water yield? 

Efforts have been undertaken to reduce forest density and decrease the risk of high severity fire. 

As described in more detail in the vegetation report (Miller 2014b) and the fuels report (Kuhar 

2013), within the 3,400-acre North Fork Eagle Creek drainage area (figure 1) prior to the Little 

Bear Fire, past efforts (Eagle thinning and prescribed burning projects in 2003, 2004, and 2007 as 

shown in table 4) focused on thinning smaller diameter trees and reducing understory ladder 

fuels. The Ski Run wildfire in 2003 affected approximately 7 percent of the North Fork Eagle 

Creek basin and removed overstory trees and created openings. These past actions combined, 

prior to the Little Bear Fire, totaled approximately 10 percent of the North Fork Eagle Creek 

drainage. Since the Little Bear Fire, forest density in the Eagle Creek basin has decreased. The 

“Water Resources” section earlier in this chapter summarizes the impacts of the Little Bear Fire

on hydrologic conditions in the watershed, over the short- and long-term. This is also detailed in 

the supplemental Water Resources Report in the project record (AECOM 2014).

As shown in table 4, past, current and future activities, combined with reduced forest density due 

to wildfires, contribute to increases in water yield (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Grant et al. 2008); 

how substantial of an effect this might be is unknown, particularly when combining this possible 

benefit with the current level of water diversion from municipal water supply wells and domestic 

wells (approximately 30 wells) in this larger upper Eagle Creek drainage, as described in more 

detail in AECOM (2014). 

Wildlife (Except Aquatic Habitat and Fish) 

Wildlife (except aquatic habitat and fish) is not a significant issue and we will only briefly discuss 

it here.

This analysis focuses on three different aspects of wildlife: management indicator species, 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife species, and neotropical migratory birds. 

204 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A more detailed description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences 

for this project can be found in the fish and wildlife report and biological evaluation and the 

wildlife biological evaluation (Bright 2012a and 2012b, located in the project record). The 

supplemental wildlife report and biological evaluation (Bright 2014) provides a more detailed 

description of affected environment, methods, and environmental consequences, considering the 

changes caused by the Little Bear Fire. These reports are incorporated by reference, discussed 

briefly below, and available in their entirety in the project record. 

Methodology 

The use of a management indicator and special interest species approach is consistent with forest 

direction (forest plan, p. 31 and 105) and from the forest plan environmental impact statement 

(pgs. 108, 109, 161-163, and 309-312) and serves as the basis for this management indicator 

species assessment. Selected management indicator species reflect general habitat conditions 

needed by other species with similar habitats. Management indicator species were included in this 

analysis if they were known to occur in the project area. 

Executive Order 13186 places emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. Migratory birds were 

assessed by determining important bird areas or important overwintering areas occur in the 

project area. The list of migratory bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act appears 

in Title 50, section 10.13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 10.13). The memorandum 

of understanding between the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service 2008) provides direction to the Forest Service on the 

preservation and reduction of take associated with migratory birds. 

The effects of the proposal on selected bird species were determined primarily through coarse 

filter analyses, using the species’ primary habitat. These are focus vegetative community types for 

which properly functioning conditions and desired future conditions have been identified across 

the forest. 

Well pumping results in changes in the dynamics of groundwater (groundwater drawdown and 

water table) and surface water (streamflows, wetlands, springs, and seeps). Surface water and 

groundwater availability are linked and limited by accessible available quantities of water. These 

changes can directly affect water availability for wildlife species and indirectly affect the quality 

of wildlife habitat. In order to compare alternatives, the following measurable indicators have 

been developed: 

• Changes in habitat quality and population trends for management indicator species in 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, woodlands, and aspen; 

• Changes in habitat quality and population trends for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species; and 

• Changes in vegetation community types that are primary habitats for neotropical 

migratory birds, regionally important species listed by Partners in Flight, important bird 

areas or important overwintering areas, and migratory birds. 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to wildlife was provided by specialists with the 

USDA Forest Service, literature, and professional judgment. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 205
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The “Methodology” section at the beginning of this chapter describes the general approach used 

for cumulative effects analysis. Activities and projects summarized in table 4 and figure 4 were 

considered in the wildlife species cumulative analysis. 

Affected Environment

Management Indicator Species

Five management indicator species are known to occur within the project area or have habitat in 

the project area, as listed below. Habitat and populations trends for these species were assessed on 

the forest in 2006 (Salas 2006), and these conclusions are also listed. No management indicator 

species that represent riparian habitats occur within the project area. However, under the 10th 

Circuit Court (UEC v. Bosworth, 2004), the USDA Forest Service is required to analyze all 

management indicator species for which habitat is present within the project area Unless the 

forest has actual survey information to show that the species in question is absent from the area. 

Pygmy nuthatch – ponderosa pine; an indicator of snags and large trees; also uses mixed conifer. 

Trends in habitat quality are downward forestwide, but population trends are stable. 

Hairy woodpecker – aspen; an indicator of aspen snags. Trends in habitat quality are downward 

forestwide, but population trends are stable. 

Mule deer – piñon-juniper woodlands; an indicator of browse and dense canopy (scrubby cover, 

browse species, and closed landscapes). Trends in both habitat quality and populations are stable. 

Elk – mixed conifer; an indicator of high quality mixed conifer and mountain meadows. Trends 

in habitat quality are upward and population trends are stable. 

Ruidoso red squirrel – mixed conifer; an indicator of high quality mixed conifer with 

interlocking crowns and trees of cone-bearing age. Trends in both habitat quality and populations 

are stable.

While impacts from the Little Bear Fire to non-riparian management indicator species or habitat 

are not known with certainty, it is likely that populations of these species were affected to some 

degree, at least in the short-term. Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper (and interspersed 

aspen) did experience wildfire, ranging from very low to high severity. Because the majority of 

the North Fork project area affected by the Little Bear Fire burned at moderate or low intensity, it 

is assumed that the habitat conditions for which these species are indicators, were not adversely

impacted over the long-term. Over the short-term, it is possible that habitat quality could increase 

in the project area for these species due to an increase in snags (hairy woodpecker), an increase in 

shrubs and browse (mule deer), and an increase in grasses and forbs (elk).

Disturbance to upland vegetation would likely not be measurable, as described in more detail in 

the riparian vegetation section of this chapter. None of the management indicator species that 

represent riparian habitat occur within the project area. There would be no habitat type 

conversion as a result of this project. Miller (2014) concluded that facultative wetland species are 

likely to be beneficially affected by alternative 3 compared to the current condition (alternative 

1). Slight increases in vegetation shifts favoring communities featuring facultative wetland 

species may occur, but gains would likely be moderated by the continued drying trends of climate 

change over the long-term time frame of this analysis. Therefore, there adverse impacts to 

206 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

management indicator species that inhabit or rely upon riparian habitats would range from 

negligible to minor, with the opportunity for slight improvement in riparian habitat conditions 

over the long-term under alternatives 2 and 3. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

We consulted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Web site to determine endangered and 

threatened animal species for Lincoln County 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln). This list 

(queried March 2012 and again in July 2014) fulfills the requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service to provide a current species list pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Seven animal species (New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, black-footed ferret, Mexican 

spotted owl, northern aplomado falcon, whooping crane, mountain plover, and Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout) are listed for Lincoln County, New Mexico. We also reviewed the Forest Service 

Southwestern Region Regional Forester’s threatened, endangered and sensitive species (USDA 

Forest Service 2013) and the Lincoln National Forest Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest 

Service 2012 (which were derived in part from the Lincoln County list of federally listed species) 

in order to determine which threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species are either known 

to occur or have potential to occur in the project area vicinity based on habitat preferences. 

According to this information, the Mexican spotted owl is the only federally listed threatened or 

endangered species that is included in this analysis. No other federally listed species, or their 

suitable habitat or designated critical habitat, occur in the project area or that could potentially be 

affected by continuation of North Fork well operations. Out of the 38 species on the Lincoln 

National Forest Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2012) that were considered, only 

the following 4 species are included in this analysis, as described in more detail in Bright 

(2012a): 

• Mexican spotted owl

• Northern goshawk 

• Ruidoso red squirrel 

• Sacramento Mountains salamander 

Mexican spotted owls inhabit mixed coniferous and pine/oak forests, canyons, desert caves, and 

riparian areas throughout the Southwest and within the Lincoln National Forest (Ganey et al. 

2011). The three main prey food species are wood rats, deer mice, and voles (Ward et al. 1995, 

Stokes 1997). Canopy cover and herbaceous ground cover are important prey habitat conditions. 

There are three protected activity centers in the vicinity of the project area (Carlton, Krause and 

Eagle protected activity centers), with the Carlton Canyon protected activity center being the 

nearest of the three; its boundary is adjacent to the action area surrounding the wells, but its 

nesting area (“no touch zone”) is approximately 0.75 mile outside the action area and is separated 

by steep topography. This protected activity center has produced young every year except 1995, 

2000, and 2011 (Cordova, pers. comm. 2011). The Eagle protected activity center is located in the 

upper headwater reaches of North Fork Eagle Creek and the Krause protected activity center is 

almost entirely outside the 3,400-acre North Fork Eagle Creek drainage to the east of the North 

Fork Eagle Creek action area. 

Based on monitoring results from 2011, there was no documented reproduction in any of these 

protected activity centers during the 2011 breeding season. All three protected activity areas were 

burned in the Little Bear Fire with varying levels of severity. The Carlton protected activity center

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 207
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

burned at mostly low and very severity, the Krause protected activity center at mostly moderate 

and low protected activity center and the Eagle Creek protected activity center at mostly high and 

moderate severity. While the long-term effects from the wildfire on these owls are unknown, it is 

clear that the wildfire adversely impacted suitable nesting habitat within each protected activity 

center (USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

Northern goshawks prefer large tracts of mature, closed canopy, deciduous, coniferous and mixed 

forests with an open understory. There are two established post-fledging areas within the vicinity 

of the project area. The Krause post-fledging area is approximately 0.20 mile from the 5-acre 

action area surrounding the wells. The Telephone post-fledging area (established in 2010), has a 

known nest that is about 0.10 mile from the well sites. No goshawks were found in either postfledging area during 2011 surveys (Cordova, pers. comm. 2011). There would be a breeding 

season mitigation measure included in any new permit issued for any new construction or 

mechanized activity. This measure would prohibit construction or mechanized activity within 

0.25 mile of the post-fledging areas from March 1 through September 30. 

Northern goshawk habitat within these two post-fledging areas burned at moderate to high 

severity in the Little Bear Fire (USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

The project area contains very marginal habitat for Sacramento Mountain salamanders. In 2001 

an extensive survey was conducted as part of another project (Cordova, pers. comm. 2012). 

Surveys were conducted in areas above 8,000 feet in elevation. In all cases, salamanders were 

found above 8,600 feet and documented in the upper reaches of Eagle Creek within the 

wilderness area and the upper reaches of Carlton and Johnson Canyons. Salamanders were 

documented in Telephone Canyon in 2002 during a separate effort. The closest known salamander 

occurrence is approximately 0.4 mile from the 5-acre project area along Johnson Canyon. 

While no data are currently available on direct effects to the closest salamander occurrence in 

Johnson Canyon, it is possible that this site and other areas of potential habitat in the upper 

reaches of Eagle Creek were adversely impacted by the Little Bear Fire. Salamanders could 

experience direct mortality and habitat loss due to post-wildfire threats (USDA Forest Service 

2012). Salamanders can be negatively impacted by opening up of shady mature forest and by 

destruction or removal of downed logs in a post-wildfire situation (USDA Forest Service 2012d). 

The Ruidoso red squirrel is a mixed conifer associated species. Based on the small size of the 5-

acre project area, suitable habitat is limited; there are no known populations within the vicinity of 

the well field (Cordova, pers. comm. 2011). 

Migratory Birds (Species Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act)

The evaluation of effects to migratory birds uses the Forest Service Southwestern Region’s 

protocol that focuses on migratory birds included on the New Mexico Partners in Flight’s Highest 

Priority Species list, along with considering effects to important bird areas and important 

overwintering areas for migratory birds (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007). The proposed 

project design and evaluation complies with the 2001 Executive Order 13186 regarding 

responsibilities of Federal agencies to protect migratory birds.

Based on a course filter analysis using species’ primary habitats; regionally important species 

listed by Partners in Flight; important bird areas; and important overwintering areas, four 

migratory birds were considered further for this analysis, as follows: 

208 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Virginia’s warbler

• Grace’s warbler

• Flammulated owl 

• Red-faced Warbler

There are no designated important bird areas or important overwintering areas (large wetlands) on 

the Smokey Bear Ranger District where they would be expected to be impacted by activities 

proposed for this project. 

Nesting habitat for these species are likely to have been adversely effected by the Little Bear Fire, 

at least in the short-term, due to the loss of heavy brush understory and some over story in mixed 

conifer and ponderosa pine vegetation types. 

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Management Indicator Species

There would be no direct or indirect effects to mule deer, elk, hairy woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, 

or Ruidoso red squirrels or their habitat from implementation of any of the alternatives. The 

potential for disturbance during routine maintenance and repair of the wells and associated 

facilities would be minimal for alternative 1 (no change) and alternative 3 (proposed action); 

disturbance related to shutting the wells down under alternative 2 (no pumping) would also be 

minimal. Disturbance to upland vegetation would likely not be measurable (Miller 2014b). None 

of the management indicator species that represent riparian habitat occur within the project area. 

There would be no habitat type conversion as a result of this project. 

The trends for management indicator species as reported in the most recent forestwide 

management indicator species assessment update (Salas 2006) would not be changed from the 

actions described in the alternatives for this project because there would be no habitat type 

conversions. There would be no new ground-disturbing activities or habitat type conversions and 

the baseline conditions would be maintained. Management indicator species habitats within the 

project and action areas would be less than 1 percent of the total acres on the forest. Even with the 

change in management indicator species habitat due to the Little Bear Fire, the implementation of 

the alternatives is not expected to appreciably alter this changed condition to the positive or 

negative.

The population and habitat trends listed previously for each management indicator species are 

forestwide and the project area is too small in size to create a measurable change in any of these 

trends. In addition, the potential effects are not measurable. Population trends for elk, mule deer, 

hairy woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and red squirrels are stable on the forest in spite of drought 

conditions. Habitat trends are down for pygmy nuthatch and hairy woodpecker, but proposed 

actions would not contribute to any habitat type conversions for these species in the project area. 

There are no data that suggest that populations are being affected by well site activities or water 

use in the North Fork Eagle Creek project area. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 209
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Mexican spotted owl or its designated critical 

habitat associated with any of the alternatives. There is no suitable nesting or roosting habitat and 

no designated critical habitat within the project area. The nearest owl protected activity center

(Carlton) is adjacent to the 5-acre action area where the wells are located, but the nesting area 

(“no touch zone”) is 0.75 mile away from this action area across steep topography and dense 

forest cover. There is no line of sight between the nearest known nest and action area. Owl 

surveys (USDA Forest Service 2003 – Biological Analysis Supplement) and more recent annual 

protected activity center monitoring (current as of 2011) have not detected owl presence within 

the 5-acre project area. The current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as 

well as alternative 1 (no change) and alternative 3 (proposed action) include a 

mitigation/conservation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment use during the 

breeding season (March 1–August 31) within 0.25 mile of the protected activity center boundary 

(to mitigate the potential for disturbance due to noise). Alternative 2 (no pumping) also includes a 

conservation/mitigation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment activities 

associated with shutting the wells down during the breeding season. Therefore, any disturbance 

would be virtually the same for all alternatives. There is no evidence of effects to Mexican 

spotted owl occurrence or reproduction from disturbance related to past well operations including 

maintenance of National Forest System Road 127 going into the well sites, which is 0.75 mile 

from the protected activity center boundary. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the three sensitive species (northern goshawk, 

Sacramento Mountains salamander, or Ruidoso red squirrel) or their habitat associated with 

implementing any of the alternatives. Any facility maintenance and repairs, including road 

maintenance, would be routine and minimal, including work on approximately 3⁄4 mile of the spur 

leading into the well site from the main road (National Forest System Road 127). While 

goshawks are known to occur in the project vicinity (the nearest nest site is 0.10 mile from the 

project area), upland vegetation would not be measurably affected by proposed actions (Miller 

2012b). No surveys have detected Sacramento Mountains salamanders within the project area. No 

populations of Ruidoso red squirrels have been documented in the project area, and no upland 

vegetation would be measurably impacted by the project (Miller 2014b). 

Update to overall effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Based on monitoring results from 2011, there was no documented reproduction in any Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity centers during the 2011 breeding season. All three protected 

activity centers were burned in the Little Bear Fire with varying levels of severity. While the 

long-term effects from the wildfire on these owls are unknown, it is clear that the wildfire

adversely impacted suitable nesting habitat within each protected activity center (USDA Forest 

Service 2012d). Northern goshawk habitat within two known post-fledging areas burned at 

moderate to high severity (USDA Forest Service 2012a). No data are available on possible 

wildfire impacts to salamander habitat. Salamanders can be negatively impacted by opening up of 

shady mature forest and by destruction or removal of downed logs in a post-wildfire situation 

(USDA Forest Service 2012d). Even with these changes in threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species habitat, implementation of any of the alternatives post-wildfire would not contribute to 

any additional direct or indirect adverse impacts. The effects from implementing alternatives 1, 2 

and 3 are the same as those described above for the pre-wildfire assessment.

210 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Migratory Birds 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to any migratory bird species or their habitat 

associated with any of the alternatives. The potential for noise or direct disturbance from ground 

disturbance during routine maintenance and repair of the wells and associated facilities would be 

minimal for alternative 1 (no change) and alternative 3 (proposed action); disturbance related to 

shutting the wells down under alternative 2 (no pumping) would also be minimal. Disturbance to 

upland vegetation would likely not be measurable (Miller 2014b). There would be no habitat type 

conversion as a result of this project. There would be no unintentional take of adults, eggs, and/or 

chicks and no ground or habitat disturbance from any of the alternatives for migratory birds. 

There would be no conversion of habitat during this project. 

Update to overall Effects due to the Little Bear Fire: 

Migratory bird nesting habitat for these species are likely to have been adversely effected by the 

Little Bear Fire, at least in the short term, due to the loss of heavy brush understory and some 

over story in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine vegetation types. Even with these changes in 

migratory bird species habitat, implementation of any of the alternatives post-wildfire would not 

contribute to any additional direct or indirect adverse impacts. The effects from implementing 

alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are the same as those described above for the pre-wildfire assessment.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for wildlife is the project area. Because the direct and indirect effects 

from implementing any of the alternatives on management indicator species, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive wildlife species, and migratory birds are quite minimal, the possibility 

for cumulative effects is, therefore, also minimal. Combining the effects from alternative 1 (no 

change), 2 (no action), or 3 (proposed action) with other past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions (as shown in table 4 and figure 4) within the project area would not result in any 

measurable effects to these wildlife resources. While these projects and past changes such as the 

Little Bear Fire, forest management practices, disease, insects, and climate change have affected 

trends for these wildlife species and their habitats across the forest and in the Southwest, the 

minor effects from this project on a relatively small area would not cumulatively add to these 

larger trends. 

Conclusion/Determination of Effect

Mexican Spotted Owl

There would be no direct or indirect (disturbance) to Mexican spotted owls, owl habitat, or prey 

species as a result of implementing any of the alternatives. All alternatives would have “no effect”

on the Mexican spotted owl or its suitable or designated critical habitat.

Regional Forester Sensitive Wildlife Species

The current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as well as alternative 1 

(no change) and alternative 3 (proposed action) include a mitigation/conservation measure to 

avoid construction or mechanized equipment use within 0.25 mile of any northern goshawk postfledging area during the breeding season (March 1–August 31). Alternative 2 (no pumping) also 

includes a conservation/mitigation measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment 

activities associated with shutting the wells down during the breeding season. Therefore, any 

disturbance would be virtually the same for all alternatives. There is no evidence of effects to 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 211
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

goshawk occurrence or reproduction from disturbance related to past well operations including 

maintenance of National Forest System Road 127 going into the well sites.

Past well pumping and related activities have also not resulted in any known or documented 

impacts to Ruidoso red squirrels or Sacramento Mountains salamander individuals or their 

habitat; implementation of any of the alternatives would not measurably effect upland vegetation 

(Miller 2014b) or alter the intermittent nature of North Fork Eagle Creek. 

While differences in available surface water and minor changes in riparian vegetation are possible 

under implementation of the alternatives (AECOM 2014 and Miller 2014a), these changes would 

not result in changes in habitat for northern goshawks, Ruidoso red squirrels or Sacramento 

Mountains salamanders. Therefore, well pumping alternatives would have “no impact” on any 

sensitive species or their habitat.

Management Indicator Species

Forest management practices, disease, insects, and global climate change have affected trends for 

all management indicator species and their habitats. Climate changes have affected specific plant 

communities as well as the migratory habits of some species to the point that they are using areas 

different from those where they have been surveyed in the past. The proposed alternatives would 

not create any habitat type conversions. There have been no population declines of any of the 

management indicator species attributable to North Fork well site activities or water withdrawals. 

Permit reissuance and subsequent well pumping alternatives would have “no impact” on any 

management indicator species or their habitat.

Migratory Birds 

The current annual operating plan for well maintenance and operations, as well as alternative 1 

(no action, no change) and alternative 3 (proposed action) include a mitigation/conservation 

measure to avoid construction or mechanized equipment use within 0.25 mile of any northern 

goshawk post-fledging area during the breeding season (March 1–August 31) or within 0.25 mile 

of any Mexican spotted owl protected activity center. There are no planned activities within this 

buffer zone. Alternative 2 (no pumping) also includes a conservation/mitigation measure to avoid 

construction or mechanized equipment activities associated with shutting the wells down during 

these breeding seasons. The above mitigation measures would protect any migratory bird species 

during the nesting season and would prevent any unintentional take of birds, nests, eggs, or 

chicks. There would be no habitat disturbance and, thus, no habitat conversion. 

While maintenance activities would occur under alternatives 1 and 3, these activities (driving 

existing roads to the well sites and checking well conditions, water conditions in the wells) are 

not ground disturbing actions and would not result in effects to migratory bird species. Past well 

operations have not shown any evidence of impacts to migratory bird species, nesting, or 

reproduction, even during drought periods. There have been no known or suspected population 

declines of any of the above species attributable to well site activities or water withdrawals. There 

would be no unintentional take on migratory bird populations. Well pumping alternatives would 

have “no impact” on any migratory bird species or their habitat, or any designated important bird 

areas. 

212 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of “the relationship between shortterm uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable 

means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature 

can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of 

present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

If the short-term use of the water resources in the North Fork is defined as the well field permit 

authorization period of up to 20 years, with stipulations for review and verification of the permit 

terms and conditions at least every 5 to 10 years, then long-term productivity would extend at 

least that far into the future. Under alternative 1 (no change), surface water and groundwater 

available for forest management (including watershed condition, riparian and aquatic habitat, and 

recreation) would be limited to the existing conditions or further reduced. Under alternative 2 (no 

pumping), there would be no short-term uses of the water supply, and long-term productivity on 

forest lands would have substantial near-term opportunities for improving condition. Under 

alternative 3 (proposed action), a moderated condition would be attained that would allow 

maintenance of some of the applicant’s existing water supply, while providing opportunities for 

improving existing water resources conditions. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The proposed action includes implementation of adaptive management, project design features, 

and best management practices (chapter 2) intended to avoid, minimize the extent of, or reduce 

the potential for adverse effects on the environment. Each section of chapter 3 describes the 

spatial and temporal context for unavoidable adverse effects predicted from alternatives 1, 2 

and 3. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

There are no irreversible commitments of forest resources under the proposed action (alternative 

3) or either alternative 1 (no action) or 2 (no pumping). Under any of these management actions, 

the presence and uses of surface water or groundwater resources eventually could be returned to a 

prior state through subsequent management actions, subsequent precipitation and runoff, and 

groundwater recharge. An irretrievable commitment of water resources would occur under 

alternative 2 (no pumping) from the standpoint of the loss of municipal water supply on the part 

of the village. That loss could conceivably be reversed by other decisionmaking on the part of the 

forest at some remote point in time. However, alternative 2 (no pumping) does not represent a 

total “loss” of water resources for beneficial use. It is common in water resources management to 

have conflicting demands from different beneficial uses. In the case of alternative 2 (no 

pumping), the irretrievable loss of municipal use would allow greater use by other resource 

objectives. Similarly, under alternative 1 (no action), ongoing substantial withdrawals by the 

village for municipal supply would represent irretrievable losses for other uses. For both 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 213
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alternatives, water resources and their uses could be eventually retrieved under changing 

management conditions. 

Other Required Disclosures 

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with the following Federal laws and regulations: 

• Endangered Species Act

• Clean Water Act

• Clean Air Act

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act

• National Forest Management Act

There are no conflicts between alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and the objectives of Federal, regional, 

State, and local policies and plans.

214 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during development of this EIS. We specifically list the project 

role and qualifications for those members of the IDT that prepared sections of this document. 

Others that were consulted throughout the project for input, advice, and review are listed 

separately.

Core ID Team Members

AECOM 

Robert C. Berry, PhD – Hydrogeologist/Geochemist - Water Resources Analysis 

(Groundwater and hydrogeology): PhD, Geology/Geochemistry, Princeton University; Prof. 

Degree, Hydrogeology, Colorado School of Mines; BS, Geology, University of Hawaii; 36 years 

of experience.

Dr. Berry is a groundwater hydrologist and geochemist responsible for hydrogeological 

evaluation of groundwater basins, aquifer testing and evaluation, aqueous geochemistry and 

geochemical modeling, and groundwater flow and transport modeling. He is also experienced in 

modeling entire groundwater basins, investigating mining hydrology issues, and water supply 

evaluations. Dr. Berry is an experienced field geologist with mapping experience throughout the 

western U.S., in rocks ranging from Archean metasediments to Quaternary alluvial deposits. 

James K. Burrell, EIT – Engineering Hydrologist - Water Resources Analysis (Surface 

water): MS, Civil Engineering and BS, Forest Management, Colorado State University; 21 years 

of experience.

Mr. Burrell is a hydrologist specializing in surface water hydrology, open-channel hydraulics, 

stream and watershed stabilization, and related erosion and sediment transport issues. His 

engineering background includes fieldwork and computer modeling for rainfall/runoff, channel 

discharges and flood hydraulics, stream stability and scour, and sediment transport and retention 

structures in the U.S. and overseas. He also spent several years developing and calibrating river 

basin-scale continuous rainfall/runoff models as a contractor to the National Weather Service 

(Office of Hydrology). 

David Fetter – Surface Water Hydrologist - Water Resources Analysis (water resources): 

BS, Watershed Science, Colorado State University; 8 years of experience.

Mr. Fetter specializes in surface water hydrology. His responsibilities have included working 

directly with government agencies while acting as a state permit coordinator, conducting detailed 

hydrologic investigations and researching, writing and editing environmental sections for permits 

and project documents. His project work includes National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

report preparation for the Bureau of Land Management and Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. Prior to joining AECOM, Mr. Fetter worked for the Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office, and also supported interdisciplinary studies of wetland ecology within Rocky Mountain 

and Yellowstone National Parks.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 215
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

U.S. Forest Service – TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Larry Bright – Biologist - Aquatic Habitat, Fish and Wildlife Analysis: Graduated from 

Oregon State in 1964 in Fish and Wildlife Management. Worked 28 years with Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and retired while serving as the wildlife research program 

manager. Worked 10 years with the U.S. Forest Service after 3 years of ranch work and 

developing a fee fishery for a ranch in Washington. 

Henry Eichman – Economist - Socioeconomic Analysis: B.A. in Biology from Colorado 

College and a M.S. in Agricultural and Resource Economics from Oregon State University. From 

2000 to 2004, Henry worked with Federal and state agencies on raptor research efforts in 

Colorado and Arizona. Prior to joining TEAMS in 2007, Henry worked as an economist for 

BLM’s Prineville District in Oregon.

Vickey Eubank – GIS Specialist - GIS analysis and maps: Associate of Science in Science and 

Business from Labette County Community College. Vickey is very experienced in using multiple 

GIS applications. She excels in creating or revising complex GIS processing to facilitate analysis, 

modeling, programming, and creating GIS tabular, statistical, spatial, and mapping products for 

an array of projects. Vickey has accomplished a variety of complex GIS assignments including: 

an oil and gas leasing environmental impact statement (EIS); classification of satellite imagery; 

developing range capability models; forest plan revision; and fireshed modeling. Prior to her 

tenure with TEAMS, Vickey worked for the Custer National Forest as a GIS specialist and for the 

Kootenai National Forest as a transportation planner. Vickey has worked with TEAMS since 

2004. 

Deborah McGlothlin – Environmental Coordinator - Interdisciplinary Team Leader and 

Document Preparation: Graduated from Northern Arizona University in 1992 with a BS in 

Biology and from Arizona State University in 1996 with a MS in Environmental Resource 

Management. Worked for the Tonto National Forest as a wildlife biologist from 1990 to 2000; for 

Grand Canyon National Park as an environmental coordinator from 2000 to 2008 and for U.S. 

Forest Service-TEAMS enterprise as an environmental coordinator since 2008. 

Terry Miller – Botanist - Riparian Vegetation and Botany Analysis: Graduated from Southern 

Illinois University - Carbondale with a BA in Plant Biology and a MS in Forest Resources from 

the University of Idaho - Moscow. Worked with the Forest Service since 2001 including positions 

such as a SCEP student on the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, a district botanist on the Plumas 

National Forest in California, and as a forest botanist on the Hiawatha National Forest in 

Michigan. Terry has worked for TEAMS since October of 2008. He has experience working on a 

variety of projects including timber management, fuels treatment, noxious weed treatment, 

watershed restoration, grazing management, travel management, and a variety of special use 

projects. Terry has experience with rare plant habitat enhancement, rare plant monitoring, rare 

plant surveys, noxious weed treatment, grant proposal writing, native plant restoration, and NRIS. 

Kristin Whisennand – Writer/Editor - Document Editing: Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology 

from Dartmouth College and a Bachelor of Science in Resource Conservation Management from 

the University of Montana, graduate study in archaeology and paleontology at the University of 

Montana. Kristin works as a technical writer/editor with TEAMS preparing environmental and 

technical documents. Prior to TEAMS, she worked for 5 years as a team leader with the Forest 

Service Content Analysis Team and for 9 years as an archaeologist with the Lolo National Forest. 

Kristin has been with TEAMS since 2002. 

216 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

U.S. Forest Service – Centralized National Operations

Roger Congdon, PhD – Hydrogeologist - Water Resources Oversight: Bachelor of Science in 

Geology from Portland State University in 1983, Master of Science in Geology from the 

University of Utah in 1987, Doctor of Philosophy in Geology from Johns Hopkins University in 

1991. Worked with the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston, Virginia, from 1991 to 1994; with the 

Bureau of Land Management in Elko, Nevada, from 1994 to 2002; with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in Vero Beach, Florida, from 2002 to 2005; with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Las 

Vegas, Nevada, from 2005 to 2007; with the U.S. Forest Service from 2007 to the present. 

Supplemental training included hydrogeology at the University of Maryland in 1992 and 

miscellaneous short courses in groundwater modeling, aquifer testing, karst hydrology, and 

watershed modeling. He has experience with mine dewatering issues, well siting, groundwater 

modeling, and has been project manager for the Newmont Gold Quarry expansion EIS in Nevada. 

Roger is a member of the Washington Office hydrogeology team in the U.S. Forest Service.

U.S. Forest Service – Lincoln National Forest 

Christina Thompson – District Recreation and Lands Staff - Water Rights Analysis: 

Graduated from the University of New Mexico in 2004 with a BA in Geography and from the 

University of New Mexico in 2006 with a Master of Water Resources with an emphasis in water 

policy and management. She has worked for the Lincoln National Forest (NF), Smokey Bear 

Ranger District as the recreation/lands/minerals assistant from 2006 to 2009; from 2009 to 2011 

as the Gila and Lincoln NFs zone lands/minerals specialist; 2011–present as the Smokey Bear 

Ranger District recreation/lands staff. 

Supporting IDT Members Name Affiliation an d Posit ion Project respon sib ilit y

April Banks Lincoln National Forest Hydrologist Water resources input and 

oversight

Linda Cole Lincoln National Forest GIS Coordinator Forest data layers and shape 

files

Rebecca Cross Forest Service Southwestern Region 

Assistant Group Leader for Lands Special 

Uses 

Special use permitting input 

and oversight 

Larry Cordova Smokey Bear Ranger District Biologist Wildlife, fisheries, and botany 

input and oversight

Ron Hannan Lincoln National Forest Planning Staff 

Officer 

NEPA input and oversight; 

project management

Kim Kuhar Smokey Bear Ranger District Fire Ecologist Fuels analysis and postwildfire monitoring results and 

interpretation 

Kristen 

Loughery 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit Economist Socioeconomic analysis input 

and review 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 217
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Name Affiliation an d Posit ion Project respon sib ilit y

Diane Prather Lincoln National Forest Archaeologist Cultural resource input and 

tribal consultation 

Peg Sorensen Acting Lincoln National Forest Planning 

Staff Officer 

NEPA input and oversight

Eric 

Turbeville

Smokey Bear Ranger District Recreation 

Specialist

Recreation input and 

oversight; district project 

coordination 

Patti Turpin Lincoln National Forest NEPA Coordinator NEPA input and oversight; 

PALS data entry and updates

Dave Warnack Smokey Bear District Ranger Overall project direction and 

coordination; liaison with 

forest supervisor

Gary Ziehe Lincoln National Forest Natural Resources 

Staff Officer 

Overall resource 

input/oversight 

Federal, State and Local Agencies, Tribes and Others

In February 2011, we released the notice of intent and proposed action and mailed a scoping letter 

with a detailed purpose and need and proposed action description to 174 stakeholders including 

private landowners, agencies, organizations, and tribes. We also posted information on the 

Lincoln National Forest Web site and published a news release in the Ruidoso News on February 

15, 2011. We held a public open house at the Ruidoso Middle School on February 17, 2011, to 

provide project information and answer questions. As of November 2011, prior to release of the 

DEIS in 2012, we had received a total of 102 comment letters from you, the public—including 

agencies, organizations, individuals and elected officials—in response to our request for input. 

We received comments from the following Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and groups. 

We also received many additional comments from local citizens and private landowners and 

business owners. These scoping comments received and how we used them in preparation of both 

the 2012 DEIS and this document is described in appendix A. 

Federal, Stat e and Lo cal Ag en cies; T rib es and Oth er Interest Groups Federal, Stat e and Lo cal Ag en cies; T rib es and Oth er Interest Groups

• Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation District

• County of Lincoln 

• Eagle Creek Conservation Association

• Eagle Creek Summer Home Association

• New Mexico Environment Department 

• Pew Trusts

• Stevan Pearce, Congressman

• Upper Hondo Soil and Water 

Conservation District

• Village of Ruidoso

• Ysleta del sur Pueblo

We released the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on May 25, 2012. The notification of its availability for 

public comment was published in the Federal Register, a legal notice was published in the 

218 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Ruidoso News, and email and letter notifications were distributed to all those on the project 

mailing list. Comments were requested by July 9, 2012. We received several requests for 

extensions to the comment period and Forest Supervisor Trujillo granted an additional 60-day 

extension, requesting all comments be submitted no later than September 9, 2012. 

The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012 and encompassed approximately 98 percent of the 

project area. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had on the project area analyzed in 

the DEIS, Forest Supervisor Trujillo decided to stop the comment period on the DEIS and begin 

the process to prepare a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) that would address the changed conditions 

in the project area. This was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. While we 

discontinued the formal comment period on the DEIS, we did invite any comments on the 

changed conditions in the project area by September 7, 2012. 

We received comments from the following Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and groups 

prior to the discontinuation of the comment period. 

• Village of Ruidos Mayor

• Congressman Stevan Pearce

• Office of the State Engineer

• United States Geological Survey

• Environmental Protection Agency

• US Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Appendix C includes a summary of the all comments that we received and how they were used in 

preparing this document. 

Throughout the development of this project and EIS, we have met multiple times with the 

applicant, the Eagle Creek Conservation Association, and the United States Geological Survey. 

We have also had discussions with the Office of the New Mexico State Engineer, the New 

Mexico Game and Fish Department, and members of Congress from the State of New Mexico. 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the EIS 

Were Sent

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal 

agencies (or agencies otherwise notified of availability), federally recognized tribes, State and 

local governments, and organizations: 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 219
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Mailing List Mailing List

• Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

• Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation 

District

• APHIS

• Chief of Naval Operations 

• County of Lincoln 

• Department of Energy

• Eagle Creek Conservation Association

• Eagle Creek Summer Home 

Association

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Highway Administration

• Hopi Tribal Council

• Hopi Cultural Preservation Office

• Mescalero Apache Tribe

• National Agricultural Library

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries Service – 

Southwestern Office 

• Natural Resource Conservation Service

• New Mexico Environment Department 

• New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish 

• OEPC

• Pew Trusts

• Pueblo of Zuni

• Stevan Pearce, Congressman

• United States Environmental 

Protection Agency

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service

• United States Army Corps of Engineers 

• United States Coast Guard

• Upper Hondo Soil and Water 

Conservation District

• Village of Ruidoso

• Ysleta del sur Pueblo

220 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights 

Terminology

Acre-foot – Volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; equivalent to a volume 

of 43,560 cubic feet, approximately 325,829 gallons, or approximately 7,758 barrels of water.

Adjudication – A legal process that can settle the rights of two water right holders with respect to 

one another or it can settle all the rights to water within a particular water system. This process 

does not create new water rights, it only confirms existing rights. The completion of adjudication 

results in a court decree outlining the priority, amount, purpose (determination of use), periods, 

and place of water use.

Alluvial – Pertaining to material or processes associated with transportation or deposition of soil 

and rock by flowing water (e.g., streams and rivers).

Alluvium – Unconsolidated or poorly consolidated gravel, sands, and clays deposited by 

streams.

Andesitic – Consisting of a gray, fine-grained volcanic rock.

Appropriate – To take the legal actions necessary to create a right to take water from a natural 

stream or aquifer for application to beneficial use. 

Appropriation – The right to take water from a natural stream or aquifer for beneficial use at a 

specified rate of flow, either for immediate use or to store for later use. Usually confirmed by a 

water court decree.

Aquifer – A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and to yield 

economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs.

Base flow – The volume of flow in a stream channel that is not directly derived from surface 

runoff.

Basin yield – The amount of water that will flow from a drainage or catchment area in a given 

time.

Bedrock – A general term for solid rock that lies beneath soil, loose sediments, or other 

unconsolidated material.

Beneficial use of water – The use of water by man for any purpose which benefits are derived, 

such as domestic, municipal, irrigation, livestock, industrial, power development, and recreation. 

Under the New Mexico Constitution beneficial use is the basis, the measure, and the limit of the 

right to use water; therefore, beneficial use of public water diverted or impounded by manmade 

works is an essential element in the development of a water right.

Borehole – The wellbore itself, including the open hole or uncased portion of the well. Borehole 

may refer to the inside diameter of the wellbore wall, the rock face that bounds the drilled hole.

Change (Water Right) - Process by which a water right is changed with respect to the point of 

diversion, place of use or nature of use. 

Confined aquifer – An aquifer containing water between two relatively impermeable boundaries. 

The water level in a well tapping a confined aquifer stands above the top of the confined aquifer 

and can be higher or lower than the water table that may be present in the material above it. In 

some cases the water level can rise above the ground surface, yielding a flowing well.

Confluence – The act of flowing together; the meeting or junction of two or more streams; also, 

the place where these streams meet.

Conjunctive Water Use - Combined use of ground water and surface water.

Cretaceous – The geologic span of time between 145 and 65 million years ago.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 221
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

Double-mass analysis – A technique where the cumulative volume is plotted to reveal changes 

in the slope of the line, which indicates a change in conditions.

Drainage – A region or area of no particular scale bounded peripherally by a water parting and 

draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.

Drawdown – The lowering of the elevation of the groundwater level from pumping wells. At the 

well, it is the vertical distance between the static and the pumping level.

Effluent – The water leaving a water or wastewater treatment plant. 

Effluent exchange – The practice of using wastewater effluent as a replacement source for 

diversion of water upstream.

Evapotranspiration – The portion of precipitation returned to the air through evaporation and 

plant transpiration.

Flow frequency – statistical analysis that results in the percentage of time that specified 

discharges are equaled or exceeded. These results are often graphed in the form of an 

exceedance curve.

Formation – A body of rock that is sufficiently distinctive and continuous that it can be mapped. 

In stratigraphy, a formation is a body of strata of predominantly one type or combination of types; 

multiple formations form groups, and subdivisions of formations are members.

Groundwater – Generally, all subsurface water as distinct from surface water; specifically, that 

part of the subsurface water in the saturated zone (a zone in which all voids, large and small, 

ideally are filled with water under pressure equal to or greater than atmospheric).

Hydrograph – A graph showing stage, flow, velocity, or other hydraulic properties of water with 

respect to time for a particular point on a stream.

Intermittent stream – A stream that flows only part of the time or during part of the year.

Mitigate, mitigation – To cause to become less severe or harmful; actions to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce or eliminate, and compensate for impacts to environmental resources.

Municipal Water - May come from either ground water or surface water. Once water has entered 

a municipal water system, it will be considered municipal water.

Nested wells – Multiple wells completed in a group that extend to differing elevations below the 

ground surface.

Perennial stream – A stream or reach of a stream that flows throughout the year.

Permeability – The capacity of soil, sediment, or porous rock to transmit water; the property of 

soil or rock that allows passage of water through it.

Point of Diversion (POD) - Point specified in a water right from which water is diverted from a 

source. 

Porosity – The ratio (usually expressed as a percentage) of the volume of openings in rock or 

soil material to the bulk volume of the material. With respect to water, porosity is a measure of the 

water-bearing capacity of a formation. 

Prior appropriation – The water law doctrine that confers priority to use water from natural 

streams based upon when the water rights were acquired. Water rights are confirmed by court 

decree; holders of senior rights have first claim to withdraw water over holders who have filed 

later claims.

Priority Date - Date of establishment of a water right.

222 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

Recharge – The introduction of surface water or groundwater to replenish groundwater storage in 

an aquifer.

Riparian – Pertaining to the banks of a river, stream, waterway, or other typically flowing body of 

water as well as to plant and animal communities along such bodies of water.

Runoff – That part of precipitation that appears in surface streams; precipitation that is not 

retained on the site where it falls and is not absorbed by the soil.

Storage coefficient – A measure of the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into 

storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head or water level. 

Supplemental well (from New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 1978) - The owner of a 

water right may drill and use a supplemental well upon making application but prior to the 

publication and hearing set out in Section 72-12-3 NMSA 1978, if: 

(1) the supplemental well is drilled into the same and only the same underground stream, 

channel, artesian basin, reservoir or lake as the well being supplemented; and 

(2) the supplemental well does not increase the appropriation of water to an amount above 

the existing water rights; and 

(3) an emergency situation exists in which the delay caused by publication and hearing 

would result in crop loss or other serious economic loss; and 

(4) the state engineer, after a preliminary investigation, finds that the supplemental well does 

not impair existing water rights, and grants him a permit authorizing the drilling and use of 

the supplemental well prior to publication and hearing. 

Surface Water - All waters whose surface is naturally exposed to the atmosphere, e.g., rivers, 

streams, lakes, reservoirs, impoundments, ponds, springs.

Syenite – A light colored, coarse-grained igneous rock consisting mainly of feldspar.

Tertiary – The geologic span of time between 65 and 3 to 2 million years ago.

Unconfined aquifer – An aquifer containing water that is not under pressure; the water level in a 

well is the same as the water table outside the well.

Watershed – A drainage defined by the Watershed Boundary Dataset (NRCS et al. 2010) and 

identified by a 10-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-10).

Water diversion – May be measured at any number of locations: lake or stream intake 

structures, interim raw water meters, or at the raw intake meter at the beginning of a treatment 

plant.

Water production – Is always measured at the end of a treatment system, prior to release to the 

public as potable water. 

Water Right - The right to use a specific quantity of water occurring in a water supply, on a 

specific time schedule, at a specific place and putting it to a specific beneficial use.

Water year – The 12-month period, October 1 through September 30. The water year is 

designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Therefore, the 2000 water year ended on 

September 30, 2000.

Well - Horizontal or vertical excavation or opening into the ground made by digging, boring,

drilling, jetting or driving for utilizing or monitoring underground waters. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 223
Glossary of Hydrology and Water Rights Terminology

This page intentionally left blank

224 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Specialist Reports

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2014. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM 

for TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

Bright, Larry. 2012a. Fish and Wildlife Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special 

Permit Reissuance DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Bright, Larry. 2012b. Biological Evaluation and Assessment for the North Fork Eagle Creek 

Wells Special Permit Reissuance DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Bright, Larry. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Fish and Wildlife

Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit 

for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM. 

Eichman, Henry. 2012. Socioeconomics Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization DEIS. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Eichman, Henry and Kristen Loughery. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance 

EIS: Socioeconomics Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Kuhar. K. 2013. Draft Fuels Specialist Report, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Project EIS. 

December 6, 2013. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Alamogordo, New 

Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery, Little Bear Fire. Forest Fuels Specialist internal 

agency report, October 16, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Miller, T.R. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring Report. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

Miller, Terry R. 2012a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian 

Vegetation Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM. 

Miller, T. 2012b. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources 

Report. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National 

Forest, NM. 

Miller, T. 2014a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Supplemental Vegetation 

Report for the SDEIS. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Miller, T.R. 2014b. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources 

Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit 

for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 225
References Cited

Thompson, Christina. 2012. Water Rights Report for the North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use 

Authorization DEIS. Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM. 

Thompson, Christina. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Water Rights 

Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Smokey Bear Ranger 

District, Lincoln National Forest, NM

References Cited in Chapters 1 and 2 

Atkins Engineering and Associates, Inc. 2014. Personal communication. Summary of Eagle 

Creek Water Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and 

Drought. 02 February 2014. Email. 

Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985. Village of Ruidoso, Eagle Creek Exploratory Well Drilling Final 

Report. Roswell, NM. 

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW) 2004. Analysis of North Fork Well field and Effects on Eagle 

Creek: Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, NM, Technical Memorandum prepared 

for the Ford Secure Trust, November 3, 2004, 10 p., 3 Tables, 20 Figures.

Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of 

vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 3-

23. 

Brenner, Mark, Thomas J. Whitmore, Melanie A. Riedinger-Whitmore, Brandy DeArmond, 

Douglas A. Leeper, William F. Kenney, Jason H. Curtis, and Byron Shumate. 2006. 

Geochemical and biological consequences of groundwater augmentation in lakes of westcentral Florida (USA). J Paleolimnol (2006) 36:371–383. 

Brunner, Phillip, Peter G. Cook, and Craig T. Simmons. 2011. Disconnected surface water and 

groundwater: from theory to practice. Groundwater 49, no. 4: 460-467. 

Cowx, I. G. 2004. Potential impact of groundwater augmentation of river flows on fisheries: a 

case study from the River Ouse, Yorkshire, UK. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 

Volume 7, Issue 1–2, pages 85–96, February. 

Finch, S. T., R. L. Peery, and A. M. McCoy. 2004. Water Resource Evaluation of Eagle Creek 

Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. Prepared by John Shomaker and Associates 

for Village of Ruidoso, NM, October 2004. 

Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. 

McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel 

Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest 

Service PNW-GTR-760. May. 

Hennighausen and Olsen, LLP. 2012. Review of USDA Forest Service Draft EIS for Village of 

Ruidoso North Fork Wells. Lettter from Alvin F. Jones to David Warnack, Smokey Bear 

District Ranger with two attached memoranda from Roger Peery and Jack Atkins. 

January 12 

226 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and 

Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in 

cooperation with the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011. Letter to USDA Forest Service in response to 

scoping. Office of the Secretary, Santa Fe, NM.

National Research Council. 2002. Regional Issues in Aquifer Storage and Recovery for 

Everglades Restoration: A Review of the ASR Regional Study Project Management Plan 

of the Comprehensive Everglades. The National Academic Press. Washington, DC.

Parasiewitz, Piotr. 2008. Habitat time series analysis to define flow augmentation – strategy for 

the Quinebaug River, Connecticut and Massachusetts, USA. River. Res. Applic. 24: 439–

452 

Sommer, Bea and Pierre Horwitz. 2009. Macroinvertebrate cycles of decline and recovery in 

Swan Coastal Plain (Western Australia) wetlands affected by drought-induced 

acidification. Hydrobiologia (2009) 624:191–203 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. R-3 FSH 2509.22. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2509.22!r3 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management – 

Chapter 2530 – Water Resource Management. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

amended. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Southwestern Region Manual 2500 – Watershed and 

Air Management – Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development. Region 3 Supplement. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Manual 2540. Region 3 Supplement. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management – 

Chapter 2540 – Water Uses and Development – Servicewide.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Manual 2800 – Minerals and Geology. Chapter 2880 

– Geologic Resources, Hazards and Services 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Manual Direction Summary/Issue Brief 

prepared for the North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use Authorization Project. Lincoln 

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-978. July 2011. Primary Authors: John P. 

Potyondy and Theodore W. Geier.

Village of Ruidoso. 2006. Special Use Permit Application for North Fork Eagle Creek wells and 

associated facilities. July. Application from Village of Ruidoso to Lincoln National 

Forest. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 227
References Cited

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year 

Water Plan. Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

References Cited in Chapter 3 and in Supporting Specialist 

Reports 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. U.S. Forest Service Publication FS-977. May 

2011. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 

5, 2011. 

Water Resources

Atkins, J. D. 2014. Written communication from Mr. Jackie D. Atkins, PE, PS, Atkins 

Engineering Associates, to Jim Burrell, AECOM, and to the Smokey Bear Ranger 

District, Lincoln National Forest, regarding Eagle Creek water rights, return flows, and 

conditions resulting from the Little Bear Fire and drought. 7 pgs. February 25, 2014. 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Roswell, NM. 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. (Atkins). 2011. Memorandum of March 4, 2011, re: 

Additional Eagle Creek Surface Water Discharge Calculations, from Atkins Engineering 

Associated to the Village of Ruidoso file. Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc., Roswell, 

New Mexico.

Atkins-Landfair, Inc. 1985. Village of Ruidoso, Eagle Creek Exploratory Well Drilling Final 

Report. Roswell, New Mexico. 

Allen, J. E. and F. E. Kottlowski. 1981. Scenic Trips to the Geologic Past Series No. 3: RoswellRuidoso-Valley of Fires. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, 

New Mexico, 96p. 

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW). 2004a. Analysis of North Fork Well field and Effects on Eagle 

Creek: Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Technical Memorandum 

prepared for the Ford Secure Trust, November 3, 2004, 10 p., 3 Tables, 20 Figures.

Balleau Groundwater, Inc. (BGW). 2004b. Mountain-Front Hydrology of Eagle Creek and Rio 

Ruidoso Tributaries of Rio Hondo. Technical Memorandum prepared for the file of the 

Ford Secure Trust, by W. Peter Balleau and Steven. E. Silver, November 3, 2004. 76 

pages. Balleau Groundwater, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Balleau, W. P. 2014. Written communication from W. Peter Balleau, Balleau Groundwater, Inc., 

to Deborah McGlothlin, U.S. Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, Flagstaff, AZ 

Balleau, W. P. and S. Silver. 2010. Peer Review and Technical Audit of SIR 2010-5205. Technical 

Memorandum prepared for Rio Hondo Land and Cattle Company, December 2010. 

Banks, A. 2011. Personal communication with Ms. April Banks, P.E., Forest Hydrologist, Lincoln 

National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico and Jim Burrell, Senior Hydrologist, 

AECOM, Fort Collins, Colorado concerning USFS Watershed Condition ratings for the 

North Fork and South Fork drainages of Eagle Creek on Forest Service Lands. November 

4, 2011. 

228 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Biederman, J. and P. D. Brooks. 2013. Improved Prediction of Water Availability and Quality 

Following Forest Disturbance. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, 

University of Arizona. 

http://wsp.arizona.edu/sites/wsp.arizona.edu/files/Biederman%20WSP%20Final%20Rep

ort%202013.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2013. 

Blaney, H. F. and W. D. Criddle. 1962. Determining consumptive use and irrigation water 

requirements: U.S. Department of Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 1275, 

Bredehoeft, J. 2007. It is the Discharge. Guest editorial in Ground Water, 45(5), September – 

October 2007, pg 523. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, Ohio. 

Brummal, J. 2011. Eagle Creek Summer Home Association Photo Album. Internet website: 

http://www.brummal.com/EagleCreekPhotos.htm. Accessed April 7, 2011

Bury, R. Bruce, Major, Donald J, and Pilliod, David. No date. Responses of Amphibians to Fire 

Disturbance in Pacific Northwest Forests: A Review. The Role of fire in nongame 

wildlife management and community restoration: traditional uses and new directions. 

GTR-NE-288 

Cather, S. M. 1991. Stratigraphy and provenance of Upper Cretaceous and Paleogene strata of the 

western Sierra Blanca Basin, New Mexico. In Barker, J. M., B. S. Kues, G. S. Austin, and 

S. G. Lucas, editors, Geology of the Sierra Blanca, Sacramento, and Capitan Ranges: 

New Mexico Geological Society, Guidebook 42. p. 265-275. 

Cayan, D. R., S. A. Kammerdiener, M. D. Dettinger, J. M. Caprio, and D. H. Peterson. 2001. 

Changes in the Onset of Spring in the Western United States. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society, 82(3), March 2001, pp. 399-415. American Meteorological 

Society, Boston, MA. 

Chaves County District Court. 1979. GIS Dataset created by USFS-Teams from information 

contained in: Judgment on Lincoln National Forest Claims. Historic listing of rights and 

water uses under permit or license. Book 146, Pages 521 -523. 

Christensen, N. and D. P. Lettenmaier (2006). "A multimodel ensemble approach to assessment of 

climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River 

basin." Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 3: 3727-3770.Donohoe, L. C. 2004. 

Selected hydrologic data for the upper Rio Hondo basin, Lincoln County, New Mexico, 

1945-2003: USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5275, 28 p. 

Chow, V. T. (ed.). 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology – A Compendium of Water-resources 

Technology. Section 6, part VI, “Evapotranspiration”, by H.W. Lull. McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, New York, New York.

Clark, B. 2001. Soils, Water, and Watersheds. Chapter 5, Fire Effects Guide. National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.

Cordova, Larry. 2013. Personal communication. Fish Observation Survey Results. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013a. Personal communication. Riparian System Condition and Rio Grande 

Cutthroat. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 229 
References Cited

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes 

since Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 1, January 1994. 

Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.

Craigg, S. D. 1992. Water Resources on the Pueblos of Jemez, Zia, and Santa Ana, Sandoval 

County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89-4091. Prepared in cooperation with the Jemez River Indian Water Authority. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

DeBano, L. F. 1990. The Effect of Fire on Soil Properties. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-280. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/GTRs/INT_280/DeBano_INT280.php Accessed January 10, 2013. 

DeBano, L. F. 1981. Water-Repellent Soils: a state-of-the-art. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-46. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA.

Denny. 2011. Personal communication

Doerr, S. H. and J. A. Moody. 2004. Hydrological Effects of Soil Water Repellency: on Spatial 

and Temporal Uncertainties. Hydrological Processes 18, pp. 829-832. Published online in 

Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5518. 

Earlougher, R. C., Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

Dallas, Texas. 264 pages.

Eckhardt, K. 2005. How to Construct Recursive Digital Filters for Baseflow Separation. 

Hydrological Processes 19(2):507-515. 

Enquist, C., A. Bradley, M. Cross, G. Garfin, D. Gori, P. McCarthy, and R. Oertel. 2009. Jémez 

Mountain Climate Change Adaptation Workshop: Process, Outcomes, and Next Steps. 

Southwest Climate Change Initiative. The Nature Conservancy; in partnership with the 

U.S. Forest Service, University of Arizona, University of Washington, the Wildlife 

Conservation Society. April, 2009. Internet website: 

http://nmconservation.org/projects/new_mexico_climate_change/. Accessed September 

29, 2011. 

Ericksen, H.E. and R. White. 2008. Soils under Fire: Soils Research and the Joint Fire Science 

Program. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-759. May 2008. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Fekete, B. M., C. J. Vorosmarty, J. O. Roads, and C.T. Willmott. 2004. Uncertainties in 

Precipitation and Their Impacts on Runoff Estimates. Journal of Climate, Vol 17, pp 294-

304. American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.

Finch, S.T., Jr. 2014. Calculating Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions for Water Right 

Transfers – How Far Do We Go? Abstract of John T. Shomaker & Associates, Inc. 

presentation at the National Ground Water Association Conference on Hydrology and 

Water Scarcity in the Rio Grande Basin. February 26, 2014, Crowne Plaza Hotel, 

Albuquerque, NM. National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH. 

230 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Finch, S. T., R. L. Peery, and A. M. McCoy. 2004. Water Resource Evaluation of Eagle Creek 

Watershed, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. Prepared by John Shomaker and Associates 

for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, October 2004. 

Galaska, H.S. and R.A. Galaska. 2011. Personal communication from Mr. Hank Galaska and Ms. 

Rita Galaska, private residents along the North Fork of Eagle Creek, to Ms. Deborah 

McGlothlin, USFS TEAMS Project Leader, with text and photographs regarding historic 

and present-day flow and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. June 14, 2011. 

Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Goff, F., S. A. Kelley, J. R. Lawrence, C. Cikoski, D. J. Krier, C. J. Goff, and V. T. McLemore. 

2011. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Nogal Peak Quadrangle, Lincoln and Otero 

Counties, New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources OpenFile Geologic Map OF-GM 134, scale 1:24,000 (color).

Gottfried, G.J., Neary, D.G., Baker, M.B, Jr., and P.F. Ffolliott. 2003. Impacts of Wildfires on 

Hydrologic Processes in Forest Ecosystems: Two Case Studies, in: Proceedings, 1st 

Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds. USDA Agricultural Research 

Service. www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/Proceedings/Gottfried.pdf. 

Hansen. 2011. Personal Communication 

Hansen and Denny. 2011. Personal communication

Harpold, A. A., J. A. Biederman, K. Condon, M. Merino, Y. Korgaonkar, T. Nan, L. L. Sloat, M. 

Ross, and P. D. Brooks. 2013. Changes in Snow Accumulation and Ablation following 

the Las Conchas Forest Fire, New Mexico, USA. In: Ecohydrology. DOI: 

10.1002/eco.1363. Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Published online 

January 2013. Internet URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.1363/full. 

Accessed December 2013. 

Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4, 

Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation, Chapter A3. Internet website: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3 

Hibbert, A. R. 1967. Forest Treatment Effects on Water Yield. In: W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull 

(eds.). International Symposium for Hydrology. Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

(Elsevier Limited, Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom). 

Huffman,E.L., MacDonald, L.H, and J.D. Stednick. 2001. Strength and Persistence of FireInduced Soil Hydrophobicity under Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine, Colorado Front 

Range. Hydrological Processes, Volume 15, Issue 15, October 2001. DOU: 

10.1002/hyp.379. John Wiley and Sons, Wiley Online Library. 

Hultstrand, D.M. 2006. Geostatistical Methods for Estimating Snowmelt Contribution to the 

Seasonal Water Balance in an Alpine Watershed. Thesis submitted in fall 2006, in partial 

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Jenkins, D. N. and J. K. Prentice. 1982. Theory for aquifer test analysis in fractured rock under 

linear (nonradial) flow conditions. Ground Water, Vol. 20, No. 1. January-February 1982. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 231
References Cited

Johnson, M. 1994. Changes in Southwestern Forests, Stewardship Implications. Journal of 

Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 12, December 1994. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Johnston, R. S., R. K. Tew, and R. D. Doty. 1969. Soil Moisture Depletion and Estimated 

Evapotranspiration on Utah Mountain Watersheds. Research Paper INT-67. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Joyce, L.A. 2008. Climate Change Assessments. (May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/assessments.shtml 

Kelley, V. C. and T. B. Thompson. 1964. Tectonics and general geology of the Ruidoso-Carrizozo 

region, central New Mexico In Ash, S. R. and L. R. Davis, eds., Ruidoso Country: New 

Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 15th field conference, October 16–18, 1964. 

Kilgore, B. M. 1981. Fire in Ecosystem Distribution and Structure: Western Forests and 

Shrublands. Proceedings of the Conference, Fire regimes and Ecosystem Properties. 

December 11-15, 1978, Honolulu, HI. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report 

WO-26, June 1981. Washington, DC.

Knowles, N., Dettinger, M.D., and D. R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in Snowfall versus Rainfall in the 

Western United States. Journal of Climate, Vol 19, pp 4545-4559. September 2006. 

American Meteorological Society, Boston. MA. 

Kuhar. K. 2013. Draft Fuels Specialist Report, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Project EIS. 

December 6, 2013. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Alamogordo, New 

Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery, Little Bear Fire. Forest Fuels Specialist internal 

agency report, October 16, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Kuhar, K. 2014. Written communication 1/21/14. 

Lim, K. J., B. A. Engel, Z. Tang, J. Choi, K-S. Kim, S. Muthukrishnan, and D. Tripathy. 2005. 

Automated Web GIS based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, December 2005. American Water Resources Association, 

Middleburg, Virginia. Internet website: https://engineering.purdue.edu/~what/. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960a. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations, Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. Federal 

Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. March 31, 1960. New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. March

Little, Ralph G. 1960b. Periodic stream survey, Eagle Creek. Work plan 4, job i-1. New Mexico 

game and fish departments. June

Little, R.G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations, Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. Federal 

Aid Project F-22-R-2, Work Plan 4, Job No. I-1. January 26, 1961. New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

232 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Liu, J., H. Takahashi, N. Hayakawa, M. Lu, D. Zhang, and X. Ma. 2002. Precipitation 

Interpolations using Spatial Model and Water Balance in a Mountainous Watershed based 

on GIS and DEM. Journal of rthe Japan Society of Hydrology and Water Resources, Vol 

15 (5), pp 496-504. Japan Society of Hydrology and Water Resources, International 

Academic Printing Co. Ltd., Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0075, Japan.

Lucas, S. G., S. M. Cather, P. Sealey, and J. H. Hutchison. 1989. Stratigraphy, paleontology, and 

depositional systems of the Eocene Cub Mountain Formation, Lincoln County, New 

Mexico; a preliminary report: New Mexico Geology, vol.11, no.1, p.11-17. 

Luce, C. H. 2005. Land Use and Land Cover Effects on Runoff Processes: Fire. Section 120, in: 

Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, M.G. Anderson and J.J. McDonnell (eds.). John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. Somerset, New Jersey. 

MacDonald, L. H. and J. D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and water—a state-of-the-art review for 

Colorado: Fort Collins, Colorado. Water Resources Research Institute CWRRI 

Completion Report No. 196. 

Matherne, A.M. 2011. Personal communication from Dr. Anne-Marie Matherne, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Ms. Deborah McGlothlin, U.S. Forest Service 

TEAMS Project Leader, dated September 8, 2011. 

Matherne, A.M. 2013. Personal Communication 

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and 

Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in 

cooperation with the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

MacDonald, L. H. and J. D. Stednick. 2003. Forests and Water: A State-of-the-Art Review for 

Colorado. Sponsored by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Colorado Water 

Resources Research Institute, Denver Water, and the Northern Colorado Water 

Conservancy District. Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Completion Report 

No. 196, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

McCormick, Frank H., Bruce E. Eiemen, and Jeffery L. Kershner. 2010. Biological Responses to 

Stressors in Aquatic Ecosystems in Western North America: Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuel Treatments, Wildfire, and Post-wildfire Remediation. USDA Forest 

Service, RMRS-GTR-231. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the 

Western United States: Chapter 11. 

McGlothlin, D. 2011. Summary of agency report information related to fisheries and riparian 

habitat in the project area (2 mile stretch of North Fork Eagle Creek from present day 

North Fork gage to Eagle Creek gage). September 14, 2011. 

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. J. Medlock, private resident along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek, to Mr. D. Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District Lincoln 

National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, with text and photographs regarding historic 

flow and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, 

New Mexico.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 233
References Cited

Midkiff, W.A. 2002. Water Availability along Eagle Creek. Personal communication from Dr. W. 

Midkiff, Midkiff Engineering Company, to the Lincoln National Forest, regarding 

streamflow and groundwater conditions in the North Fork of Eagle Creek, with figures 

and analysis of sustainable yield, well conditions, and additional surface water and 

groundwater factors. June 6, 2002. Ruidoso, New Mexico. 

Midkiff, W.A. 2001. Eagle Creek Observations and Anecdotes. Personal communication from Dr. 

W. Midkiff to the Lincoln National Forest, regarding streamflow and groundwater 

conditions in the North Fork of Eagle Creek. October 24, 2001. Ruidoso, New Mexico. 

Miller, T. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Vegetation Resources Report. Prepared for Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. IN DRAFT

Molotch, N. P., P. D. Brooks, S. P. Burns, M. Litvak, R. K. Monson, J. R. McConnell, and K. 

Musselman. 2009. Ecohydrological Controls on Snowmelt Partitioning in Mixed-conifer 

Sub-alpine Forests. Ecohydrology, May 2, 2009. Wiley Interscience DOI 10.1002/eco.48. 

Moody, J. A. and Martin, D. A. 2001. Post-wildfire Rainfall Intensity – Peak Discharge Relations 

for Three Mountainous Watersheds in the Western USA. Hydrological Processes Volume 

15, Issue 15 (2981- 2993). John Wiley and Sons, Wiley Online Library. 

Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining Mountain 

Snowpack in Western North America. Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and 

the Ocean Contribution Number 1073. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 

January 2005. American Meteorological Society, Boston. Massachusetts. 

Myers, N.C. 2013. Personal Communication 11/12/13

Nathan, R. J. and T. A. McMahon, 1990. Evaluation of Automated Techniques for Baseflow and 

Recession Analysis. Water Resource Research 26(7):1465-1473. American Geophysical 

Union, Washington, D.C.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2010. Climate data for Ruidoso, New Mexico. Internet 

website: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgiwin/wwcgi.dll?wwDI~StnSrch~StnID~10100284. Accessed on December 20, 2010. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. New Mexico SNOTEL Site Sierra 

Blanca (1034). Internet URLs http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/view, and 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html;jsessionid=IjPCfMgwruJVOzi

XCFkFlbKU?report=New+Mexico&format=SNOTEL+Precipitation+Summary+Update

+Report. Accessed December 7 and 10, 2013. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Sierra Blanca SNOTEL site. NRCS 

National Weather and Climate Center. Internet website: 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1034&state=nm. Accessed August 23, 

2011. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2005. Digital hydrologic unit boundary GIS 

layer to the Subwatershed (12-digit) 6th level for the State of New Mexico. Internet 

website: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed. Accessed 

December 20, 2010. 

234 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, (eds.). 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects 

of Fire on Soils and Water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4 (revised 

2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Ogden, Utah 

Neff, B. P. and J. R.Nicholas. 2004. Uncertainty in the Great Lakes Water Balance. U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004- 5100. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia.

Nevada Division of Water Resources. 2011. Water Words Dictionary. State of Nevada Division of 

Water Resources. Internet website: http://water.nv.gov/programs/planning/dictionary/. 

Accessed October 12, 2011. 

New Mexico Climate Center. 2011. ET and Hydrology Tools. Internet website: 

http://weather.nmsu.edu/. Accessed August 20, 2011. 

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011a, 2010-2012 State of New Mexico Final CWA 

Section 303(d) / Section 305(b) Integrated List. Page 414. 

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011b, Streams and Lakes in US Forest Service 

Wilderness Areas Designated as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters 20.6.4.9.D(1) and 

(3) NMAC. www.nmenv.state.nm.us. January 14.

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE). 2014. New Mexico Water Rights Reporting 

System. Accessed June 8, 2014. 

http://nmwrrs.ose.state.nm.us/nmwrrs/wellSurfaceDiversion.html 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE). 2005. New Mexico Water Use by 

Categories – Supplemental Report 2005. Technical Report 52 S, June 2005. Adapted from 

NMOSE Technical Report 51. Compiled and edited by the Water Use & Conservation 

Bureau Staff, New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

New Mexico Fifth Judicial District. 2010. State of New Mexico, ex rei. State Engineer and Pecos 

Valley Artesian Conservancy District, Plaintiffs, v. L. T. Lewis, et al., and United States 

of America, Defendants, and State of New Mexico, ex rei. State Engineer and Pecos 

Valley Artesian Conservancy District, Plaintiffs, v. Hagerman Canal Co., et al., 

Defendants. Nos.20294 and 22600 Consolidated. Consent Order, March 8, 2010. 

Newcomer, R. W. Jr. and J. W. Shomaker. 1991. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 

42nd Field Conference, Sierra Blanca, Sacramento, Capitan Ranges. Water Resources of 

the Ruidoso-Carrizozo-Tularosa Areas, Lincoln and Otero Counties, New Mexico. 

Newton, B. T., C, Gierke, H. Garduno, N. Canaris, and T. Kludt. 2012a. Sacramento Mountains 

Watershed Study: Can We Increase Our Water Resources by Thinning Trees in the 

Mountains? Aquifer Mapping Program, Preliminary report, June 2012. New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining & 

Technology, Socorro, New Mexico. Primary Study Contact: Mr. Talon Newton, 

Hydrogeologist, New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, New Mexico 

Institute of Mining & Technology, 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 235
References Cited

Newton, B. T., G. C. Rawling, S. S. Timmons, L. Land, P. S. Johnson, T. J. Kludt, and J. M. 

Timmons. 2012b. Sacramento Mountain Hydrogeology Study. Final Technical Report, 

June 2012. Prepared for the Otero County Soil and Water Conservation District. Aquifer 

Mapping Program, New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, New Mexico 

Institute of Mining & Technology, Socorro, New Mexico. 

Patterson, Robert. 1971. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Roswell, NM.

Peery, R. 2013. Personal communication between R. Peery, CEO/Principal Hydrogeologist, John 

Shomaker & Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, and C. Thompson, Forest 

Service IDT Liaison, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, 

New Mexico, transmitting recent well water level data for monitoring and production 

wells in the Village of Ruidoso well field along the North Fork of Eagle Creek. 

November 12, 2013. 

Potyondy, J. P. and T. W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. 

USDA- Forest Service Publication FS-978. July 2011. Downloaded from Internet 

website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 5, 2011. 

Pugh, E. and E. Small. 2011. The Impact of Pine Beetle Infestation on Snow Accumulation and 

Melt in the Headwaters of the Colorado River (Abstr.). Ecohydrology, Vol. 5, Issue 4, 

July 2012. Published online June 7, 2011. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eco.239/abstract. Accessed December 8, 2013. 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Somerset, New Jersey. 

Rawling, G.2004. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Angus 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Lincoln 

County, New Mexico. N.M. Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Open-File 

Geologic Map 95, 1:24,000 scale (color).

Rawling, G. 2009. Geology of the Ruidoso area, Lincoln and Otero counties, New Mexico; New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Open-file Report 507. Internet 

website: http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=507. 

Accessed on November 17, 2010. 

Rice, S. 2011. Personal communication from Mr. S. Rice, private resident along the North Fork of 

Eagle Creek, to to Mr. D. Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District 

Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico, with text and photographs regarding 

flow and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. June 14, 2011. Ruidoso, New 

Mexico.

Robichaud, P. R. 2000. Fire Effects on Infiltration Rates after Prescribed Fire in Northern Rocky 

Mountain Forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology, Vols 231-232, May 2000. Elsevier Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Romero, D.M. and S.E. Silver. 2012. Simulation of the Aquifer System in Part of the Hondo 

Basin from the Sierra Blanca to Riverside, New Mexico. Presentation at the Geological 

Society of America Conference, Rocky Mountain Section - 64th Annual Meeting (9–11

May 2012), Albuquerque, NM. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. 

Ross, John S. 1970. North Fork Eagle Creek Stream Survey Report. U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest.

236 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Roth, B.E. K.C. Slatton, and M.J. Cohen. 2007. Searcy, J. K., and C. H. Hardison. 1960. DoubleMass Curves. With a section “Fitting Curves” by W. B. Langbein. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1541-B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Shomaker, J. W. 1989. Testing and Evaluation of Eagle Creek Wells 1-4 (SEO File Numbers H 

1979 through H-1982. Memorandum to Frank Potter, Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 

dated May 27, 1989. 

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Stewart. I. T., D. P. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward Earlier Streamflow 

Timing across Western North America. Journal of Climate, Vol. 18, April 2005, pp 1136-

1155. American Meteorological Society, Boston. Massachusetts.

Streltsova, T. D. 1976. Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations. Exxon Monograph. 402 pages. 

Theis, C. V. 1935. The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate 

and Duration of Discharge of a Well using Groundwater Storage. American Geophysical 

Union. Vol. 16, pp. 519-524. 

Thompson, J. R. 1974. Energy Budget Measurements over Three Cover Types in Eastern Arizona. 

Water Resources Research 10(5):1045-1048. American Geophysical Union, Washington, 

D.C.

Thompson, C. 2013. Personal Communication 11/26/13

Tillery, A. C. and A. M. Matherne. 2013. Postwildfire Debris-Flow Hazard Assessment of the 

Area Burned by the 2021 Little Bear Fire, South-Central New Mexico. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2013-1108. Prepared in cooperation with the USDA Forest 

Service, Lincoln National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

Troendle, C. A. and J. O. Reuss. 1997. Effect of Clear Cutting on Snow Accumulations and Water 

Outflow at Fraser, Colorado. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1(2): 325-332. 

European Geosciences Union. Internet website: http://www.hydrology-and-earth-systemsciences.net/home.html 

Troendle, C. A. 1983. The Potential for Water Yield Augmentation from Forest Management in 

the Rocky Mountain Region. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 3. June 1983. 

American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.

Troendle, C. A. and J. R. Meiman. 1986. The Effect of Patch Clearcutting on the Water Balance 

of a Subalpine Forest Slope. Presented at the Western Snow Conference, April 15-17, 

1986, Phoenix, Arizona. Printed by Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://www.westernsnowconference.org/. Western Snow Conference, Soda Springs, 

California.

University of Idaho. 2007. Stream Ecosystem Response to Wildfire. US Forest Service Joint 

Venture Agreement No. 02-JV-11222014-196 with Univ. of Idaho. Project no. FKK493. 

Boise, ID. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln 

National Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 237
References Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2008. In Brief: Climate Change and Water – Perspectives from the Forest 

Service. FS-908, June 2008. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/files/CC%20and%20Water%20In%20Brief.pdf. Accessed 

November 7, 2010. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning. 

A Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern 

National Forests and National Grasslands. May 2010. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed Condition Framework – A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. U.S. Forest Service Publication FS-977. May 

2011. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. Accessed October 

5, 2011. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. USDA Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification 

Condition – Region 3. Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/. 

Accessed October 5, 2011. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Fork Eagle 

Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, 

New Mexico. . Document Number MB-R3-08-04, May 2012. Lincoln National Forest, 

Southwestern Region. USDA Forest Service, Alamogordo, NM. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Soil Report. Ski Apache, Little Bear Fire BAER Resource Report 

(with appendices). Hill, J., N. Koehler, and M. Kiesow. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. BAER Hydrology Report, 2012 Little Bear Fire, Lincoln National 

Forest. Snyder, J., A. Banks, P. Brown, and C. Lovely. USDA Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service 2012c. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team Little Bear Fire 

White Paper. July 3, 2012. USDA Forest Service, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest. Ruidoso, NM. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, 

and Rare Plants Report. Parsons, Zachary D. and Larry Cordova. 2012.Lincoln National 

Forest, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln County, New Mexico. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to 

Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence. EPA/600/R11/098B, September 2013. External Review Draft. USEPA Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1963. 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map: Angus. 

238 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Current Conditions for New Mexico: Precipitation. USGS 

New Mexico Water Science Center. Data for precipitation gages Bluefront-Crest-South 

Fork Trails Junction near Alto, New Mexico; Buck Mountain near Alto, New Mexico; 

Bonito Lake near Alto, New Mexico; Skyview recreation Site near Alto, New Mexico; 

and Nogal Peak Crest Trail 25 near Alto, New Mexico. 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis/current/?type=precip&group_key=NONE. Accessed 

November 13, 2013. 

U.S. Geological Survey – National Water Information System (USGS-NWIS). 2011. Water data 

for New Mexico. Internet website: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/nwis. Accessed August 

2011. 

Veenhuis, J. E. 2002. Effects of Wildfire on the Hydrology of Capulin and Rito de Los Frijoles 

Canyons, Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4152. Prepared in cooperation with the National Park 

Service. U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, NM. 

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2010. Monthly Climate Station Summary for 

Ruidoso 2 NNE, New Mexico (297649). Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliRECtM.pl?nm7649 (accessed on December 20, 2010).

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2011. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries 

for New Mexico. Internet website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html. 

Accessed August 2011. 

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2013. Precipitation data for Ruidoso 2NNE, 

Cloudcroft, Mountain Park, and Elk2 climate stations, New Mexico. 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html. Accessed December 7, 2013. 

Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC). 2014. Monthly and daily precipitation totals for 

Cloudcroft and Ruidoso, New Mexico. 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnm.html

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year 

Water Plan. Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Woodhouse, B. 2004. Fire Effects on Stream Discharge. Southwest Hydrology, 

September/October 2004. University of Arizona Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology 

and Riparian Areas (SAHRA) Center, Tucson, AZ. Internet URL: 

http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/index.html 

Xu, C., L. Tunemar, D. C. Yongqin, and V. P. Singh. 2006. Evaluation of seasonal and spatial 

variations of lumped water balance model sensitivity to precipitation data errors. Journal 

of Hydrology 324 (2006) 80-93. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Riparian Vegetation 

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2014. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM 

for TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 239
References Cited

Cordova, Larry. 2011. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communication: e-mail to D. McGlothlin.

Edwards, William G. 1963. Upper Eagle Creek Erosion Control Narrative Report. Lincoln 

National Forest.

Edwards, William G. 1964. Alto Allotment Narrative Report. Lincoln National Forest.

Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN - A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an 

ordered two-way table by classification of individuals and attributes. Ecology and 

Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Kuhar, Kim. 2012. Post Fire Vegetation Recovery Little Bear Fire, Lincoln National Forest.

Kuhar, Kim. 2013. North Fork Eagle Creek Fuels Specialist Report, Lincoln National Forest. 

Little, Ralph G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22.R-2, Work Plan 4, Job I-1. New Mexico Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960a-June. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960b-August. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and 

Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in 

cooperation with the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. Justin Medlock, private resident along the North Fork 

of Eagle Creek, to Mr. Dave Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District 

Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso NM, with text and photographs regarding historic flow 

and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, New 

Mexico.

Merritt, D.M. and V. Bevan. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Riparian Vegetation Analyses. Stream 

Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO. for TEAMS Enterprise and Smokey Bear 

Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM.

Merritt, D.M. and K.A. Dwire. 2008. Response of Riparian Vegetation to Hydrologic Alteration: 

Draft Field Protocol. Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Merritt, D.M., M.L. Scott, N.L. Poff, G.T. Auble, and D.A. Lytle. 2010. Theory, methods and 

tools for determining environmental flows for riparian vegetation: riparian vegetationflow response guilds. Freshwater Biology 55:206-225 

Miller, T.R. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Riparian Vegetation 

Monitoring Report. TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM.

240 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

Miller, T.R. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS: Botanical Resources 

Report for Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. TEAMS Enterprise Unit 

for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, NM. 

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 2002. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. The 

Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.

Reed, P. B. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: National summary. 

Biological Report 88, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Socioeconomics and Recreation 

Atkins, Jackie D. 2014. Letter from Jackie D. Atkins to Jim Burrell. Summary of Eagle Creek 

Water Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and Drought. 

Sent February 25, 2014 

FEMAT, 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Forest ecosystem management: 

an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Joint publication of the United States 

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service; United States Department of Commerce: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries 

Service; United States Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; and United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

McGranahan, D. 1999. “Natural Amenities Drive Population Change. USDA Economic Research 

Service. Agricultural Economics, Report #781. 

Office of the State Engineer (OSE). March 31, 2014. Email correspondence on the well transfer 

and diversion. 

Office of the State Engineer (OSE). September 19, 2014. Email correspondence with Christina 

Thompson, Forest Service, regarding pending Village of Ruidoso supplemental well 

applications. 

Rudzitis G. and Johnson, R. 2000. “The Impact of Wilderness and Other Wildlands on Local 

Economies and Regional Development Trends.” USDA Forest Service Proceedings

RMRS-P-15(2): 14-26. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_2/rmrs_p015_2_014_026.pdf 

State of New Mexico, 2008. University of New Mexico. New Mexico County Population 

Projections July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2035, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 

University of New Mexico. Released August 2008. Can be accessed at 

http://bber.unm.edu/demo/table1.htm 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Forest Service. September 1986. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and 

Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of 

Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River 

basin DEIS. ICBEMP, Walla Walla, WA 99362 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 241
References Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW GTR 788. Allen, Stuart 

D., D. A Wickwar, F. P. Clark, R. Potts, and S. A. Snyder, 2009. Values, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes Technical Guide for Forest Service Land and Resource management, Planning, 

and Decisionmaking. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/33266 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder Table DP-1 Can 

be accessed at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010b. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts, 

American Community Survey. Can be accessed at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ 

US Department of Commerce. 2011. US Census Bureau. Population Estimates, Archives. Can be 

accessed at http://www.census.gov/popest/ for 1960 to 2000 and at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/intercensal/index.html for 2000 to 2010. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2012. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Information System, Washington, D.C. Employment data from Table CA25N and income 

data from Table CA05N 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Can be 

accessed at http://www.census.gov/acs/

Village of Ruidoso 2010. The Village of Ruidoso Comprehensive Plan. 

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year 

Water Plan. Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Water Rights

Atkins Engineering and Associates, Inc. 2014. Personal communication. Summary of Eagle 

Creek Water Rights, Return Flow, and Conditions Resultant from Little Bear Fire and 

Drought. 02 February 2014. Email.

Hearing Nos. 00-041 and 02-069 Consolidated. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 21

June 2006. Web.

New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Water Rights Considerations Regarding 

Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater in New Mexico. October 1997. Web. 

New Mexico Statutes, Annotated. 1978. § 72-12-24, Supplemental Well; Rule 2-4, Supplemental 

Well, Groundwater Regulations 

State of New Mexico v. L.T Lewis. OSE Subfile No. R. 203 Nos. 20294 and 22600. Fifth Judicial 

District, Chaves County, NM. 4 May 2010. Print. 

State of New Mexico. Office of the State Engineer. Glossary of Water Terms. Web. 03 Nov. 2011. 

<http://ose.state.nm.gov>. 

State of New Mexico. Office of the State Engineer (OSE). September 19, 2014. Email 

correspondence with Christina Thompson, Forest Service, regarding pending Village of 

Ruidoso supplemental well applications.

242 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

USDI Bureau of Land Management. National Science and Technology Center. New Mexico, 

Water Rights Fact Sheet. 21 Aug. 2001. Web. 3 Nov. 2011. 

<http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/newmexico.html>. 

Wilson and Company Inc. Engineers and Architects, John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc., and 

Atkins Engineering Associates, Inc. 2005. Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico 40-Year 

Water Plan. Prepared for Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico, August 2005. 

Vegetation

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

AECOM. 2014. Water Resource Impacts Supplemental Information Report Prepared by AECOM 

for TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

Allen, Alistair and Deborah Chapman. 2001. Impacts of afforestation on groundwater resources 

and quality. Hydrogeology Journal (2001) 9:390-400. 

Cordova, personal communication 2011 

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Forest Structure: Changes 

since Euro-American Settlement. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 1, January 1994. 

Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dahms, Cathy W.; Geils, Brian W., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in 

the Southwest. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 97 p. 

Garrett, David and Pamela. 2001. Evaluating forest restoration opportunities on the Lincoln 

National Forest. M3 Research. September 25.

Gonzales, I Miley 2009. New Mexico Noxious Weed List Update. New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture, Las Cruces, NM April 1, 2009 

Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. 

McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel 

Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest 

Service PNW-GTR-760. May. 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) 2006 Invasive Species Definition Clarification and 

Guidance White Paper. Submitted by the Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive 

Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) April 27, 2006 

Kuhar, Kim. 2013. North Fork Eagle Creek Fuels Specialist Report, Lincoln National Forest. 

Lowery, Tim. 2011. Personal Communication. email to Terry Miller regarding records of 

Crataegus wootoniana Eggleston

MacDonald, L.H. 1987. Forest harvest, snowmelt, and streamflow in central Sierra Nevada. 

Forest Hydrology and watershed management. Proceedings of the Vancouver 

symposium, August.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 243
References Cited

Medlock, J. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek - An Intermittent Stream - Not a Cold Water Fishery. 

Personal communication from Mr. Justin Medlock, private resident along the North Fork 

of Eagle Creek, to Mr. Dave Warnack, District Ranger, Smokey Bear Ranger District 

Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso NM, with text and photographs regarding historic flow 

and stream channel conditions in the North Fork. September 13, 2011. Ruidoso, New 

Mexico.

Neary, D.G., K.A. Koestner, and B. Poff. 2008. Water yield from harvesting, thinning, and 

burning Southwestern mountain forests: Historical experience from US Forest Service 

Research. Proceedings of the World Environmental & Water Congress, Honolulu, HI, 

May 13-16, 2008. 

Sheley, R., J. Petroff, M.. Borman, 1999. Introduction to Biology and Management of Noxious 

Rangeland Weeds, Corvallis, OR.

Sieg, C. H., B. G. Phillips, and L. P.Moser. 2003. Exotic invasive plants. Pp. 251–267 in 

Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine forests, ed. P. Friederici. 

Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176 (1996) 79-95. Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Urie, D.H. 1966. Influence of forest cover on snowpack and groundwater recharge. USDA Forest 

Service and Michigan Departmetn of Conservation.

USDA Forest Service 2000. Forest Service Handbook. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsh_1.html. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Southwestern Region – Regional Strategic Action Plan 2003. 

Internal USDA FS report. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Southwestern Region’s National Forests’ Central Priority Strategy. 

Internal USDA FS report. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. FSM 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Management. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/cgibin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?2600

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln 

National Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service 2009. Potential to increase water yield on the Gila National Forest – 

Briefing Paper. December 16. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. FSM 2900 - Invasive Species Management

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, 

and Rare Plants Report

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2014. Threatened, Endangered, and candidate 

Species, and Species of Concern downloaded on 02/04/2014 

Aquatic Habitat, Fish, and Wildlife 

AECOM. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report – Final Draft. 

244 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

AECOM. 2012. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report. Prepared by AECOM for 

TEAMS Enterprise Unit for Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest.

AECOM. 2013 North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Supplemental Information Report.

AECOM. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Water Resources Report (DRAFT). 

Aquatic Consultants Inc. 2012. Letter to Forest Supervisor, Comments to Aquatic and Fish 

Section of NEPA Reports. Albuquerque, N.M. 

Bright, Larry. 2014. Biological Assessment (BA) for TES wildlife for the North Fork Eagle Creek 

Wells Special Use Authorization. 

Bury, R. Bruce, Major, Donald J, and Pilliod, David. No date. Responses of Amphibians to Fire 

Disturbance in Pacific Northwest Forests: A Review. The Role of fire in nongame 

wildlife management and community restoration: traditional uses and new directions. 

GTR-NE-288 

Cordova, Larry. 2011. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communications: email. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011a. Smokey Bear R.D. personal communication: email. Gavilan GOS PFA. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011c. Mexican Spotted Owl Inventory and Monitory Results Annual Report. 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

Cordova, Larry. 2011d. Northern Goshawk 2011 Inventory and Monitoring Annual Report. 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013. Personal communication. Fish Observation Survey Results. 

Cordova, Larry. 2013a. Personal communication. Riparian System Condition and Rio Grande 

Cutthroat. 

Dunham, Jason B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce, and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of 

Wildfire and Channel Reorganization on Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stream 

Temperature and the Distribution of Fish and Amphibians. Ecosystems 2007; 10:335-346. 

Eagle Creek Conservation Association (ECCA). 2002. Letter to Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest. 

Ganey, Joseph L.; Ward, James P. Jr.; Willey, David W. 2011. Status and ecology of Mexican 

spotted owls in the Upper Gila Mountains recovery unit, Arizona and New Mexico. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-256WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 94 pp. full text pdf. 

Hansen, Richard. 2011. New Mexico Game and Fish personal communication email. 

Kennedy, C. E. 1971. USDA, Lincoln National Forest. Memo of meeting notes. 

Little, Ralph G. 1961. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Periodic Check of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-2, Work Plan 4, Job I-1. New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish. 

Little, Ralph G. 1960-June. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 245
References Cited

Little, Ralph G. 1960-August. State-Wide Fisheries Investigations: Basic Survey of Eagle Creek. 

Federal Aid Project F-22-R-1, Work Plan 4, Job A-2-3. New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish. 

Matherne, A. M., N. C. Myers, and K. J. McCoy. 2011. Hydrology of Eagle Creek Basin and 

Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow, 1969–2009. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5205 (revised November 2011). Prepared in 

cooperation with the Village of Ruidoso, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia.

McCormick, Frank H., Bruce E. Eiemen, and Jeffery L. Kershner. 2010. Biological Responses to 

Stressors in Aquatic Ecosystems in Western North America: Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuel Treatments, Wildfire, and Post-wildfire Remediation. USDA Forest 

Service, RMRS-GTR-231. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the 

Western United States: Chapter 11. 

Merritt, David M. and Vernon Bevan. 2011. North Fork Eagle Creek Riparian Vegetation 

Analyses. Stream Systems Technology Center Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare 

Plants Staff Fort Collins, CO.

Miller, Terry R. 2014. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian Vegetation 

Supplemental Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, 

Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. 

Miller, Terry R. 2012a. North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Permit Reissuance EIS, Riparian 

Vegetation Report. Teams Enterprise Unit for the Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln 

National Forest, NM. 

New Mexico Environment Department. 2011. Letter to U.S.F.S. in response to scoping. Office of 

the Secretary, Santa Fe, NM.

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 2.1. C. 

Rustay and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

North Fork Eagle Creek Special Use Authorization Project Scoping Outcome Summary. 2011. 

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest. 

Patterson, Robert. 1971. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Roswell, NM.

Ross, John S. 1970. North Fork Eagle Creek Stream Survey Report. U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln 

National Forest.

Salas, Danney. 2006. Lincoln National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessment Update. 

Stokes, Marcie R. 1997. Biological Assessment and Evaluation; Eagle Creek Wells and Pipeline 

Permit Reissuance. Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, NM. 

University of Idaho. 2007. Stream Ecosystem Response to Wildfire. US Forest Service Joint 

Venture Agreement No. 02-JV-11222014-196 with Univ. of Idaho. Project no. FKK493. 

Boise, ID. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment of Five 

Forest Plans. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, New Mexico, Lincoln 

National Forest. Alamogordo, NM. 

246 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
References Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BA/E), Ruidoso Water 

System. Smokey Bear R.D., Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico

USDA Forest Service. 2007. GIS Spatial Dataset Shapefile: Water Points within the Lincoln 

National Forest. January 1, 2007. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Burn Area Emergency Area Response Team (BAER) White Paper. 

Smokey Bear R.D., Lincoln National Forest, Ruidoso, New Mexico. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Little Bear Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Wildlife, Fish, 

and Rare Plants Report. Parsons, Zachary D. and Larry Cordova. Lincoln National 

Forest, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln County, New Mexico. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Listed and Sensitive Species in Lincoln County 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln) – 

Accessed March 2012. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Changes to New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species 

Lists (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_Changes.cfm). Accessed 

March 2012. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Listed and Sensitive Species in Lincoln County Species 

Update, (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_view.cfm?spcnty=Lincoln) 

– Accessed July 2014. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Changes to New Mexico Listed and Sensitive Species 

Lists 

https://ecos.fws.gov/tails/extMod/ipacGetActivity!processSpListRequest.action?activityI

d=23603 Accessed July 2014. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service. 2008. MOU to Promote the 

Conservation of Migratory Birds; FS Agreement 08-MOU-1113-2400-264. 

Village of Ruidoso Annual Operating Plan for Wells Used on National Forest System Lands. May 

2008. 

Ward, J. P., Jr. and W. M. Block. 1995. Mexican spotted owl prey ecology. Chapter 5 (48 pp) in: 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), Volume II. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, NM. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ES/MSO_RecoveryPlan_Downloads.html 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 247
References Cited

This page intentionally left blank

248 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

Responses to Scoping 

Contact

(Letter No.)

Last Name First Name Organization

1, 2, 13, 14, 47, 

60, 69, 99, 101

Midkiff Bill Eagle Creek Conservation Association

3, 41 Sugarman Steve Attorney, Eagle Creek Conservation 

Association

4 No name 

given

Pew Trusts

5 Kennedy John

6 Ibarra Tomas

7 Rodgers Jimmy

8 Rosky Ivonne

9 Bryant Dan Attorney, Village of Ruidoso 

10 Peery Roger

11, 59 Hutchens Terrell Eagle Creek Summer Home Association

12 Loera Javier Ysleta del sur Pueblo

15 Medlock Justin

16 Rehfeld Debbie

17 Maue Lisa

18 Taylor Clark

19 Tam Joseph

20 Foster Ron

21 Hardeman Ron

22 Hill Larry and Dorothy

23 Adamy Earl Alto Lakes Water and Sanitation District

24, 27 McMaster Terry (8 others 

signed onto this 

letter)

25 Roybal Julie New Mexico Environment Department

26 Elliott Criss

28 Potter Frank

29 Hamilton Stacy 

30 Carpenter Clark

31 Loddy Rushie

32, 42, 52, 100, 

102a

Alborn 

Lee

Jones

Ray

Debbie

Alvin

Village of Ruidoso

Village of Ruidoso

Attorney, Village of Ruidoso

33, 53, 57 Rice Steve

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 249
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

Contact

(Letter No.)

Last Name First Name Organization

34 Sarber Mrs. Greg

35 Hoyle Anita and Lynn

36 Sedillo Eileen (3 other 

board members 

signed this letter)

County of Lincoln

37 Sawinski B. 

38 Davenport Martin

39 Mussers Larry and Barbara

40 Pearce Stevan Member of Congress, 2nd District, NM

43 Brunells Bert 

44 Pippen Bill

45 Richardson Donda

46 Ruddle Rick

48 Arrowsmith Janet

49 Brown Dixie

50 Karn William

51 No name 

provided

Upper Hondo Soil and Water 

Conservation District

54 Davis, Jr. Lloyd

55 Sayner Franklin

56 Galaska Henry and Rita

58 Johns John Prudent Associates

61 Cassels Kelly Attorney, SBCandW law 

62 Murphy Bob and Lorraine

63 Hulme Phyllis and Bernie

64 Hiser Tom and Eloise 

65 Salas Rafael R.

66 Salues James and Amy

67 Myers Frank and Kathe

68 Mauldin Michael and Victoria

69 Mayfied Marlene

70 Smith Janet

71 Townsend John and Theresa

72 Yankee William and Dot

73 Hoats Dennis

74 Plymale Allen and Linda

250 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

Contact

(Letter No.)

Last Name First Name Organization

75 McCullough Harold

76 Newsom Glenda and Charlie

77 Rivers The

78 Roberson Max and Marilyn

79 Hancock Flloyd and Joe Alice

80 Mimoso Nancy and JE 

81 Beaty Brett (8 others 

signed this letter)

82 Calhoun Roland and Sydney

83 Sawyer Mary

84 Wittenger Bernie 

85 Buckley Verna 

86 Kirkman Sue 

87 Lutrell Johnnie and Tom

88 St. John Don

89 Barnett

90 Enlol Terrie 

91 Swier EV 

92 Kinyon Bill

93 Perry Kenneth

94 Hickman Fred and Betty

95 Johnson Bob 

96 Borthomyger Richard A

97 Beyer Lucy P

98 Montgomery Weldon

a – Letter 102 came from Alvin Jones, Henninghausen & Olsen, LLP, attorney for the Village of Ruidoso and enclosed 

comments from Roger Peery (John Shomaker and Associates hydrogeologist) and Jackie D. Atkins, P. E. (Atkins 

Engineering and Associates).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 251
Appendix A – Public Scoping Results

This page intentionally left blank

252 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle 

Creek Photos

Figure B 1. Eagle Creek Gage (November 2010)

Figure B 2. North Fork Gage (November 2010)

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 253
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 3. South Fork Gage (November 2010)

Figure B 4. North Fork Eagle Creek (during wet spring of 2008)

254 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 5. North Fork Eagle Creek along road (November 2010)

Figure B 6. Eagle Creek near Eagle Creek gage – dry conditions versus wet conditions 

(courtesy of USGS: left picture was taken by Nathan Myers on May 30, 2006, and right 

picture was taken by Nathan Myers on September 28, 2006).

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 255
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 7. Confluence of South Fork and North Eagle Creek (November 2010)

Figure B 8. North Fork Eagle Creek lower end (November 2010)

256 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 9. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream of the North Fork wells (Nov 2010)

Figure B 10. North Fork Eagle Creek upstream from the North Fork wells (Nov 2010)

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 257
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 11. Eagle Creek diversion dam downstream of Eagle Creek gage (Nov 2010)

Figure B 12. Eagle Creek downstream of diversion dam (November 2010)

258 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 13. Eagle Creek downstream of Alto Lake (November 2010)

Figure B 14. North Fork Well 3 (August 2011) 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 259
Appendix B - North Fork, South Fork and Eagle Creek Photos

Figure B 15. North Fork Well 4 (November 2010)

Figure B 16. North Fork Well 1 (November 2010)

260 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments 

Received Since 2012 DEIS

Introduction 

We (USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) released the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells 

Special Use Authorization Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on May 25, 

2012. The notification of its availability for public comment was published in the Federal 

Register, a legal notice was published in the Ruidoso News, and email and letter notifications 

were distributed to all those on the project mailing list. Comments were requested by July 9, 

2012. We received several requests for extensions to the comment period and Forest Supervisor 

Trujillo granted an additional 60-day extension, requesting all comments be submitted no later 

than September 9, 2012. 

The Little Bear Fire started on June 4, 2012 and encompassed approximately 98 percent of the 

project area. Because of the substantial impact this wildfire had on the project area analyzed in 

the DEIS, Forest Supervisor Trujillo decided to stop the comment period on the DEIS and begin 

the process to prepare a supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) that would address the changed conditions 

in the project area. This was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012. While we 

discontinued the formal comment period on the DEIS, we did invite any comments on the 

changed conditions in the project area by September 7, 2012. 

This document includes a summary of the comments that were received and how they are being 

used in preparation of the Supplemental Information Report and the SDEIS. 

We also received comments from primary stakeholders in 2014 while developing this SDEIS and 

these comments are summarized here as well. 

DEIS Commenters 

The following table includes all comments (email, letters, or phone calls) that were either 

received on the DEIS before the suspension of the comment period, or on the request for 

information on changed conditions due to the Little Bear Fire, or during subsequent stakeholder 

coordination efforts in 2014 while preparing this SDEIS. 

Table C 1. Listing of comments that were received on the DEIS or on the request for 

information on changed conditions in the North Fork Eagle Creek Project Area

Number Date Name Affiliation Type 

1 June 1, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Request for comment 

period extension

2 June 12, 2012 Todd Willens, Chief of 

Staff

Congressman Stevan 

Pearce 

Request for comment 

period extension

3 June 13, 2012 Steven Sugarman, 

Attorney

Eagle Creek 

Conservation 

Association 

Request for comment 

period extension

4 June 20, 2013 Alan Cuddy, Hydrology 

Bureau

Office of the State 

Engineer

Information Request

5 June 22, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 261
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

Number Date Name Affiliation Type 

6 June 25, 2012 Ann Marie Matherne United States 

Geological Survey

Phone call record – 

monitoring well 

vandalized 

7 July 2, 2012 Deborah Rehfeld DEIS comment 

8 July 3, 2012 Scott Verhines, New 

Mexico State Engineer 

Office of the State 

Engineer

Request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation

9 July 4, 2012 Jean Public DEIS comments 

10 July 5, 2012 Rhonda Smith, Chief, 

Office of Planning and 

Compliance

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

DEIS comments

11 July 9, 2012 Ray Alborn, Mayor Village of Ruidoso Supporting information 

(Daniel B. Stephans 

and Associates, Inc) 

submitted - request for 

supplemental DEIS 

preparation

12 July 12, 2012 Meeting between Lincoln 

NF and Eagle Creek 

Conservation Association 

members

Meeting notes DEIS comments and 

project status update 

13 August 29, 

2012

Jackie D. Atkins, PE, 

Atkins Engineering 

Consultant for Village 

of Ruidoso

Comments on Changed 

Conditions

14 August 30, 

2012

Don Stockstill, President 

and others

Eagle Creek 

Conservation 

Association 

DEIS comments 

15 September 4, 

2012

Stephan Spencer, 

Regional Environmental 

Officer

USDI Office of 

Environmental Policy 

and Compliance

DEIS review – no 

comments

16 September 6, 

2012

Paul Cassidy, Aquatic 

Consultants, Inc. 

Consultants for the 

Village of Ruidoso

Comments on changed 

conditions 

17 September 6, 

2012

Roger Peery, John 

Shomaker & Associates, 

Inc. 

Consultants for the 

Village of Ruidoso

Comments on changed 

conditions (also 

includes review of the 

WHAT modeling 

technique)

18 September 17, 

2012

Steven Sugarman, 

Attorney 

Attorney for Eagle 

Creek Conservation 

Association 

Comments from 

Balleau Groundwater, 

Inc. (consultants to 

Eagle Creek 

Conservation 

Association) on DEIS 

and on changed 

conditions 

19 September 12, 

2012

Alvin Jones, Attorney Attorney for Village of 

Ruidoso

Comments from 

Parametrix, Inc. 

(consultants to Village 

of Ruidoso) on DEIS 

and changed conditions

262 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

Comments Received in 2014 

We received input from Balleau Groundwater, Inc. in May and June 2014; Village of Ruidoso 

(with attached written comments from Alvin Jones, Atkins Engineering Associates, and John 

Shomaker and Associates, Inc.) in June 2014; and U.S. Geological Survey in June 2014 in 

relation to the preparation of the SDEIS. These comments were shared with the Interdisciplinary 

Team, discussed at an Interdisciplinary Team meeting on July 30, and considered while preparing 

this document. 

Comment Consideration

We reviewed each comment letter and categorized them into subjects, highlighting the overall key 

concern, issue or suggestion made, as shown below. We paid particular attention to those 

comments that suggested new alternatives or provided specific comments on the existing range of 

alternatives presented in the DEIS. We provided all original letters to all members of the 

interdisciplinary team so each resource specialist could review comments related to their

particular analysis and use them in preparation of their revised analyses for the supplemental 

DEIS. Each specialist paid particular attention to comments on changed conditions so these could 

be used in preparation of revised existing condition analyses in the project area following the 

wildfire. 

Because we will be providing the supplemental DEIS to all stakeholders and those on our project 

mailing list (including all those listed here who commented on the DEIS or provided comments 

on changed conditions), we did not go through the detailed process of coding each of these 19 

letters to identify each individual comment/concern with a detailed response. We will however, 

use this more structured and detailed process following the comment period on the SDEIS and 

prior to preparation of the Final EIS and the draft Record of Decision. 

Comment Summary 

Comments on the DEIS

Background

1. Acknowledge that the Eagle Creek gage used to be located approximately 360 feet 

downstream from its present location and this has an impact on the pre- and post-pumping 

comparisons on streamflow. 

Purpose and Need

1. The SDEIS should include a revised purpose and need for action; the existing one is not 

sufficiently defined to determine the degree to which any of the alternatives would meet it. 

The SDEIS should include a valid and sufficient case for the proposed action, since the 

existing DEIS does not do this. 

2. The management objectives should be reconsidered. The first objective, “Recognizing the 

importance of the well field to municipal water supply by providing water to the 

applicant...”, is flawed, subjective, and carried greater weight during the analysis than the 

second objective, “minimizing impacts of groundwater drawdown...and protecting water 

dependent ecosystems.” 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 263
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

3. The need statement related to the contribution of the North Fork wells to municipal water 

supply is overstated. 

Alternatives and Adaptive Management Strategies

1. The SDEIS must include a presentation of effects as a difference from the baseline involving 

no continued pumping. The baseline used (current condition following 25 years of pumping) 

is not valid. 

2. The SDEIS should acknowledge that the proposed alternative 3 would severely reduce 

streamflow and lower groundwater. It is misleading to state otherwise. It does not contain an 

effective adaptive management strategy. 

3. Alternative 3 should not be selected; it will not result in improved flow. 

4. Eagle Creek gage data should not be used in any adaptive management strategy. 

5. Provide scientific credibility for use of average depth to water as a trigger and that this results 

in a cone of depression from pumping. 

6. Consider clear the land through thinning to help improve the water table. 

7. Consider that the proposed action did not line up with specialist reports and scientific 

evidence with some evidence being dismissed. 

8. Consider our previous comments on the threshold triggers under the adaptive management 

strategy – these comments were dismissed by the ID team without rigorous review and 

without scientific basis. 

9. The SDEIS should not characterize the continuation of current well pumping as a ‘no action’ 

alternative; this is not legally a no-action alternative and distorts the analysis. 

10. The SDEIS should not include use of the Eagle Creek gauge as a proxy for North Fork flows. 

This is a flawed assumption since this gauge reflects flow in the North and South Forks. 

11. The SDEIS should consider in detail alternatives on non-Forest Service land and outside the 

North Fork watershed. 

12. The SDEIS should include a revised adaptive management strategy that monitors bedrock 

saturation (not depth to groundwater) and ensures a more immediate response time between a 

discontinuation of pumping and amelioration of the adverse impacts associated with 

pumping. 

13. The SDEIS should include a revised adaptive management approach that is based on the 

model provided to the Forest Service that quantifies the relationship between pumping and 

streamflow.

14. The SDEIS should be based on the results of the aquifer tests described in the adaptive 

management strategy so that the results can be used in modeling the permeability of the 

alluvial underflow. The deeper zone bedrock aquifer tests called for by Forest Service are less 

pertinent. 

15. The Forest Service should solicit the comments from the U.S. Geological Survey on the 

adaptive management strategy, particularly the use of the 300 acre-feet per year threshold. 

There can be no confidence that 300 acre-feet per year is stable or sustainable by simple 

comparison to recharge amounts.

264 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

16. The preferred Alternative 3 from the DEIS was flawed for a number of reasons including the 

fact that the adverse impacts on surface and groundwater resources that resulted from 

increased vegetation density in the North and South Forks of Eagle Creek were not 

considered. The DEIS and supporting documents wrongly assumed that all adverse impacts to 

surfacewater flow were the result of the applicant's pumping.

17. The alternatives must also consider future USDA Forest Service actions needed to keep the 

forest watershed healthy by managing vegetation density and fuels that will in tum maintain 

favorable supplies of water.

18. Discard adaptive management and propose a modeled level of impact acceptable to Forest 

Service.

19. Remove trigger 1 since it would establish a minimum instream flow which the USDA Forest 

Service has no authority to do in New Mexico. 

20. Remove or change trigger 3 related to riparian vegetation. Reductions in pumping have been 

shown to have no effect on alluvial water levels. 

21. The SDEIS should consider stream augmentation (at least a pilot program as part of the 

Special Use Permit) and correct errors in the discussion of the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit process in chapter 2. 

22. The SDEIS should remove the discussion of added storage capacity since it was done 

incorrectly. 

23. Remove reference to Monitoring Wells MW4-B and C. This is the well that was vandalized. 

Both well casings were filled with gravel and fence posts. Some efforts were made to recover 

the wells, but this wasn't successful, so these wells are no longer operational.

24. The SDEIS should consider in detail the Eagle Creek Conservation Association-suggested 

alternative that allows the Village of Ruidoso to operate the North Fork pumps when the 

bedrock in the streambed is fully saturated:

• Install new gage on North Fork Eagle Creek above the confluence with South Fork Eagle 

Creek

• Install electronic monitoring switches on pumps and gages 

• Establish a minimum instream flow (we suggest 1.2 cubic feet per second based on the 

U.S. Geological Survey study) 

◦ When flows are below the minimum instream flow measured at the new gage, stop 

pumping (the switches on the pumps will automatically shut off) 

◦ When flow is greater than the minimum instream flow, continue pumping 

• Add storage capacity to the system so that more water can be pumped and stored during 

high flows 

• Authorize for a 10-year permit term with options for renewal 

25. The SDEIS should include an analysis of this alternative: 

• Allow the Village of Ruidoso to pump up to 70 percent of the annual quantity of 

groundwater recharge that will occur post-wildfire. The calculation of groundwater 

recharge must not be performed using the chloride mass-balance method, nor be based on 

the hydrophobic soil conditions that will exist for the several years. This is essentially the 

same percentage of recharge that the USDA Forest Service selected for its preferred 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 265
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

Alternate 3 using the low-end recharge value calculated using the chloride mass-balance 

method as previous described. 

• Monitoring would include streamflow, groundwater levels, surface-water quality, and 

riparian vegetation as provided below. 

• Monitor groundwater levels in North Fork monitoring wells MW-1A, MW-1B, MW-1C, 

MW-3A, and MW-5A, and North Fork production wells H-1979 (North Fork 1), H-1981 

(North Fork 3), and H-1982 (North Fork 4). Modifications will need to be made to North 

Fork production wells to allow water levels to be collected. 

◦ Monitoring frequency: hourly 

◦ Reporting frequency: quarterly 

• Monitor streamflow at North Fork Eagle Creek gage (08387550), South Fork Eagle 

Creek gage (08387575), and Eagle Creek below South Fork (08387600).

◦ Monitoring frequency: real time data as currently performed by U.S. Geological 

Survey

◦ Reporting frequency: as currently provided on U.S. Geological Survey website

• Monitor surface-water quality above and below the cabins upstream of the North Fork 

Well field. 

◦ Monitoring frequency: annually 

◦ Reporting frequency: annually 

• Monitor riparian vegetation survey in the historically intermittent reach below the cabins.

◦ Monitoring frequency: every 5 years

◦ Reporting frequency: every 5 years

Analysis 

General

1. Too many assumptions and much of the analyses were based on qualitative evidence and 

opinions rather than quantitative scientific evidence. Modeling should be used to predict 

impact of alternatives. 

2. The SDEIS should include larger project areas for both direct and indirect impacts and 

cumulative impacts. Those identified in the DEIS are too small and incorrectly drawn to 

account for where effects would be noticed. The cumulative effects study area must be 

revised to extend much farther east, at least to Picacho and Snowy River Cave BLM land, 

than shown on DEIS Figure 4. 

3. The SDEIS must be based on the best available scientific data and all available credible 

science. 

4. The EIS should be revised to follow the guidance of the best modern science and to become 

more quantitative by using a model simulation acceptable to Forest Service as recommended 

by U.S. Geological Survey and directed in the Forest Service Manual. 

5. A proper impact analysis must isolate the action effects from the baseline of “no action 

conditions”. Climate change is not part of the impacts of the Forest Service action, and should 

not be presented in the section on environmental consequences of “action” effects. 

266 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

6. The SDEIS should not include any conclusions drawn from the effects of future climate 

changes related to pumping and riparian vegetation; they are not well understood. 

7. Remove discussion of climate change as a consequence of each alternative, and put a 

discussion in the baseline description of future conditions unaltered by Forest Service action. 

State the allowance in changed aquifer water levels and stream flow that will be acceptable to 

Forest Service for this special use.

8. Follow CFR and FSM on treatment of incomplete and unavailable information including 

evidence that contraindicates the proposed action. 

Hydrology

1. Acknowledge that bedrock is dry due to the cone of depression. 

2. Acknowledge that the North Fork Eagle Creek remains dry most of the time and that it is the 

only dry stream in Lincoln County, most of the time. 

3. Provide for the protection of water sources for wildlife. 

4. Correlate depth to water in National Forest System lands wells with the day of no flow in 

North Fork Eagle Creek. 

5. Quantify available stream flow for use by the Village of Ruidoso. 

6. Acknowledge the requirement for saturated bedrock as a prerequisite for surface flow. 

7. Acknowledge that absence of flow in North Fork Eagle Creek results in no contribution to the 

flow measured at the Eagle Creek gage. 

8. Complete additional hydrologic analyses including calculating “dry days” for the last 10 

years (this information is documented but not previously reported) and if possible, 

determined how long artesian flows last. 

9. The SDEIS should include revised Tables 2 and 11 with added columns showing the net 

change in available water among the alternatives. Available models have better numbers and 

quantify the transition from aquifer storage to stream depletion sources supplying the well 

field. 

10. The SDEIS should include updated references to the most current version of the U.S. 

Geological Survey report. The DEIS must be revised to cite the correct U.S. Geological 

Survey report version. Any climate-change findings that depend on that out-of-date version 

must be reconsidered and rewritten. 

11. The SDEIS should be based on controlled testing, quantitative modeling and priority analysis, 

as required by Forest Service Manual Guidance. Modeling results are available and should be 

used. 

12. The SDEIS should include a revised Figure 4 showing the greater extent of modeled 

groundwater drawdown; the existing figure is not based on all data and modeling provided to 

the Forest Service by Balleau Groundwater, Inc. 

13. The SDEIS should contain actual historic flow data for North Fork and available modeling 

data. It should be based on efforts to characterize actual flow in the North Fork, a central 

issue in the settlement agreement. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 267
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

14. The SDEIS should not focus exclusively on the upstream direct impacts of the proposed 

project and should address the direct impacts downstream, as required in the settlement 

agreement.

15. The SDEIS should not conclude that the cone of depression caused by pumping has anything 

to do with the lack of riparian species recruitment; there may be a number of reasons 

unrelated to pumping.

16. The historic and current condition of the South Fork of Eagle Creek is also important to 

consider because surface-water flow was perennial in 1963 (U.S. Geological Survey 1963), 

but was not during the time the DEIS was being prepared. 

17. The failure to assess the adverse impacts on watershed basin yield from increased vegetation 

in the North and South Fork Eagle Creek watersheds was arbitrary, and unfortunately led U.S. 

Geological Survey to develop alternative 3 of the DEIS, which was based on the premise that 

the watershed remains static, with the exception of pumping from the Village of Ruidoso’s

wells. 

18. Use of the Web GIS-Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool (WHAT) model as part of the 

hydraulic analysis for the DEIS was inappropriate.

19. The watershed conditions as classified by the USDA Forest Service "Watershed Condition 

Framework" and as included in the DEIS are no longer valid as a result of the Little Bear 

Fire. In fact, the watershed was impaired prior to the development of the DEIS as a result of 

the USDA Forest Service fire exclusion policy and the USDA Forest Service exclusion of 

thinning or timber harvesting projects. 

20. Calculations of pumping drawdown from the applicant's wells and impacts on springs and 

seeps must be updated to include changes in the watershed basin yield. Drawdown impacts 

will ultimately be reduced as a result of increased basin yield (surface-water flow and 

groundwater recharge). 

21. For the Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS, any model used to simulate effects 

from pumping the Village of Ruidoso's wells must developed to address the inadequacies of 

the existing Balleau model (2004) as identified by AECOM (2011). Additionally, a new 

model must take into account dynamic recharge to the groundwater system including leakage 

from the ephemeral channel of the North Fork of Eagle Creek to the well field area, and 

increased surface-water flows and increased recharge that will occur as a result of the Little 

Bear Fire. This modeling can be readily accomplished using the MODFLOW code that is 

readily available and commonly used by hydrologists and hydro geologists. 

22. The trade-off of reduced diversions from North Fork wells and increased diversions from 

Eagle Creek surface water should be recognized.

23. Use a quantitative model to evaluate hydrologic conditions and changes in terms of projected 

volumes and rates due to the special use authorization. Discard the discussion of subjective 

qualitative effects.

24. Describe quantitatively the projected effects on downstream well and surface water rights due 

to the special use authorization.

25. Complete the field tests of alluvial aquifer permeability as a basis for quantifying flow to be 

routed via that material, expected to be a minor fraction of 1.2 cubic feet per second. 

268 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

26. Discard the discredited idea that pumping a certain fraction of basin recharge is a “safe 

starting-point” in terms of drawdown and stream depletion. 

27. Correct erroneous numbers on diversions, worst case scenarios, commitment of resources, 

and misstatements of the content of Balleau Groundwater references.

28. Remove reliance of the Balleau-modeled draw down contour for determining which springs 

and seeps may be affected 

Wildlife and Aquatic Habitats

1. The SDEIS should acknowledge our specific review comments on the aquatic habitat section 

and the biological analysis (Letter 16, Aquatic Consultants, Inc.). Monitoring parameters on 

post wildfire perennial systems in the southwest (e.g., precipitation, stream profile, runoff, 

suspended sediment, water temperature, and pH) are long term in nature (up to ten years), and 

typically compiled to determined when systems can be re-populated. Aquatic Consultants, 

Inc. believes that these parameters can only be applied to perennial stream systems and any 

management triggers associated with the SDEIS should only be applied to perennial waters as 

intermittent waters are not viable fisheries.

2. Omit fish from the list of significant issues since pre-pumping conditions would not support 

fish due to the intermittent nature of the stream. 

Riparian 

1. The SDEIS should not be based on the assumption that pumping at current levels will result 

in a reduction of vegetation cover and species diversity; there is no evidence to support this. 

The existing record of pumping over the last 25 years has demonstrated conclusively that 

current pumping levels have not adversely affected riparian vegetation in the project area.

2. The SDEIS should not be based on any connections between riparian vegetation and pumping 

from the well field until this connection is firmly established. This can only be done with a 

multi-year survey that establishes baseline conditions of the riparian habitat in the project 

area, but also demonstrates measurable trends in vegetation density and diversity that 

correlate to annual pumping volumes.

3. The USDA Forest Service was asked to address the rooting depths of riparian vegetation 

adjacent to the intermittent and perennially portions of the North Fork Eagle Creek, 

vegetation need and timing for soil moisture, minimum groundwater depth for plant survival, 

and any other specific requirements needed for the survival of the riparian vegetation along 

the stream channel. The Supplemental Information Report and the SDEIS need to include all 

of the aforementioned specific requirements needed for riparian vegetation. Presumably the 

USDA Forest Service would have a qualified expert to provide this information. The 

Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS should note that after more than 20 years of 

pumping from the applicant's North Fork Eagle Creek wells that no adverse impacts to 

riparian vegetation were documented. 

Socioeconomics & Water Rights

1. The SDEIS water rights analysis should be expanded to the area of cumulative impact seen in 

approved models in terms of drawdown contours and stream depletion, at least to the stream 

reach of plaintiff’s diversions at Picacho. A priority analysis of impacts on all senior water 

users, plus effects on the Pecos River Compact, due to Forest Service authorizing access to 

the conditional junior-most right on the Rio Hondo must be included. 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 269
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

2. The SDEIS must address the impacts on the Gerald Ford and Eagle Creek Conservation 

Association concerns about comprehensive rights. 

3. The SDEIS should not understate the significance of adverse environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts and overstate the impacts on water supply and only selectively uses 

credible science. 

4. The SDEIS needs to evaluate effects to environmental resources as well as senior water rights 

holders, and make distinctions between junior and senior water rights holders. This should be 

abdicated to the Office of the State Engineer. 

5. The SDEIS should consider impacts to irrigation water supply.

6. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must evaluate existing water rights and 

existing wells in more detail if the SDEIS intends to continue to address potential impacts 

from the applicant's wells in the cumulative impacts area outside of National Forest System

lands. As previously mentioned by John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. and the applicant to 

the USDA Forest Service, most of these data are readily available at the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer website http://www.ose.state.nm.us/. 

7. The SDEIS should correct errors in the reported current water right for the Village of 

Ruidoso. 

8. The Forest Service, through the SDEIS should not establish a minimum instream flow 

because this is under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico State Engineer. 

9. The SDEIS should not include an analysis of impacts to domestic wells since no data have 

been assembled or correlated, they are junior water rights holders. 

10. The SDEIS should remove reference to streamside recreational use as a significant issue. 

Comments on Changed Conditions

Resource Analysis

1. The Little Bear Fire has clearly altered the surface hydrology of the North Fork Eagle Creek 

basin, and to the extent surface hydrology is connected to groundwater hydrology, also 

altered the groundwater hydrology. 

2. The effects of the Little Bear Fire are likely to further complicate the natural hydrological 

processes in the North Fork Eagle Creek basin, and therefore, further diminish the validity 

and usefulness of the DEIS. 

3. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will make it nearly impossible to interpret the cause of 

near-term effects to riparian vegetation in the project area if changes are made to pumping 

levels during the next five to ten years. This is particularly true since no other sufficiently 

similar riparian habitats were found in the region to use as a reference or control.

4. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will result in reduced actual evapotranspiration from moist 

soil and from the riparian shallow water table. An increase in basin yield via surface runoff 

and water-table recharge is expected for the period until vegetation recovers to 

evapotranspiration levels associated with normal canopy volume. 

5. The effects of the Little Bear Fire will include an increase in burn-associated ash and 

sediment that can affect surface diversions and reservoirs. Fire effects on the applicant, 

270 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

however, are relatively short-term and are not a suitable basis for deciding on this long-term 

special use authorization. 

6. Adverse impacts the wildfire has had on the applicant's ability to use its surface water and 

groundwater. The applicant's ability to exercise its surface-water rights has been adversely 

impacted as a result of the wildfire and the applicant must rely more heavily on its 

groundwater wells, both on and off National Forest System lands, to meet the demands of the 

community. These alternatives must account for the changes that will continue to occur in the 

watershed as the watershed begins to stabilize.

7. The Little Bear Fire destroyed a significant amount of the vegetation in the North and South 

Fork watersheds of Eagle Creek. 

8. It is well documented that surface-water runoff and soil erosion dramatically increase after a 

wildfire such as the Little Bear Fire (DeBano et al., 1998; USDA, March 2003; USDA, 2005; 

Tillery et al., 2011; USDA Forest Service, 2012; Moody and Martin, 2004). USDA Forest 

Service BAER Team (2012) estimates a surface-water increase of 128 percent for the upper 

portion of the North Fork of Eagle Creek, and a 70- to 80-percent increase in runoff near the 

Eagle Lakes on the South Fork of Eagle Creek assuming only a 25-year 1-hour storm event. 

Runoff estimates in the lower portions of the watersheds below these points were not 

provided by the BAER Team (USDA Forest Service 2012).

9. Surface-water quality has been impaired due to the production of large quantities of ash and 

sediment (USDA Forest Service, 2012), and other constituents. The BAER Team report 

(USDA Forest Service, 2012) estimated a pre-wildfire soil erosion rate of 1 ton per acre and 

that the post-wildfire soil erosion will be up to 97 tons per acre.

10. The BAER Team (USDA Forest Service, 2012) indicates that geologic conditions within the 

burned area have already experienced changes. Changes identified (USDA Forest Service, 

2012) include "gravitational slumping, soil movement, rock falls, and debris/mud flows." The 

BAER Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) also indicates that many areas are in 

jeopardy of mass wasting as indicated below. Areas within the North and South Forks of 

Eagle Creek are within the "cited areas" mentioned below.

11. The BAER Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) indicates significant risks are expected 

to riparian habitat including vegetation and channel morphology. The report also indicates 

that warming of the surface waters as a result of the loss of shade along the creek will have 

adverse "impacts to or loss of aquatic habitat for fish and macro-invertebrates."

12. The BAER Team report (USDA Forest Service, 2012) also indicates that there may be 

adverse impacts to wildlife, fish, and the habitat which the Threatened (Mexican Spotted 

Owl) and Sensitive (Northern goshawk and bald eagle) species rely upon. 

13. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must consider the effects of the fire on 

springs and seeps. 

14. The cumulative effects from pumping the applicant's North Fork Well field are clearly 

masked by the cumulative effects of the Little Bear Fire. The Supplemental Information 

Report and SDEIS should acknowledge this fact and clearly define the cumulative effects of 

the fire on the North and South Fork watersheds and downstream users so that the effects 

from the wildfire can be analyzed separately from the applicant's pumping. The cumulative 

effects analysis should clearly document the wildfire impacts on the applicant's surface and 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 271
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

groundwater supplies in the Eagle Creek basin and the adverse impacts on the applicant's 

right to put its surface and groundwater rights to beneficial use. 

15. Aquatic Consultants, Inc. would suspect that the brook trout population has been eradicated, 

or will be shortly, in the creek due mainly to the ash, sediment loads, and debris torrents from 

post fire flood events. Based on Aquatic Consultants, Inc. study of post fire effects to fish and 

fish habitats in New Mexico, we believe that the majority of these same effects will be 

experienced in the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

16. The monthly calibrated Balleau Groundwater model remains available for use as offered in 

2011. It is suitable for simulating watershed burn scenario

17. The water resource analysis should be updated since accessible available quantities of water 

changed. 

• Estimated duration of no flow conditions at Eagle Creek Gage changed. 

• Estimated occurrence of flows equal to or greater than 1.2 cubic feet per second at Eagle 

Creek Gage changed.

• Water quality based on temperature: Anticipated occurrence of periods when midday 

streamflow temperatures during May-October would exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit at the 

Eagle Creek Gage would change. 

• Impacts (if any) to springs, seeps and domestic wells based on drawdown would change. 

• Cumulative effects within the cumulative impact area would change.

18. The aquatic habitat and fish analysis should be updated since increased basin yield and 

recharge would result in changes in drawdown and less adverse effects to the water table and 

to streamflow conditions, resulting in less impact on aquatic habitat and fish. 

19. The riparian vegetation analysis should be updated since increased streamflow as a result of 

increased basin yield would result in fewer impacts to riparian vegetation along the stream 

corridor. 

20. The socioeconomics analysis should be updated because municipal diversions could possibly 

be substantially increased as a result of increased basin yield. The section of the EIS 

predicting future municipal water diversions availability based on the past streamflow gage 

data would be completely out of date and not applicable. 

21. The water right analysis should be updated. Due to increased basin yield the Village of 

Ruidoso should be able to divert more municipal water for beneficial use. The increase in 

basin yield and increase in recharge is not predictable from the past Eagle Creek Gage data 

due to the changed evapotranspiration rates and could not be finally determined until the 

North Fork of Eagle Creek drainage area conditions stabilized after a number of years.

22. Due to the dynamic and changing nature of the basin yield, recharge and stream runoff and 

base flow conditions during the initial unstable condition in the North Fork drainage area, no 

realistic predictions can be made until the drainage area becomes somewhat stable. The time 

frame for evaluation of the changed water resources conditions necessary for the 

supplemental DEIS would need to extend into the final more stable conditions of basin yield 

and recharge/discharge conditions for the North Fork of Eagle Creek drainage area. 

Therefore, all of the other contemplated re-analysis of resources reports would also need to 

wait until the water resources report update in the future. 

272 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

Purpose and Need & Alternatives

1. Given the changes in the watershed, the USDA Forest Service should eliminate existing 

Alternative 3 and develop new alternatives. As will be explained in more detail below, the 

management triggers (monitoring indicators) developed by the USDA Forest Service as part 

of Alternative 3 that would be used to limit pumping from the Village's North Fork well field

are no longer applicable.

2. Nearly all aspects of the current DEIS need to be updated because of fire-related damage to 

the watershed.

3. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS must consider post-wildfire changes to 

streamflow quantity, and the fact that streamflow will continue to change as vegetation is reestablished in the watershed. Changes in the streamflow will include initial quick peak flow 

responses to precipitation events (including flash flooding) with little baseflow for a period of 

time following the wildfire, and in fact, this has already occurred. The Supplemental 

Information Report and SDEIS must consider streamflow changes over time as the watershed 

begins to stabilize. Any alternative that uses minimum streamflow conditions as management 

triggers as a rationale to reduce the applicant's pumping are not appropriate until such time 

that watershed conditions stabilize and post-wildfire streamflow conditions can be evaluated.

4. The stream gauges are no longer reliable. The fact that the gages have not accurately 

represented streamflow in the Eagle Creek watershed must be taken into consideration as 

alternatives and associated management triggers are developed for the SDEIS.

5. Any comparisons to groundwater and surface-water conditions before pumping began in 

1988 are now irrelevant. This is because the watershed has been severely altered by the Little 

Bear Fire and surface-water runoff and groundwater recharge will be vastly different than 

prior to the fire. As previously mentioned, it will take years before hydraulic conditions in the 

watershed begin to stabilize. The Supplemental Information Report and SDEIS will need to 

acknowledge this fact and develop other methods for assessing current and future conditions 

as mentioned in previous sections of this letter. Any triggers related to streamflow quantity or 

groundwater depths are inappropriate at this time.

6. Surface water temperatures proposed in the Draft EIS are no longer valid and must be 

reevaluated.

7. Surface water quality has been negatively impacted by the ash and increased sediment load 

(turbidity).

8. The post-wildfire impacts to water quality, including increased water temperatures, sediment 

load, ash, and other contaminants will adversely affect their ability to survive. The SIR and 

SDEIS must address these issues. Any management triggers related to water quality and 

water temperature must be removed from the SDEIS. 

9. The purpose and need for action should be revised or changed based on the effects of the 

Little Bear Fire. 

10. Monitoring parameters on post wildfire perennial systems in the southwest (e.g., 

precipitation, stream profile, runoff, suspended sediment, water temperature, and pH) are long 

term in nature (up to ten years), and typically compiled to determined when systems can be 

re-populated. Aquatic Consultants, Inc. believes that these parameters can only be applied to

perennial stream systems and any management triggers associated with the SDEIS should 

only be applied to perennial waters as intermittent waters are not viable fisheries.

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 273
Appendix C – Summary of Public Comments Received Since 2012 DEIS

References Provided 

Harris and Lindquist 2000. Harris, Richard R. and Donna Lindquist, Riparian vegetation 

establishment and survival on Caples Creek and Kirkwood Creek, Summer, 2000, October, 2000, 

online URL: http://www.project184.org/doc_lib/documents/2011/RVRMP-FINAL.pdf

BGW groundwater flow model files, with explanations, provided to the Forest Service in 2011

USGS Report Revision History from 2010 

FSM 2540 

Multiple references cited in Comment Letter 17 (Shomaker and Associates)

New Mexico Fish and Game Department fish stocking report data

2001 – 2012 North Fork Well production records with percent of total diversion 

Revised State Engineer List of Rio Hondo-Bonito-Ruidoso Stream Surface Water Right Priorities 

(1987) 

The interdisciplinary team used all of these comment letters, cited literature, and this summary 

provided here as important information in preparing the Supplemental Information Report 

(January 2014), revising individual resource reports and preparing the SDEIS. Meetings with both 

the Village of Ruidoso and Eagle Creek Conservation Association representatives continue to 

discuss overall project status and to gather any additional data or information they may be aware 

of that would inform our analysis in the SDEIS. 

Next Steps 

Once the SDEIS is released for the 45-day public comment period (expected fall 2014) and all 

comments are received, we will conduct a thorough comment analysis process at that time, 

coding, categorizing and providing a written response to all individual comments received by the 

end of the comment period. These comments will be used in preparation of the Final EIS and the 

draft Record of Decision. We anticipate continued contact and communication with project 

stakeholders throughout this process as the SDEIS and then the subsequent FEIS are prepared. 

274 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix D – Photos of Post-Little Bear Fire 

Conditions

Figure D 1. The crossing of the North Fork of Eagle Creek near monitoring well MW-1 

looking north (August 22, 2012) 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 275
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

Figure D 2. Just south of the North Fork crossing, above the North Fork gage, looking 

southeast (August 22, 2012) 

276 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

Figure D 3. Looking southeast to the North Fork crossing upstream of the North Fork gage

(August 22, 2012) 

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 277
Appendix D – Photos of the Post-Little Bear Fire Conditions

Figure D 4. View to the northeast of the North Fork, above the North Fork gage - the view is 

of debris in an unnamed drainage (August 22, 2012) 

278 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Index

A

Adaptive management

adjustments, 32, 45

options, 14

strategy, viii, 4, 8, 25, 26, 27, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 

43, 54, 66, 133, 139, 148, 163, 195, 199, 264

triggers, vii, 4, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 43, 45, 53, 54, 

55, 57, 66, 67, 77, 133, 134, 135, 182, 183

Adjudicated water right, 12, 23, 71, 188, 190, 194, 

195 

Adjudication, 3, 52, 189, 192, 221

Alluvial, 8, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 54, 55, 

59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 88, 93, 96, 97, 98, 108, 111, 126, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 145, 146, 

148, 150, 162, 163, 200, 215, 221, 264, 265, 268

Alluvium, viii, 1, 2, 34, 49, 50, 58, 64, 65, 96, 103, 106, 

108, 110, 118, 119, 127, 130, 131, 132, 141, 145, 

146, 154, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 221

Alto Lake, viii, 81, 101, 117, 193, 218, 219, 249, 259

Annual operating plan, 1, 22, 23, 25, 38, 40, 41, 210, 

211, 212, 247

Aquatic habitat, ii, v, vi, vii, 10, 12, 13, 59, 62, 63, 77, 

91, 92, 103, 128, 131, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 

146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 159, 165, 179, 184, 

204, 213, 216, 244, 269, 271, 272

Aquifer, 2, 7, 16, 34, 39, 44, 45, 51, 55, 88, 94, 96, 97, 

99, 104, 118, 122, 132, 135, 184, 215, 217, 221, 

223, 227, 231, 235, 236, 264, 267, 268

Aquifer test, 16, 97, 215, 217, 231, 264

B

BAER (burned area emergency response), 85, 112, 

116, 117, 121, 123, 140, 198, 238, 247, 271

Base flow, 1, 2, 5, 16, 50, 97, 98, 99, 108, 132, 133, 

147, 160, 221, 272

Bedrock aquifer, 1, 49, 60, 108, 128, 129, 137, 162, 

264 

Beneficial use, 3, 12, 15, 23, 71, 72, 128, 188, 189, 

190, 192, 194, 195, 213, 221, 223, 272

Brook trout, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 

150, 272

C

Canopy cover, 6, 11, 30, 31, 36, 55, 64, 114, 151, 157, 

158, 160, 161, 207

Climate change, 10, 57, 58, 59, 64, 88, 91, 111, 124, 

127, 128, 130, 131, 136, 137, 138, 144, 147, 148, 

157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 206, 211, 212, 229, 230, 

232, 238, 266, 267

Cone of depression, 2, 31, 41, 44, 45, 46, 51, 103, 104, 

110, 127, 143, 152, 264, 267, 268

Confined aquifer, 221

Conifer density, vi, 12, 197, 201, 204

Consent order, viii, 3, 51, 72, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 

195, 235

Cultural resources, v, 13, 18, 33, 218

D

Discharge, 2, 5, 16, 18, 44, 45, 49, 111, 118, 119, 145, 

147, 149, 228, 229, 234, 237, 239, 265, 272

Domestic wells, 10, 11, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 84, 

86, 87, 91, 100, 104, 105, 127, 128, 129, 131, 136, 

137, 138, 164, 165, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 204, 270, 272

Drainage basin, 121, 129, 159

Drought, 1, 7, 28, 42, 47, 51, 94, 98, 99, 109, 111, 129, 

135, 154, 155, 157, 170, 176, 177, 192, 204, 209, 

212, 226, 227, 228, 241, 242

E

Eagle Creek gage, vii, viii, 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 27, 28, 29, 

31, 37, 41, 43, 49, 50, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, 88, 89, 90, 

93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110, 119, 126, 

128, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 146, 152, 

157, 162, 179, 182, 233, 255, 258, 263, 264, 267

Economics, 46, 216, 241

Environmental justice, 12, 68, 164, 166, 174, 175, 

177, 180, 185, 187

Evapotranspiration, 6, 10, 28, 51, 59, 63, 90, 91, 92, 

98, 113, 114, 115, 116, 122, 125, 128, 131, 137, 

150, 203, 222, 226, 229, 232, 270, 272

F

Facultative wetland species, 30, 31, 34, 36, 64, 153, 

154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 206

Fishery, v, 30, 34, 36, 44, 62, 95, 108, 139, 140, 141, 

142, 143, 216, 217, 220, 226, 232, 233, 240, 241, 

244, 245, 246, 269, 273

Fishing, vii, 11, 13, 62, 66, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 

147, 148, 149, 164, 169, 173

Forest density, 48, 195, 197, 203, 204

Fracture, 96, 97, 104

G

Gradient, 35, 55, 96

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 279
Index

Groundwater

availability, 7, 10, 12, 57, 58, 59, 63, 66, 71, 88, 94, 

128, 129, 136, 138, 146, 148, 149, 150, 159, 

165, 175, 183, 186, 187, 188, 196, 205

discharge, 5, 16, 50

drawdown, 1, i, viii, 7, 9, 52, 57, 67, 74, 88, 104, 

107, 128, 129, 131, 139, 150, 163, 176, 178, 

179, 196, 199, 205, 263, 267

flow, 1, i, 2, 7, 16, 52, 96, 103, 110, 150, 163, 215, 

274

level, 18, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 89, 92, 103, 

110, 127, 129, 131, 132, 137, 146, 148, 150, 

152, 157, 161, 162, 163, 222, 266

model, 2, 57, 89, 95, 104, 126, 127, 176, 217, 272

pumping, 2, 11, 12, 30, 39, 41, 66, 71, 101, 105, 

138, 152, 157, 188, 193

recharge, 2, 18, 28, 50, 51, 58, 60, 62, 65, 90, 93, 

116, 118, 122, 127, 128, 130, 136, 137, 145, 

149, 150, 158, 159, 162, 213, 244, 265, 268, 273

resource, 1, i, 1, 8, 15, 18, 25, 129, 133, 138, 178, 

180, 185, 213, 243, 265

storage, 2, 8, 25, 29, 223

systems, 8, 25, 96, 97, 268

withdrawal, 8, 11, 17, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 42, 43, 

67, 70, 71, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 173, 175, 

178, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 194, 199

Groundwater model, 2, 57, 89, 95, 104, 126, 127, 176, 

217, 272

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems, 18

H

Heterogeneous, 104, 201, 237

Homogeneous, 97

Hydraulic conductivity, 45, 97

Hydrogeology, 116, 215, 217, 236, 243

Hydrology, vi, 118, 152, 215, 217, 221, 226, 227, 228, 

229, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 

243, 244, 246, 261, 267, 270

I

Igneous, 198, 223

Infiltration, 6, 58, 90, 97, 99, 100, 113, 116, 118, 122, 

125, 127, 236

Intermittent, viii, 1, 5, 50, 58, 62, 65, 98, 103, 108, 

110, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 145, 146, 148, 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 161, 

162, 212, 222, 233, 240, 244, 266, 269, 273

Invasive species, 12, 73, 74, 83, 103, 195, 196, 197, 

198, 200, 201, 243, 244

Isotropic, 104, 116

K

Karst, 217

L

Little Bear Fire, 1, ii, vi, vii, viii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 21, 22, 

24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 46, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 

66, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, 

92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 

120, 121, 124, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 136,137, 

139, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 

156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 

173, 176, 177, 180, 185, 187, 194, 195, 196, 197, 

198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 219, 225, 226, 228, 232, 237, 

238, 240, 241, 242, 244, 247, 261, 268, 270, 271, 

273, 275

post-wildfire, 10, 29, 31, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 74, 76, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 115, 116, 117, 118, 

119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 

131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 145, 

146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 162, 164, 165, 167, 

173, 175, 179, 183, 184, 186, 187, 199, 202, 

208, 210, 211, 217, 265, 271, 273

pre-wildfire, 28, 29, 31, 59, 61, 63, 66, 70, 72, 74, 

76, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 

124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 138, 140, 

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 159, 161, 163, 

164, 165, 167, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 

180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 195, 

199, 200, 201, 210, 211, 271

M

Management indicator species, 12, 75, 76, 204, 205, 

206, 209, 211, 212, 246

Measurement indicators, vi, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 57, 

62, 64, 66, 71, 73, 75, 90, 91, 139, 188

Metered water use, viii, 169, 170

Mexican spotted owl, 33, 75, 76, 207, 210, 211, 212, 

245, 247, 271

Migratory birds, 12, 76, 204, 205, 208, 211, 212, 214, 

247

Municipal water supply, 1, i, 6, 7, 11, 12, 21, 23, 48, 

52, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 82, 88, 101, 132, 138, 164, 

165, 167, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 204, 213, 263, 264

N

Nonmarket value, 166

North Fork Eagle Creek

basin, 25, 30, 31, 32, 73, 81, 93, 162, 204, 270

drainage, 1, i, 3, 8, 21, 24, 35, 48, 55, 88, 129, 143, 

152, 159, 160, 163, 165, 175, 183, 186, 187, 

196, 199, 201, 204, 207

gage, 266

Northern goshawk, 33, 75, 76, 207, 208, 210, 211, 

212, 245, 271

280 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF
Index

O

Office of the State Engineer, viii, 1, 3, 23, 29, 32, 35, 

51, 52, 71, 94, 100, 129, 133, 138, 167, 177, 180, 

185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 219, 

223, 235, 241, 242, 261, 262, 270

P

Perched aquifer, 97

Perennial, viii, 1, 5, 62, 98, 108, 130, 133, 134, 140, 

143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 154, 156, 159, 222, 268, 

269, 273

Point of diversion, 23, 71, 190, 192, 194, 195, 221, 

222

Pore space, 116, 117, 157

Porosity, 222

Precipitation, 2, 8, 10, 25, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 41, 

42, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 81, 90, 91, 92, 

93, 96, 98, 99, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 115, 

117, 118, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 

133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 141, 143, 146, 148, 150, 

157, 161, 162, 163, 165, 176, 177, 199, 203, 213, 

222, 223, 230, 233, 234, 239, 269, 273

Public safety, v, 14, 34

Pumping test, 34, 55, 97, 104

Q

Quality of life, 68, 164, 169, 173, 177, 179, 185

R

Recharge, 6, 7, 10, 16, 32, 42, 50, 51, 60, 61, 90, 91, 

94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 116, 118, 122, 125, 

127, 128, 132, 133, 135, 147, 160, 223, 264, 265, 

268, 269, 270, 272

Recovery, 57, 67, 135, 136, 184

Recreation, v, vii, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 50, 66, 67, 68, 

69, 83, 143, 144, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 173, 176, 

177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 198, 

213, 217, 218, 221, 239, 241

Recreational use, 11, 13, 43, 66, 67, 89, 143, 165, 169, 

187, 270

Return flow credit, i, 1, 66, 70, 71, 94, 95, 164, 165, 

167, 172, 173, 175, 178, 181, 182, 186, 187, 194, 

195

Riparian habitat, 5, 15, 65, 66, 75, 105, 144, 159, 161, 

162, 163, 206, 209, 233, 269, 270, 271

Riparian vegetation, ii, v, vi, vii, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 27, 30, 

31, 34, 36, 46, 50, 51, 55, 64, 73, 75, 77, 78, 91, 96, 

104, 128, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 

159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 176, 179, 184, 195, 

199, 206, 212, 216, 225, 239, 240, 246, 265, 266, 

267, 269, 270, 272, 274

Ruidoso red squirrel, 75, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212

Runoff, 2, 5, 6, 28, 39, 41, 42, 44, 58, 60, 90, 111, 113, 

116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 

129, 131, 132, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 159, 203, 

213, 215, 221, 223, 230, 233, 269, 270, 271, 272, 

273

S

Sacramento Mountains salamander, 207, 210, 212

Scenery, v, 13, 14, 173

Scoping, 2, i, vii, 9, 12, 21, 37, 38, 81, 173, 218, 227, 

246, 249

Sedimentary, 96

Settlement agreement, 267, 268

Sierra Blanca cliff daisy, 73, 74, 197, 198, 199, 200, 

201

Soil quality, 12

South Fork Eagle Creek, 24, 48, 112, 114, 152, 265, 

266, 268

drainage, 29, 97, 103, 228

gage, 24, 266

tributaries, 5, 27, 28, 93

watershed, 110, 271

Special use permit, 1, i, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 

21, 22, 24, 32, 33, 38, 40, 41, 52, 95, 132, 187, 188, 

217, 227, 265

Species composition, 11, 202

Specific conductivity, 35

Springs and seeps, 5, 10, 11, 13, 16, 35, 50, 55, 57, 60, 

61, 91, 97, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 147, 

160, 165, 176, 184, 268, 269, 271

Stipulation agreement, i, 37, 46

Storage capacity, 2, 7, 8, 25, 29, 44, 47, 48, 50, 194, 

223, 227, 237, 265, 267

Storage coefficient, 44, 97, 223

Stream gage, i, 1, 24, 27, 28, 35, 50, 55, 88, 91, 98, 

105, 108, 135, 139, 149, 152

Streamflow, vii, 1, 5, 10, 49, 62, 67, 90, 99, 116, 125, 

126, 127, 130, 133, 146, 157, 192, 227, 233, 237, 

240, 246

Surface water, 9, 12, 36, 55, 57, 71, 88, 94, 138, 188, 

194, 196, 205, 215, 273

flow, 5, 28, 59, 63, 66, 92, 103, 110, 122, 137, 146, 

150, 163, 165, 192

T

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES)

plants, 196, 197, 199

species, 196, 201, 205, 207, 210

wildlife, 204, 211

Transmissivity, 16, 44, 97, 104

Transpiration, 6, 58, 125, 127, 203, 222

Turbidity, 35, 91, 92, 123, 129, 144, 165, 273

SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF 281
Index

U

United States Geological Survey, 219, 231, 262

Upland vegetation, 6, 12, 48, 73, 74, 158, 195, 196, 

197, 199, 200, 201, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212

V

Village of Ruidoso, 1, 2, i, ii, viii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 

72, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 97, 98,100, 101, 

102, 119, 122, 129, 131, 132, 134, 137, 138, 160, 

163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 

173, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 218, 220, 

226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 

242, 243, 246, 247, 249, 251, 261, 262, 263, 265, 

267, 268, 270, 272, 274

Volcanics, 34, 96, 97, 99, 104, 135, 221

tertiary, 96, 97, 99, 104

W

Water balance, 3, 90, 98, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

120, 122, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239

Water budget, 116, 203

Water chemistry, 30, 89, 91, 99, 123, 145, 147, 150

Water diversion, 11, 68, 70, 88, 94, 100, 164, 169, 

171, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 192, 193, 204, 

223, 272

Water production, 71, 101, 171, 193, 194, 195, 223

Water quality, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 18, 23, 33, 34, 35, 45, 

55, 60, 62, 71, 92, 93, 117, 123, 125, 128, 129, 130, 

132, 137, 138, 139, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 158, 

159, 162, 165, 194, 195, 266, 271, 272, 273

Water rights, ii, v, vi, vii, viii, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 

23, 38, 39, 51, 60, 61, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 86, 88, 94, 

95, 100, 101, 105, 128, 129, 132, 133, 138, 147, 

160, 166, 177, 180, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 

193, 194, 195, 217, 221, 222, 223, 226, 228, 235, 

241, 242, 243, 268, 269, 270, 271

Water table, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 41, 

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 55, 57, 62, 64, 88, 99, 

103, 110, 139, 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 182, 

196, 205, 221, 223, 264, 270, 272

Water temperature, 10, 35, 58, 62, 88, 92, 131, 139, 

140, 141, 144, 147, 148, 165, 269, 273

Water yield, vi, 6, 12, 15, 59, 63, 66, 90, 115, 124, 

128, 146, 148, 150, 159, 195, 197, 201, 203, 204, 

226, 231, 237, 244

Watershed condition, 5, 7, 15, 59, 63, 81, 89, 90, 91, 

98, 103, 127, 128, 130, 137, 146, 150, 157, 175, 

176, 177, 179, 181, 184, 213, 227, 228, 236, 238, 

268, 273

Well log, 100

282 SDEIS for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization Project, Lincoln NF