United States Department of Agriculture

Draft Record of Decision

North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use 

Authorization

Forest Southwestern Lincoln National Forest August 

Service Region MB-R3-08 04A 2015
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance 

program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint 

filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in 

languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: 

(202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. 

Record of Decision

Draft Record of Decision for the North Fork Eagle 

Creek Wells Special Use Authorization

Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico

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 

Send Objections to:

Objection Reviewing Officer

Southwestern Region 

333 Broadway SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

objections-southwestern-regional-office@fs.fed.us 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

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

North Fork Eagle Creek .........................................................................................................................4

Effects of groundwater pumping ...........................................................................................................4

The 2012 Little Bear Fire ......................................................................................................................5

Water Rights ..........................................................................................................................................5

Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................6

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................6

Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................................7

Alternative 1 - Continued current pumping (Selected Alternative) .......................................................7

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping) – Discontinue All Pumping (Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative) ............................................................................................................................................8

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management ..................................................................................................9

Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Detailed Study ............................................................9

Issues addressed ......................................................................................................................................10

Decision and Reason for the Decision .........................................................................................................10

Decision ..................................................................................................................................................10

Description of Selected Alternative –Alternative 1 ................................................................................11

Municipal Well Operation and Associated Activities .........................................................................11

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................13

Decision Rationale ..................................................................................................................................17

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................17

Responding to Issues ...........................................................................................................................19

Incomplete or Unavailable Information ..............................................................................................23

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................23

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ....................................................................................24

National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................................................24

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .....................................................................................24

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..............................................................................................................24

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..................................................................24

National Forest Management Act ...........................................................................................................25

Endangered Species Act ..........................................................................................................................25

National Historic Preservation Act .........................................................................................................25

Clean Water Act ......................................................................................................................................25

Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................................25

Other Required Disclosures ....................................................................................................................25

Municipal Watersheds .........................................................................................................................25

American Indian Religious Freedom Act ............................................................................................26

American Indian Rights .......................................................................................................................26

Congressionally Designated Areas ......................................................................................................26

Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders 11990 and 11988) .......................................................26

National Landmarks ............................................................................................................................26

Parklands .............................................................................................................................................26

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands ..................................................................................26

Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities ....................................................................................27

Implementation ............................................................................................................................................28

Contact Person ........................................................................................................................................28

Selected References .....................................................................................................................................29

North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 1

Introduction

This is the draft record of decision for the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization. 

We, the USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, prepared a final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) for this project pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508), the National Forest Management Act and its implementing 

regulations, and the Lincoln National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1986). The environmental impact statement analyzed the potential effects of authorizing the 

Village of Ruidoso to continue to operate four wells on National Forest System Lands. The final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents the analysis of two action alternatives for 

continued authorization of ground water pumping and the no action (no pumping) alternative. In this 

decision I, Travis M. Mosely, Forest Supervisor of the Lincoln National Forest, as the Responsible 

Official, select an alternative for implementation.

The decision presented in this document addresses activities proposed on lands administered by the 

Forest Service for which Federal decisions are required. In this case, the Federal decision is whether 

or not to authorize the Village of Ruidoso’s application for occupancy and use of National Forest 

System lands for access to their state-adjudicated water rights in the North Fork of Eagle Creek. This 

decision document sets forth a rationale, including how well the decision addresses the purpose and 

need for action, consistency with laws, regulations, management of conflicting water uses, and 

consideration of agency policy and jurisdiction. It also outlines the non-discretionary measures and 

mitigation necessary for implementation.

Background

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, associated infrastructure, and surrounding National 

Forest System land upstream from the Eagle Creek gaging station (figure 2). This area is within the 

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

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 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 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 permit for the operation of these wells expired on December 31, 1995. Between 1996 and 2005, 

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

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

Creek Conservation Association, Inc., Gerald Ford, and Dr. William S. Midkiff filed a lawsuit 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. 
Record of Decision

2 Lincoln National Forest

Figure 1. Project vicinity
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 3

Figure 2. Project area 
Record of Decision

4 Lincoln National Forest

North Fork Eagle Creek

From 2007 to 2009 the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an independent study of the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek that characterizes the stream flow (Matherne, Myers and McCoy 2011). 

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

upper reaches. It becomes an intermittent stream in the 2 miles upstream from Eagle Creek gauge. 

Without pumping, the North Fork Eagle Creek would remain an intermittent stream 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 stream reach lacks surface flow 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. 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.

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. Limited anecdotal evidence and one historic 

photo would indicate this reach did not support many obligate wetland vegetation species

prior to well installations.

North Fork Eagle Creek provides limited streamside recreation and wildlife viewing. In the 

past, the North Fork was stocked with various species of trout to support a recreational 

fishery, although New Mexico Game and Fish likely discontinued stocking in the 1970s and

1980s due to fluctuating water levels and the quality of the habitat (Hansen, personal 

communication 2011).

Effects of groundwater pumping

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

results and creates a cone of depression in the groundwater 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 at the gauge. 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). This change of location may have some bearing on the flow 

comparison of the two timeframes and creates some element of uncertainty.
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 5

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

outside the stream corridor, such as, seeps and springs and riparian vegetation. This situation

is exacerbated by the location of the wells within the stream channel, together with the 

apparent low storage capacity of the aquifer.

The 2012 Little Bear Fire

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). The drainage 

area burned with a mix of severities with more than a quarter of the area having a high burn 

severity and almost half having a low, very low, or unburned severity. Burn intensities in the 

riparian area (200 feet on each side of Eagle Creek) were generally low (53 percent) and 

unburned (47 percent).

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. 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, 

such as: changes in vegetation resulting in modified moisture availability and runoff, increased 

overland water flow and reduced infiltration, temporary increases in ‘flashy’ responses to rainfall 

and snowmelt, increased sediment and debris yields, and changes to vegetation as a result of 

flooding. Though the fire has caused some long term changes to the system, recovery of the North 

Fork riparian areas to conditions similar to those pre-fire is expected to occur within five to seven 

years.

Water Rights

As described in more detail in chapter 3 of the FEIS, the Village of Ruidoso (the applicant; the 

entity that is applying for a special use permit) owns water rights in Eagle Creek basin. In New 

Mexico, the Office of New Mexico State Engineer has authority to administer water rights, even 

on Federal land, except in the case of Federal reserved water rights (which does not apply to 

North Fork Eagle Creek).

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 on four 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. There are also 12 wells

located on private lands within Eagle Creek and downstream from the aforementioned wells (H1979 through H-1982). These wells supplement the Village of Ruidoso’s water production should 

wells H-1979 through H-1982 fail to produce the full acre-feet amounts. 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). 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. Therefore, an additional 761.12 acre-feet per year could be pumped from the 
Record of Decision

6 Lincoln National Forest

National Forest System wells as supplemental to the Village of Ruidoso’s surface water rights.

This consent order is the Village of Ruidoso’s adjudicated water rights as of 2014.

On October 23, 2014, the Office of the State Engineer issued a permit to the Village of Ruidoso 

allowing the transfer of 700.83 acre feet per year from H-1979 to the surface point of diversion at 

Eagle Creek and Alto Lake. The permit severed the adjudicated rights to H-1979. However, the 

Village of Ruidoso’s municipal rights pertaining to proof of beneficial use, in the amount of 

350.42 acre-feet per year, remain provable at H-1979. In addition, the Village or 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.

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. The shift has created a temporary 

redistribution of water rights and production 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 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.

While the Forest Service does not have authority to regulate water rights, the Forest Service does 

have authority and an affirmative responsibility to regulate use of and reasonable access to

surface lands and resources. 

Purpose and Need

An overarching tenet of the Forest Service mission is to provide for the wise use of natural 

resources, such as water, derived from National Forest System lands. Our (USDA Forest Service, 

Lincoln National Forest’s) purpose for 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, as a substantial component of the Ruidoso municipal water supply system that residents 

and visitors rely upon. There is also a compelling need to provide for the sustenance or 

improvement of riparian and aquatic ecosystems on National Forest System lands in the project 

area that may be affected by groundwater draw down from pumping these wells.

The Lincoln National Forest is to be managed to provide a favorable flow of water for users by 

maintaining watersheds in satisfactory condition. The Lincoln National Forest plan standards and 

guidelines provide 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 and Handbook 

direction requires ‘thoughtful and prudent’ management be applied to groundwater beneath 

National Forest System lands as a valuable resource.

Public Involvement

We (USDA Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest) 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 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 7

identify issues related to the proposed action and information that have been addressed in this EIS

(appendix A). Based on public and internal scoping results, we identified five significant issues. 

These significant issues can be characterized as conflicts between resource uses and include

effects of well pumping on water resources, aquatic habitat and fish, riparian vegetation, water 

rights, and socioeconomics.

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

Environmental Impact Statement on May 25, 2012. However, the Little Bear Fire started on June 

4, 2012 and burned a substantial portion of the analysis area. 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 to 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. During the ensuing two years many of the short-term effects of the wildfire on the project 

area watershed were realized and the area began to restabilize. Supplemental reports were 

finalized characterizing the changed conditions.

Throughout this timeframe we held meetings with the Village of Ruidoso and the Eagle Creek 

Conservation Association and other interested parties to discuss progress, glean relevant

information and gather input. 

We released a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on November 14, 

2014 for public comment. We published the notification of its availability for public comment in 

the Federal Register, and published a legal notice in the Ruidoso News. We also sent email and 

letter notifications to all those on the project mailing list. We requested comments within 45 days. 

We received several requests for extensions to the comment period and Forest Supervisor 

Moseley granted two additional 15-day extensions, requesting all comments be submitted no later 

than January 28, 2015. We received 23 responses during the 75-day public comment period for 

the SDEIS. Appendix E of the FEIS contains a list of the comments received and our response to 

the comments.

Alternatives Considered

Forest Service regulations require that an EIS “document the examination of a reasonable range 

of alternatives to the proposed action” (36 CFR 220.5(e)). Considering public comments, USDA 

Forest Service direction, internal scoping, and changed conditions resulting from the Little Bear 

Fire, we developed three alternatives for detailed analysis and briefly considered 30 other 

alternatives. The three alternatives considered in detail 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. A more detailed 

comparison of these alternatives can be found in the EIS on pages 63-89. Alternative 2 is the 

environmentally preferred alternative.

Alternative 1 - Continued current pumping (Selected Alternative)

Alternative 1 is the Village of Ruidoso’s proposal as reflected in their request for a new special 

use permit. This alternative allows continued pumping from the North Fork well field, a 

continuation of current management, reflected under a new special use permit. It includes new 

monitoring and mitigation measures. This is the Selected Alternative and it is described in more 

detail in the Decision section below.
Record of Decision

8 Lincoln National Forest

Alternative 2 – No Action (No Pumping) – Discontinue All Pumping 

(Environmentally Preferred 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)). Under the no-action alternative, 

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. 

This alternative is considered the environmentally preferred alternative. According to Forest

Service regulations, “the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will best 

promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable alternative is that which causes the least harm to the 

biological and physical environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves 

historic, cultural, and natural resources” (36 CFR 220.3). Though alternative 2 would result in 

some short-term effects from ground disturbing activities to remove of existing infrastructure, it 

would also result in increased water flow and reduced no flow days in the creek in the short term. 

This means that eventually, the natural water balance would be restored without water extraction 

from the watershed, and there would be no impacts to the North Fork of Eagle Creek biological 

and physical environment from well pumping. 

The no action alternative was not selected because it failed to meet the purpose and need to 

respond to the Village of Ruidoso’s request for special use authorization. It would not provide for 

reasonable access to the existing points of diversion for their adjudicated water rights or their 

rights that have yet to be put to beneficial use, called inchoate water rights. These inchoate water 

rights are reasonably projected additional needs for the Village of Ruidoso and would be lost 

altogether because the opportunity to put these rights to beneficial use are associated with the 

particular points of diversion and are non-transferrable.

While the points of diversion for adjudicated water rights are transferable to other locations in 

order to enjoy the beneficial use of the water in question, it would create a great deal of 

uncertainty and hardship related to domestic water availability to the Village of Ruidoso and its 

residents. These wells provide a very high proportion of the water utilized by residents of 

Ruidoso. It is highly unlikely the Village would locate and possibly acquire an acceptable site, 

gain approval for the transfer through the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer processes, 

and put into production wells and associated infrastructure within the 6-12 month timeframe 

contemplated under this alternative. In fact the transfer at best would take years or even decades 

if protests and litigation ensued. 

Water extraction has been well established for over thirty years and the watershed and riparian 

and aquatic habitats and recreational uses have likely restabilized at a new equilibrium under the 

existing pumping regime and it is questionable if they have changed at all. The actual water 

removed from this well field has averaged 721 acre-feet during its highest production years 

(2008-2010). During the time that diversion data was available between 2002 and 2010 an 

average of 569 acre-feet was pumped. The ability to realize actual production of water allowed 

under adjudicated and inchoate water rights, (1838.51 acre-feet), on an annual basis is unlikely 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 9

due to the practicalities of timing and amount of demand and the limitations of aquifer storage 

and replenishment. Also there is uncertainty as to the overall aquifer storage and replenishment 

and if these elements naturally limit the amount of water that can be extracted. So it is currently 

unclear as to whether or not it is physically possible to extract more water, and if so, what the 

effects to riparian and aquatic habitats would be, if any, relative to the ecological potential 

presumably achieved under this alternative.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Management 

Alternative 3 is similar to alternative 1in that it would authorize continued pumping from the 

North Fork well heads and associated maintenance activities. However, alternative 3 would 

include adaptive management strategies to mitigate potential adverse impacts to surface water and 

ground water availability resulting from well operations. This adaptive management would be 

reflected in annual operating plans. This alternative would also limit water use to approximately 

900 cumulative acre feet or less over any 3 consecutive water years. This limit would be adjusted 

based on the adaptive management triggers related to surface water flow, water table depth, and 

riparian vegetation (see figure 3 on page 35 of the trigger descriptions on pages 36-41 of the 

FEIS).

The original proposed action (alternative 3), also referred to as the adaptive management 

alternative, was developed in an attempt to try to balance reasonable access to the North Fork 

wells with opportunities to improve natural resources conditions. While it is clear from the 

evidence in the EIS that this alternative would increase flow and reduce dry periods on the North 

Fork in the short term, it is unclear that this would result in any substantial improvements in other 

natural resource conditions such as aquatic habitat or riparian resources. Given that the stretch of

North Fork of Eagle Creek downstream of the North Fork gauge within National Forest System 

lands does not represent a high quality fishery or host rare species, it is difficult to justify the high 

financial and social costs of the adaptive management alternative without evidence of substantial 

benefits to natural resources.

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). 

We received comments from the public on our proposed action during the scoping period and the 

formal SDEIS comment 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.

Thirty alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis. These alternatives and 

the rationale for eliminating them are described in detail in chapter 2 of the FEIS (pages 46-62).
Record of Decision

10 Lincoln National Forest

Issues Addressed

The significant issues described below identify the nature of effects used to compare differences 

among alternatives. These issues and their measurement indicators are described in more detail in 

the FEIS, chapter 1.

1. Water resources: Well pumping may affect the quantity and quality of streamflow, 

groundwater, wetlands, springs, and seeps. Water resources over time can also be affected by 

climate change.

2. Aquatic habitat: 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.

3. Riparian vegetation: Well pumping results in changes in the water table which may affect 

streamflow and free water availability to varying degrees. These water quantity changes 

could directly affect soil moisture conditions and indirectly quantity and quality of riparian 

vegetation requiring moist or saturated soil conditions along the stream corridor.

4. Socioeconomics: The effects on water available for diversion have the 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 the 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, irrigation, aquatic and riparian habitat, and aesthetics).

5. 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 the potential to alter municipal water supply and affect beneficial 

use of the Village of Ruidoso’s total adjudicated water rights. 

Decision and Reason for the Decision

Decision

Based upon my review of the alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 1 (the 

preferred alternative, continued pumping at historic levels), as described in chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

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 and the associated 

infrastructure to support this use, under the terms and conditions of a new special use permit. My 

decision also includes nondiscretionary mitigation and monitoring measures that are not currently 

being conducted as part of the Village of Ruidoso’s annual operating plan. The mitigation 

measures provide necessary protections related to ground disturbing activities for wildlife and 

water quality. Monitoring information is included to help better understand currently uncertain 

environmental effects and inform periodic permit reviews and future management. 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 11

This monitoring correlates most closely with cause-effect relationships of pumping to alluvial 

water depth and water depth to rooting depth of existing riparian obligate species. This 

monitoring will allow us to better understand the interrelationship of watershed conditions that 

effect water quantity and quality at the surface, alluvium and aquifers.

This alternative meets requirements under NEPA to select an alternative within the range of 

alternatives analyzed (36 CFR 220.4(c)). Under alternative 1, the monitoring does not trigger any 

change in the pumping or annual operating plan.

Description of Selected Alternative –Alternative 1

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, a continuation of 

current management, reflected under a new special use permit. It includes new monitoring and 

mitigation measures, described in more detail below.

Municipal Well Operation and Associated Activities

The USDA Forest Service would authorize, under a new special use permit and associated 

operating plan, 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, as 

detailed in an annual operating plan. The Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso would meet 

periodically to determine overall success of implementation and applicability of terms and 

conditions and determine if changes are necessary due to monitoring results. These reviews could 

occur as often as every year but would occur at least every 5 to 10 years. These reviews may 

result in adjustments to the annual operating plan or permit amendments. 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 

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 and 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 minimized with application of 

mitigation measures. 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 the mitigation measures section beginning on page 16).
Record of Decision

12 Lincoln National Forest

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 the mitigation measures section beginning on page 16).

We would issue a new permit with no change in existing well pumping operations. This means 

that pumping would continue at historic levels1

, 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 templates.

Based on past water use levels, 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). While it is possible that recent or future water rights transfer may affect 

(reduce) the pumping levels (see the water rights section in chapter 1 and 3 of the FEIS for more 

information on this topic), due to uncertainty of any potential transfer of rights, the analysis 

assumes that historic (pre-2010) pumping levels would continue. This represents a conservative 

or ‘maximum’ potential effect because pumping is likely to be less that the historic level with any 

transfer. 

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:

• 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. 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 and 

repair projects or data collection activities.

 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). 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 13

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. 

An implementation plan (with schedule, tasks, responsible parties, reporting requirements, quality 

control measures and costs) would also be developed.

Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

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 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 disturbing 

activities for wildlife and water quality, and improved monitoring information. The following 

monitoring parameters are direct or indirect effects of pumping or will help to calibrate what is 

attributable to the pumping. Analyzed together in an integrated fashion, they will help to better 

characterize how the watershed is responding to water removal through pumping. Monitoring 

information would be used to inform discussions between the Village of Ruidoso and the Forest 

Service to develop annual monitoring plans and make future management decisions about this 

authorization.

Non-discretionary monitoring

1. Monitoring wells: Is the depth of alluvial ground water available within the rooting zone 

of riparian obligate plant species? The results of this monitoring will be used (along with 

proposed riparian monitoring) to assist in determining potential effects to riparian vegetation 

by comparing minimum rooting depths of facultative wetland species. The Village of Ruidoso

will rehabilitate existing monitoring wells, and if necessary, 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. These new alluvial monitoring wells will be 

constructed2 by the Village of Ruidoso adjacent to the North Fork of Eagle Creek, at the 

locations of the existing North Fork stream gage (U.S. Geological Survey 08387550) and 

Eagle Creek below the South Fork stream gage (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 grout as appropriate; or other 

means of isolating a source zone by adaptations of the wells already in place. In addition, 

deep, long-screen wells will be selected or 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 will be the same as the elevation range of the screened or open 

zones of the pumping wells. 

2. Slug Tests or Aquifer Pumping: What are the water holding capacities and recharge 

rates of respective water-bearing zones? The results of this monitoring will be used for 

greater understanding of the hydrologic nature of the well field. Using the reconfigured as 

well as new monitoring wells completed from monitoring measure 1, the Village of Ruidoso

 2 Alluvial wells would be approximately 10 to 20 feet deep. Installing new wells generally consists of 

mobilizing a drill rig to drill the holes and casing the holes to prevent collapse.
Record of Decision

14 Lincoln National Forest

will conduct slug tests3 or aquifer pumping tests4 of the individual water-bearing zones of 

interest at the well field. The choice of tests will ultimately depend on the time and resources 

available, and on conclusions reached during coordinating efforts between the Village of 

Ruidoso and USDA Forest Service. Comparable and contemporaneous tests will be 

completed for each water-bearing zone of interest, so that appropriate test results can be 

compared, and the hydrogeologic nature of the well field can be better understood. Surface 

flow observations will also be made before, during, and after the groundwater tests at selected 

locations along North Fork Eagle Creek.

3. Water quality: What is the relationship of water quality to surface water quantity and 

the effects to aquatic species? This monitoring measure will be used in correlation with 

water quantity (monitoring measures 1, 2, 4). This information will help determine effects to 

aquatic and riparian resources. Monthly water quality field measurements will be made by the 

Village of Ruidoso at all three existing surface flow gages on the North Fork, South Fork, and 

Eagle Creek. An additional streamflow sampling location will be identified 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 will

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 

can be reduced to a quarterly basis or less. All data records will be filed with the Lincoln 

National Forest Supervisor’s office on a quarterly basis during the first year, and as agreed-on 

thereafter.

4. Flow and water level: What is the effect of pumping on the quantity of surface and 

subsurface stream flow? This monitoring measure will be used to correlate surface and 

subsurface flow, flows bypassing surface stream gauges, and to generally better understand 

the relative amount of water flowing into and out of the well field given various pumping 

regimes and precipitation inputs. Daily mean flow and water level measurements will

continue to be recorded or calculated 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 will be ascertained, and if significant 

alluvial underflow occurs, then modifications will be implemented to either minimize or 

measure alluvial underflow past the gage. An investigation of the relationships between South 

Fork gage readings and the Eagle Creek gage readings will be undertaken to further 

understand any correlations. Rehabilitated or newly constructed wells described in 

monitoring 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, will be determined cooperatively between the USDA Forest 

Service and Village of Ruidoso. If digital devices are employed, data recording time-steps 

and clocks will be consistent among all monitoring wells and flow gages. Time-steps will be 

four hours, six hours, or twelve hours and will not fluctuate. Flow or water level 

 3 The slug test is performed utilizing existing wells and does not typically involve any ground disturbance; 

it involves either removing or adding a volume of water from or to the well and measuring the rate of 

recovery or decline of the water level in the well. If an aquifer test is necessary, it may also be done 

utilizing existing wells, if they are deemed adequate with known screen intervals. A site review would be 

necessary prior to performing an aquifer test.

4 The pumping, or aquifer test involves a pumping well and one or more observation wells and pumping at 

a relatively constant rate for a period of time ranging from a few weeks to a couple of months (at least). 

The water pumped from the well during the test would need to be disposed of (e.g. released on site or 

hauled away).
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 15

measurements will generally correspond to water quality field data collection efforts if 

conducted under monitoring measure 3. Data will 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 publicly available database maintained by one of these agencies as 

determined through further coordination and decisionmaking. Quarterly and annual data 

summaries and conclusions will 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. Springs and Seeps: What are the effects of groundwater pumping on the quantity and 

quality of ground water emerging from seeps and springs within the area of potential 

effects? This monitoring measure will be used to supplement water quantity and quality 

effects from pumping within the expected cone of depression. Eight springs and seeps in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek drainage will be identified and monitored by the Village of Ruidoso

on a monthly basis for 1 year. Priority locations will be springs and seeps alongside or in the 

channels in the upper North Fork Eagle Creek and Carlton Canyon. Locations are shown on 

figure 2 (and also on figures 1 and 33-B in the water resources report, AECOM 2015). 

Monitoring constituents at springs will consist of common parameters including flow rate, 

temperature, pH, and specific conductivity. Additional water quality constituents (e.g. 

carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate) will be included for springs if specified by the 

USDA Forest Service, and samples will then be retrieved and handled for laboratory analyses 

of those constituents if they are deemed necessary.

6. Stream gradient, planform, and stability indicators: How are the geomorphic 

characteristics of the stream changing and what effect does it have on surface and 

subsurface flows and water availability within rooting zones? This monitoring measure 

will be used to determine physical changes of the streambed. This will better calibrate 

information such as depth to water table or effects of flooding events on aquatic and riparian 

species and their habitat. Stream gradient, planform, and stability indicators will 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. Cross-sections will 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 will be documented each year 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 tables, photographs and figures, and interpretations. After the first 5 years of the 

term of the permit, The Village of Ruidoso will measure these parameters at these same 

locations every 3 years or less, if approved in advance by the Forest Service, between June 1 

and July 15.

7. Snowpack and Precipitation: What is the amount of water input to the system? This 

monitoring measure will be used to better understand precipitation inputs and potential for 

groundwater recharge of Eagle Creek and its affected watershed subdivisions. Snowpack on 

Sierra Blanca will be monitored by the Village of Ruidoso for the permit duration through 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 will

be maintained by the Village of Ruidoso for the term of the permit in cooperation with the 
Record of Decision

16 Lincoln National Forest

U.S. Geological Survey, and monthly total precipitation accumulations will be reported to the 

USDA Forest Service on a quarterly basis every year.

8. Visualization Tool: How can we integrate water inputs, outputs and their respective 

influences on water quality to better describe and predict watershed responses to 

pumping? The Village of Ruidoso will develop and apply a data-synthesis and visualization 

tool depicting historic and updated hydrologic conditions and management in the North Fork 

watershed. The purpose of this tool is to depict historic and recent pumping management with 

contemporaneous hydrologic states at locations within the watershed, and to inform 

subsequent pumping management to the extent possible. Information from this will be shared 

with the USDA Forest Service. The implementation can consist of a set of spreadsheets and 

associated graphics, a database with a graphical user interface, an adaptation of an existing 

non-proprietary agency tool, or a more specific numerical model. From this application, 

system behavior under pumping and no-pumping conditions will be better understood and 

predicted. Time-steps for historic and updated conditions (e.g., weekly, monthly, etc.) will be 

determined through coordination between the USDA Forest Service and Village of Ruidoso. 

If practicable, the USDA Forest Service preference will be to develop, reasonably calibrate, 

document, and update a site-specific groundwater computer model in a cooperative effort 

among the Forest Service and other selected, qualified parties representing appropriate 

stakeholder interests along the North Fork of Eagle Creek. Such a model will be developed 

and calibrated during the initial three years of the term of the permit, and used throughout the 

permit term to further inform adaptive management of surface and groundwater relationships 

along the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

9. Riparian Vegetation: What are the condition and trends of riparian vegetation and can 

effects be correlated to pumping? The 2010 baseline riparian vegetation survey will be 

repeated every 5 years, as described in the adaptive management strategy description of 

alternative 3. Annual monitoring of riparian obligate tree species (e.g. willows, boxelder) and 

other facultative wetland species within the project area will also be used to detect short-term 

changes in condition and canopy cover. This monitoring will be coordinated with stream 

geometry and stability monitoring measure 6. 

Mitigation Measures 

To avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative, we developed the following 

mitigation measures to reduce environmental effects. 

Wildlife and Fish 

• In the event that any mechanized equipment is needed for repairing, maintaining or 

operating the wells and associated facilities; for fencing activities around the wells, or for 

monitoring or adaptive management (or for well and facility removal under alternative 2 

(no pumping)); no activity will occur within 0.25 mile of the northern goshawk postfledging area from March 1 to September 30 to minimize disturbance during the breeding 

season. The Village of Ruidoso will contact the Smokey Bear Ranger District for this 

location. 

• In the event that any mechanized equipment is needed for repair, maintenance or 

operation activities of the wells and associated facilities, or for monitoring or adaptive 

management (or for well and facility removal under alternative 2 (no pumping)); no

activity will occur within 0.25 mile of the adjacent protected activity center during the 

Mexican spotted owl breeding season (March 1–August 31). 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 17

Water, Soil, and Vegetation

• USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region best management practices (USDA Forest 

Service 1982) for water quality management will be applied to any ground-disturbing 

activities related to maintenance and operation of the wells and associated facilities, or 

for monitoring (or for well and facility removal under alternative 2 (no pumping)). These 

practices will ensure that any potential for increased soil erosion or vegetation 

disturbance is minimized. 

• The Village of Ruidoso will be required to develop and implement a water conservation 

strategy as part of the terms and conditions of their special use permit and associated 

annual operating plan.

Cultural Resources

• If any human remains or artifacts that fall under the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act guidelines are found during project activities, we will consult with 

all appropriate tribes. 

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.

Decision Rationale

In making my decision, I have carefully considered the analysis completed and presented in 

specialist reports and the FEIS, the comments received, and the changed circumstances resulting 

from the Little Bear Fire. My decision rationale is presented in terms of how well the selected 

alternative meets the project purpose and need and how it addresses the issues, in comparison 

with the other alternatives. I have also considered additional factors such as uncertainty and 

incomplete information.

Purpose and Need

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 a need to provide for conservation and sustainability of forest resources on 

National Forest System lands in the project area. Management objectives included:

• Recognizing the importance of the well field as a municipal water supply 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. 

Municipal water supply

The selected alternative meets the purpose and need for recognizing the importance of the well 

field to the municipal water supply needs of the Village of Ruidoso by continuing to provide the 

current levels of ground water pumping. Over the long term (i.e., after the wildfire recovery 

period) average annual contributions from North Fork Eagle Creek wells would continue to 

provide a significant contribution (25 percent or more) to the Village of Ruidoso water supply if 
Record of Decision

18 Lincoln National Forest

current trends in total diversion relative to North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion continue. At 

the same time, the Village of Ruidoso is working with stakeholders on regional water supply 

strategies and agreements that may result in adjustments in water supplies and conservation 

strategies to meet its demands, and may have less reliance on the North Fork of Eagle Creek wells 

in the future. 

Maintaining and protecting natural resources

Given the information presented in the FEIS and the uncertainties surrounding effects to natural 

resources, I have determined that the purpose and need for conservation and sustainability of 

natural resources on the national forest is satisfied by the selected alternative. The FEIS

concludes that this alternative meets this portion of the purpose and need to a lesser degree than 

alternative 2 and 3. However, it does maintain existing or current riparian conditions on National 

Forest System lands in the near term. In the long term though, this alternative may fail to meet the 

purpose and need as pumping has the potential to further reduce aquatic habitat and riparian 

vegetation due to the added effect of climate change. Climate change in and of itself is 

unpredictable and uncertain and if realized is likely to be incremental in nature and over a long 

time horizon. As such, opportunities for future adjustments to management will remain and will 

have the benefit of better monitoring data and baselines of comparison

In making my decision I have also considered that there are several areas of uncertainty with 

regard to the selected alternative that indicate the selected alternative could meet this objective. 

This includes the uncertainty related to the relationship between surface flows and vegetation 

changes. The FEIS presents a reasonable analysis of possible effects for vegetation based on 

deductive reasoning that greater water availability would shift species composition towards more 

riparian species. However, at this time the evidence is not strong that alterations to vegetation are 

a direct result of pumping due to a lack of baseline riparian vegetation characteristics for 

comparison. Limited anecdotal evidence and one historic photograph would suggest the riparian 

habitat looked somewhat similar to what it does today. A greater influence on the aquatic and 

riparian features seems to have been past flooding and the recent Little Bear Fire. In addition, the 

aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation that currently exist are very likely the result of the North 

Fork of Eagle Creek having been an intermittent stream system for many years, even prior to well 

pumping. The stream reach in question does not represent high quality aquatic and riparian 

habitat and the area is not critical to rare, sensitive, threatened or endangered species. Fish that 

may have existed in the past were a result of a stocking program that was ultimately discontinued 

presumably due, at least in part, to poorer quality habitat and seasonal water availability in the 

intermittent stream reach.

It should also be noted that the influence of climate change on the southwestern United States will 

continue to be of great concern in managing the region’s water resources. Similarly, it will present 

challenges in balancing the needs of water use and the need to protect water-dependent natural 

resources. The FEIS acknowledges that the decision to continue current levels of North Fork well 

pumping, combined with the future effects of climate change, may mean that the purpose and 

need to protect natural resources (particularly surface flows, aquatic habitat, and riparian 

vegetation) may not be achievable in the long term, but not before adjustments could be made. 

Monitoring requirements included in the selected alternative will allow me to continue 

monitoring natural resources conditions, which would track the achievement of this portion of the 

purpose and need. It would also provide information related to any changes over time which may 

come as a result of post-fire recovery or stressors such as climate change. Periodic review of the 

permit would provide an opportunity to better ascertain cause and effect relationships, resource 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 19

conditions and trends, discuss any concerns related to natural resources effects that are measured 

as part of the operating plan and to make adjustments in future permit decisionmaking, as needed. 

Responding to Issues

In making my decision, I have considered the detailed analysis of environmental impacts 

presented in the FEIS chapter 3, related to the following issues. This section briefly summarizes 

the effects related to the issues (as presented in greater detail in chapter 3 of the FEIS). Here I 

describe how I have considered the magnitude of these effects and the uncertainties and 

unavailable information in making my decision. 

Water resources

As described in chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 100 to 150), under both the selected alternative and

alternative 3, some unavoidable adverse effects to water resources are anticipated. These would 

be a continuation of past effects that have been generally ongoing since pumping began. With 

continued pumping, intermittent stream flows would continue near and downstream of the well 

field, creating site-specific and local impacts on flow rates and extent. A cone of depression will 

occur in the groundwater in the vicinity of well pumping with continued groundwater pumping. It 

is likely that groundwater drawdown will reduce streamflow in the North Fork and main stem 

Eagle Creek at some locations some of the time. Pumping may continue to create no-flow 

conditions. It is also anticipated that the groundwater drawdown may reduce the flow and 

duration of two springs within the project area. The extent and severity of natural resource 

impacts would vary depending on the amount of precipitation inputs, conditions under which 

pumping would occur and the amount of water withdrawn. There would be a greater degree of 

adverse effects to water resources with the selected alternative than with alternative 3 because

more water may be withdrawn from the North Fork 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 from alternative 1 would involve ongoing flow reductions 

along Eagle Creek within the cumulative impact study area. Supplemental wells belonging to the 

Village on private lands downstream from the National Forest will likely continue to withdraw 

water in order to supplement any shortages in achieving full beneficial use of water rights 

associated with the wells. In the long term, these effects could be adverse, and more extensive 

impacts to National Forest surface resources in Eagle Creek watershed may occur. Additional 

water supply developments in the region, many of which are not controlled by the Village, could 

create further impacts to surface water, groundwater, and associated resources. In the end if 

realized, scarcity of water, due to over-appropriation will be governed by Prior Appropriation 

Doctrine as managed by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer.

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 have been retrieved at 

different times and locations and therefore are difficult to compare or consistently align. 

Information needed 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; information about springs and seeps; 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. This information gap prevents a thorough 

understanding of the hydrologic systems involved. In addition, various uncertainties still exist 

related to current and future recharge and groundwater availability estimates based on differences 
Record of Decision

20 Lincoln National Forest

of opinion about post-fire watershed effects and recovery. These relate primarily to the reduction 

of evapotranspiration losses following post-fire vegetation changes, and the amount of incoming 

precipitation that is partitioned to surface runoff instead of to groundwater recharge and storage. 

Despite these uncertainties, we can consider the potential effects of continued reduced flow in the 

context of historical and current conditions. The North Fork had intermittent downstream 

segments prior to well pumping. Since then, well pumping has affected the flow of the creek for 

over 30 years. While the selected alternative does result in adverse effects to water resources

other than the declared beneficial uses, the degree of effects should be considered in the context 

of the uncertain resource potential and the establishment of baseline conditions for the North Fork 

of Eagle Creek to evaluate their significance in the future. 

Aquatic habitat

As described in chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 154 to 165), there are no federally listed, proposed,

or candidate fish species, nor any Regional Forester sensitive species occurring in the North Fork 

Eagle Creek. Historical information indicates that the North Fork never provided a high quality 

trout fishery and conditions appear to always have been variable from year to year. Introduced 

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. These brook trout populations 

resulted from fish stocking that occurred in the river many years prior to well pumping. It is likely 

that reduced flows from well pumping, among other factors (such as reductions in fish stocking or 

loss of manmade ponds), has further reduced the fishery potential in more recent years. In 

addition, there is some evidence that the ash flows and floods following the 2012 Little Bear Fire 

have extirpated the remaining fish population that may have persisted without stocking in the 

North Fork Eagle Creek. 

The selected alternative would continue the current condition of reduced water levels and 

increased dry periods. This would maintain the currently limited opportunities for fish and aquatic 

habitat improvement. However, the highest quality portion of the watershed above the wells 

would remain unaffected by pumping. It should be noted that the North Fork of Eagle Creek is 

not a high priority fishery for the National Forest and New Mexico Department of Natural 

Resources. Still, the North Fork would continue to contribute as an important tributary to Eagle 

Creek and the water-dependent values it provides (including aquatic and riparian habitat and 

recreational opportunities). 

Compared to the selected alternative, the FEIS noted that opportunities for marginal improvement 

to the aquatic habitat and reestablishment of recreational fishing could increase under the no 

pumping and adaptive management alternatives. However, those benefits are limited, particularly 

in the context of the naturally limited intermittent stream potential, effects of the Little Bear Fire 

(short term) and potential effects of climate change (long term).

Riparian vegetation

As described in chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 165 to 177),the sparse presence of willow, Wooton’s

hawthorn and seven facultative wetland species indicates that the North Fork Eagle Creek 

maintains some moister localized microhabitats with sufficiently shallow groundwater and or soil 

moisture to support such species. Historical information (records and photos) suggests a similar 

condition existed prior to well pumping, and some evidence shows a lack of obligate wetland 

species one would associate with a riparian community along a perennial stream (e.g. willow and 

cottonwood in the overstory). As described in the above sections, this also suggests that the lower 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 21

half of the North Fork was intermittent prior to well pumping and may have provided limited 

habitat for wetland obligate species.

Some change has occurred as a result of the Little Bear Fire. Burn intensities in the riparian area 

(200 feet on each side of Eagle Creek) were low in general. A field visit on November 19, 2013 

revealed that most of the riparian vegetation in the sampling area looked minimally affected by 

the wildfire and related indirect effects such as flooding. Some shifting of sediment and cobble 

may occur and channel instability has or could result in some riparian areas being buried or 

uprooted, but this is offset by the opportunity for some species to colonize new areas. 

Though groundwater pumping would likely have no effect on periodic high flows and related 

fluvial processes, reductions in base flow (surface and subsurface) levels could cause this riparian 

area to become compositionally similar to adjacent uplands. Shifts in vegetation along riparian 

areas would be expected to correspond to the degree of hydrologic change. Overall, the selected 

alternative would either 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 would result in 

additional stress to riparian vegetation which would experience adverse effects. These potential 

adverse effects may be compensated depending on how groundwater availability changes as a 

result of the Little Bear Fire.

This can be compared to the no pumping or adaptive management alternatives where there is 

some potential for increase in communities featuring facultative wetland species due to increased 

water availability over the current condition. However, over the long term, even these positive 

changes would likely be limited by the effects and stresses of climate change. 

Though the effects analysis presents a reasonable conclusion based on deductive reasoning that 

reduced flow may have some effect on riparian vegetation composition, there is no clear sitespecific evidence of a direct relationship between the two in the North Fork of the Eagle Creek. It

is not possible to empirically compare current conditions to the historic pre-pumping condition as 

there is minimal information available. In this way, the evidence is unclear that current well 

pumping has affected riparian vegetation in the past. In addition, the EIS recognized that the 

riparian habitat in this stretch of the North Fork is and has been limited by a variety of factors.

Given the limited anecdotal evidence suggesting that riparian vegetation was sparse prior to the

well fields’ existence, it is important to note that even when the selected alternative is compared 

to the no pumping alternative, the differences in predicted vegetative responses would likely be

slight and difficult to detect. 

Socioeconomics

As described in chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 177 to 205), groundwater withdrawal would not be

affected under the selected alternative within the limits of the Village’s declared Water Rights, as 

it relates to North Fork Eagle Creek wells diversion. 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) average annual contributions from 

North Fork Eagle Creek wells could continue to provide over 25 percent of the Village of 

Ruidoso water supply if current trends in total diversion and North Fork Eagle Creek wells 

diversion continue.

According to the FEIS, the discounted present net value of costs would range from $4.5 to $7.2 

million dollars. The present net value of costs is the total cost of the monitoring measures through 
Record of Decision

22 Lincoln National Forest

the 20 year life of the permit, including a 4 percent discount rate to adjust for changes in currency 

value over time. The Village of Ruidoso would pay for all monitoring measures except riparian 

vegetation monitoring (which would be covered by the Forest) thus their cost would be slightly 

less than the total. While less financially efficient than the no pumping alternative, the village 

would benefit from ongoing use of wells for municipal water supply. The selected alternative best 

meets the water supply demand, while also reducing costs over alternative 3 when factoring in the 

replacement costs of lost inchoate water rights (water rights yet to be put to beneficial use) due to 

predicted restrictions.

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 would

remain unchanged under this alternative. While the project area only hosts a minor amount of 

dispersed recreation use, under the selected alternative, it is anticipated that over the short term 

the quality of recreation experience would remain uncertain during the transitional wildfire

recovery period. However, over the long term streamflow quantity would be the same as 

experienced by recreationists in the recent past and therefore recreation patterns and uses are 

expected to remain unchanged. Thus, under this alternative, the Lincoln National Forest would 

continue to support quality of life at levels experienced currently.

Water rights

As described in chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 205 to 212), with the selected alternative, the Village

of Ruidoso would have the opportunity to put to beneficial use their adjudicated water right

(992.05 acre-feet) and attempt to put to beneficial use their remaining inchoate water rights

(846.46 acre-feet) at the current points of diversion, which total 1,838.51 acre-feet per year. The 

historic rate of water production from these wells is expected to continue to 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

within the Rio Ruidoso watershed 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. This is obviously a very significant and important source of water to the Village. In 

addition to utilizing the North Fork wells, the Village is also currently working to diversify their 

sources of municipal water, which may reduce reliance on water pumping from North Fork Eagle 

Creek and provide for greater flexibility. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would limit the Village of Ruidoso’s beneficial use of their adjudicated water 

rights at the current diversion points in North Fork Eagle Creek. It is predicted the Village would 

lose altogether the opportunity to establish, or put to beneficial use, the inchoate water rights 

(846.46 acre-feet) as they are non-transferable. The Village would have the option, and be 

compelled, to file an application with the Office of the State Engineer to transfer the point of 

diversion to another location in order to enjoy the portion of their adjudicated water rights

(992.05 acre-feet) associated with the wells. 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 

potentially be costly, time consuming and lengthy; the Office of the State Engineer has authority 

to approve or disapprove an application for transfer of water rights. 

The availability of domestic well water downstream would likely remain unchanged under this 

alternative, although the potential for reduced precipitation as a result of climate change and the 

addition of more wells or water diversions downstream could reduce downstream water 
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 23

availability. In the event of water scarcity, any effects to downstream beneficial uses are primarily 

an issue of State jurisdiction under Prior Appropriation Doctrine. 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

I am basing my rationale on the best available information, as presented in the FEIS. However, 

many uncertainties still remain regarding the hydrological systems, and in particular, how they 

may respond to the Little Bear Fire (as described in the Issues Addressed section above). The

selected alternative includes non-discretionary monitoring that may help us reduce uncertainty 

over time and if necessary make adjustments to National Forest System lands access in future 

decisions. 

Conclusion

While considering the minimization of environmental effects in conjunction with balancing the 

need for access to municipal water rights, I have decided to select alternative 1. Project design 

features and best management practices will be implemented and monitoring will occur to help 

minimize adverse effects. 

My decision will result in some unavoidable adverse effects to the North Fork Eagle Creek. 

Groundwater pumping will continue to reduce stream flow and increase no flow days, resulting in 

limited opportunity to enhance the downstream sections of the creek. However, based on my 

review of the analysis, I have concluded that the continued effects of North Fork well pumping on 

water resources, aquatic habitat, riparian vegetation, and recreational uses, when viewed in the 

context of the past and existing river condition as an intermittent stream without outstanding 

features, are outweighed by the need to provide reasonable access to the Village of Ruidoso’s for 

beneficial use of their adjudicated and inchoate water rights. My decision represents my best 

effort at resolving scientific uncertainty and controversy, the competing interests of reasonable 

access to water rights and protection of natural resources. 

I believe all reasonable and practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have 

been explored and adopted within the alternative selected (40 CFR 1505.2), in order to balance 

the need for various resource uses and provide for long-term sustainability. Water extraction has 

been well established for the last 30 years and the limited data gives me sufficient evidence that 

the riparian and aquatic habitats have not significantly changed during that time. They are not 

predicted to substantially change into the future. 

The major environmental factor that has changed the affected environment is the Little Bear 

wildfire; and aside from the immediate stream morphology changes from already evident flood 

events; the watershed is predicted, with some level of uncertainty, to produce more water to the 

aquifer and surface flow due to reduced evapotranspiration. In addition, a rigorous monitoring 

regime will be implemented to empirically identify baseline watershed and associated habitat 

conditions, measure changes and explore interrelationships that are directly or indirectly 

correlated to the actions of the selected alternative. This information can be used in a timely 

manner at 5 to 10 year intervals to ascertain any need for changes in the future that may come 

about due to factors such as climate change or unexpected wildfire effects. The rates and degree 

of change to riparian and aquatic habitats are expected to be slow and incremental such that 

review intervals of 5 to 10 years should be sufficient to make adjustments; and at a minimum a 

comprehensive review upon the required permit renewal after 20 years will be sufficient to 

minimize or avoid long term environmental harm. 
Record of Decision

24 Lincoln National Forest

Findings Required by Other Laws and 

Regulations

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to consider and disclose the 

effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The 

FEIS analyzes the alternatives and discloses effects in conformance with the Act and its 

implementing regulations (40 CRF 1500 to 1509 and FSH 1909.15).

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 special use 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. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The decision includes implementation of project design features, and best management practices 

(Monitoring and Mitigation Measures) intended to avoid, minimize the extent of, or reduce the 

potential for adverse effects on the environment. However, there would be unavoidable adverse 

effects to water resources of the North Fork of Eagle Creek, as described above. Each section of 

chapter 3 of the FEIS describes the spatial and temporal context for unavoidable adverse effects 

predicted.

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 resulting from the decision. 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. 

Under the selected alternative, ongoing substantial withdrawals by the village for municipal 

supply would represent irretrievable losses for other uses. Water resources and their uses could be 

eventually retrieved under changing management conditions.
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 25

National Forest Management Act

This decision is consistent with the intent of the forest plan's long-term goals for water resources 

management listed on pages 12 and 13 of the FEIS. The project was designed in conformance 

with forest plan standards and incorporates appropriate Forest Plan guidelines for water 

resources, aquatic and riparian habitat, water rights, and special use permits (Forest Plan, page 

28). 

Endangered Species Act

The wildlife threatened, endangered, and sensitive species section of chapter 3 of the FEIS 

identify threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed species in the planning area and discuss

effects of the proposed action and alternatives. There would be no effect to Mexican spotted owls, 

owl habitat, or prey species as a result of the decision. 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. This decision complies fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed 

species. 

National Historic Preservation Act

Any actions undertaken will comply fully with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of 

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. Under any of the alternatives 

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.

This decision complies with the National Historic Preservation Act and other statues that pertain 

to the protection of cultural resources.

Clean Water Act

The effects to water quality are analyzed in depth in chapter 3 of the FEIS. Any actions 

undertaken will comply fully with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of water 

quality. This decision complies with the Clean Water Act and other statutes that pertain to the 

protection of water quality.

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income and 

minority populations. This decision is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effect on minority or low income populations.

Other Required Disclosures

Municipal Watersheds

The availability of municipal water would remain unchanged under this decision.
Record of Decision

26 Lincoln National Forest

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

This decision will not conflict with any religious freedom rights of any Tribal group. 

American Indian Rights

This decision will not conflict with any inherent rights or treaty provisions of any Tribal group. 

Congressionally Designated Areas

Wilderness: Portions of the North Fork Eagle Creek watershed are within the White Mountain 

Wilderness. However, the wilderness is approximately 2 miles from the immediate project area 

upstream from the North Fork gage and would not be affected by implementation of alternatives 

downstream. 

Wilderness Study Areas: There are no lands designated in the planning area as wilderness study 

areas or recommended for wilderness classification

National Recreation Areas: There are no lands designated in the planning area as national 

recreation areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: There are no wild and scenic rivers in the planning area.

Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders 11990 and 11988)

There will be no effect to wetlands from implementing this decision.

There will be no effects to floodplains (as defined in this executive order) in the planning area 

from implementing this decision. There are no federally-delineated floodplains in the project area 

(FEMA 2015). 

National Landmarks

There are no National Landmarks in the planning area. Therefore, no impacts will occur for any 

National Landmark.

Parklands

There are no lands within the proposed planning area that will be characterized as parklands.

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands

The planning area is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; therefore, there will be no 

impacts to prime farmlands. The planning area does not contain prime rangeland and none of the 

proposed activities in the planning area will convert rangelands to other uses. Therefore, there 

will be no impacts on prime rangelands. The project will not convert forestlands to other uses. All 

lands designated as forested will be retained and managed as forested; therefore, there will be no 

negative impacts on prime forestland.

Compatibility with Plans of Other Agencies

This decision is compatible with the goals and plans of other public agencies, most notably the 

Village of Ruidoso and with the State of New Mexico, as expressed in comments from the State 

Engineer.
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 27

Required permits, licenses or other authorizations

As a condition of their Forest Service permit, it is the responsibility of the Village of Ruidoso to 

comply with other federal, state, and local laws that regulate well pumping and associated 

activities.

Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities

This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, subparts A and B. Objections 

will only be accepted from individuals or organizations who have previously submitted specific 

written comments regarding this proposed planning effort 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, specific written comments regarding this proposed 

planning effort unless based on new information arising after the designated comment 

opportunities. 

The notice of objection must meet the content requirements at 36 CFR 218.8(d) and incorporation 

of documents by reference is permitted only as provided in §218.8(b). All objections are available 

for public inspection during and after the objection process. At a minimum an objection must 

include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)): (1) The objector’s name and address, with a telephone 

number, if available; ( 2) a signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned 

signature for Email may be filed with the objection); (3) when multiple names are listed on an 

objection, identification of the lead objector (verification of the identity of the lead objector shall 

be provided upon request); (4) the name of the proposed project, the name and title of the 

Responsible Official, and the name(s) of the National Forest(s) and Ranger District(s) (if 

applicable) on which the proposed project will be implemented; and (5) a description of those 

aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the 

proposed project, if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft 

decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the 

objection; supporting reasons for the reviewing officer to consider; and (6) a statement that 

demonstrates connection between prior specifically written comments on the particular proposed 

activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the 

opportunity for formal comment.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of legal 

notice in the Ruidoso News, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45-day 

objection period will not be considered. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the 

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object to this 

project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. It is 

the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing 

officer pursuant to §218.9. The regulations prohibit extending the time to file an objection.

The objection must be filed by way of regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, or express 

delivery or messenger service (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

holidays). Objections may be submitted via e-mail in word (.doc), portable document format 

(.pdf), rich text format (.rtf), text (.txt), or hypertext markup language (.html) with Subject: North 

Fork Eagle Creek Wells. An automated response will confirm the electronic objection has been 

received. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification

of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Please submit 

your objections to the Regional Forester as follows:
Record of Decision

28 Lincoln National Forest

Mail:

Southwestern Region

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Phone: 505-842-3292

TTY: 505-842-3198

FAX: 505-842-3110

Email: objections-southwestern-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us

Implementation 

If no objections are filed within the 45-day time period, I will sign the Final Record of Decision 

(ROD) indicating approval of the project, and the project may be implemented 5 business days 

following the end of the objection filing period.

If an objection is filed, a resolution meeting with the objector(s) may be completed within a 45-

day period that follows the end of the objection filing period, which, at the option of the objection 

reviewing officer, may be extended up to another 30 days, if needed. Once responses to the 

objections are completed and recorded in writing, the reviewing officer will make 

recommendations as to the FEIS, and final ROD for signature/approval. A project that has 

undergone the objection review process may be implemented immediately after the signing of the 

final ROD. 

In either case, according to regulations (36 CFR 218) no legal notice is required once a final ROD 

is signed. However, the Forest Service may send out a letter or news release to notify any 

interested parties of the availability of the final decision document(s).

Authorization of the North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Permit will occur soon after a 

final Decision is signed. 

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, 

contact Dave Warnack, District Ranger, 901 Mechem Drive, Ruidoso, NM 88345, phone: 575-

257-4095.

TRAVIS G. MOSELEY [DATE]

Forest Supervisor

Lincoln National Forest
North Fork Eagle Creek Wells Special Use Authorization 

Lincoln National Forest 29

Selected References

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.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as 

amended.Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). 2015. Floodplain 

maps for Lincoln County, New Mexico, Unincorporated Areas. FEMA Flood Map 

Service Center. Internet URLs: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch and 

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch#searchresultsanchor Accessed Jun 23, 2015.